Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 2

message: Could people let me know what they think about these?  Thanks, Opus33 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can see, the style Opus33 cites is indeed how our encyclopedia typically does titles for classical music articles, and I think it works well. From what I can see, the main difference between this way and what we have on the project page is that the project page version also suggests including key and opus (or Köchel, Deutsch etc.) number. Keeping with the way we already do things and updating the project page according seems preferable to me per Opus33. We should also try to keep our titles in accord with style for consistency, I think. Heimstern Läufer 18:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've put up a draft version of a format guide, based on the principle of inter-article consistency.  (This is all I'm going to do for now, since I'll be pretty busy for a week or so.  Others most welcome...).  Opus33 03:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: discuss more - See the opera discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera#Operas:_original_vs_English_translation.  Can we learn anything from them? DavidRF 23:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be good, if possible, for us to use guidelines similar to those in the Opera project. If there's a common title in English, it makes sense to use it, e.g., Death and Transfiguration rather than Tod und Verklärung, as this is more straightforward to readers, especially those less familiar with the musical literature. On the other hand, some titles are never really translated, such as Eine kleine Nachtmusik or Eroica, and it would be silly to use translations here. Heimstern Läufer 18:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it would be good to consider Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which suggests that we should use English where it's reasonable to do so. Clearly, some examples are all but unknown in translation (I've almost never heard of "A German Requiem", but always "Ein deutsches Requiem") and ought to be left alone, but others, such as "Death and Transfiguration" and "Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun", would be better moved to comply with Wikipedia policy. Heimstern Läufer 06:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I see we've removed the old guideline; that's good. I'd personally like to see a new guideline replace it: one that lines up well with Wikipedia policy stating that if there is a commonly-used name in English, it should be used, but don't fish for an English name if there isn't a commonly-used one. Note also that, in light of the change in guidelines, I have decided to list Tod und Verklärung for a possible renaming and would welcome any input on that article's talk page. Heimstern Läufer 08:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a result of the discussion, the article is now titled Death and Transfiguration. Because of the nature of classical music titles (many are commonly used in English translation, but many others are not), I think we will need to decide whether to move other articles on a case-by-case basis rather than assuming this as precedent to move many articles to English titles. Heimstern Läufer 03:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems sensible to me. Heimstern Läufer 18:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Queries

message: The current title guidelines are not particularly in accord with the titles we already have (and there are hundreds of them, as the WP has been in existence for several years now).  Here are some existing current typical title formats:
*Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven)
*Piano Concerto No. 13 (Mozart)
*Piano Concerto No. 2 (Brahms)
*Cello Concerto No. 1 (Dvořák)
(See :Category:Compositions by composer for a lot more...)
I suggest that at this point, we should simply offer guidelines to the format that is generally used at present, rather than trying to change that format.  Agreed?  Opus33 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can see, the style Opus33 cites is indeed how our encyclopedia typically does titles for classical music articles, and I think it works well. From what I can see, the main difference between this way and what we have on the project page is that the project page version also suggests including key and opus (or Köchel, Deutsch etc.) number. Keeping with the way we already do things and updating the project page according seems preferable to me per Opus33. We should also try to keep our titles in accord with style for consistency, I think. Heimstern Läufer 18:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've put up a draft version of a format guide, based on the principle of inter-article consistency.  (This is all I'm going to do for now, since I'll be pretty busy for a week or so.  Others most welcome...).  Opus33 03:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title guidelines

message: From the above discussion, it seems that there is no consensus on this point.  I myself have no strong feelings on this matter, but I do feel that the Project page should not contain any policies unless they have achieved a consensus, and I propose to delete this passage, unless a clear consensus appears soon.  Please state your opinion (perhaps best if you put delete or don't delete up front).  Opus33 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: discuss more - See the opera discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera#Operas:_original_vs_English_translation.  Can we learn anything from them? DavidRF 23:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be good, if possible, for us to use guidelines similar to those in the Opera project. If there's a common title in English, it makes sense to use it, e.g., Death and Transfiguration rather than Tod und Verklärung, as this is more straightforward to readers, especially those less familiar with the musical literature. On the other hand, some titles are never really translated, such as Eine kleine Nachtmusik or Eroica, and it would be silly to use translations here. Heimstern Läufer 18:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it would be good to consider Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which suggests that we should use English where it's reasonable to do so. Clearly, some examples are all but unknown in translation (I've almost never heard of "A German Requiem", but always "Ein deutsches Requiem") and ought to be left alone, but others, such as "Death and Transfiguration" and "Prelude to the Afternoon of a Faun", would be better moved to comply with Wikipedia policy. Heimstern Läufer 06:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I see we've removed the old guideline; that's good. I'd personally like to see a new guideline replace it: one that lines up well with Wikipedia policy stating that if there is a commonly-used name in English, it should be used, but don't fish for an English name if there isn't a commonly-used one. Note also that, in light of the change in guidelines, I have decided to list Tod und Verklärung for a possible renaming and would welcome any input on that article's talk page. Heimstern Läufer 08:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a result of the discussion, the article is now titled Death and Transfiguration. Because of the nature of classical music titles (many are commonly used in English translation, but many others are not), I think we will need to decide whether to move other articles on a case-by-case basis rather than assuming this as precedent to move many articles to English titles. Heimstern Läufer 03:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Never translate titles"

message: I think that stuff on the formatting of classical music articles should go in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music), whereas stuff on content should go here.  I propose to move the formatting material (in particular, the section on picking a title), unless people complain first.   Opus33 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems sensible to me. Heimstern Läufer 18:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is best here, what in Manual of Style?

message: What about the "see also: List of Compositions by..." link?  In most composer pages the link is in the "See also" section, but in some I find this link not on the end of the page but in the Works section.  Someone once almost tempted me to start an edit war over this.  Personally I think it's irritating: you scroll down the the bottom of the page where you expect the link, and nada.  Isn't it obvious that this link is in the See also section?? What else is the meaning of that section than to direct the reader to related pages? I propose a standardisation for at least a link in the See Also section, and why not on both locations.  Anyone against? --Dr. Friendly 11:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I remember reading, and have seen others adhere to, the "see also" list should only be to things related to, but not linked to in the article. Consequently, if there's a seperate page for a works list, it SHOULD be linked somewhere in the ariticle. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same thing has irritated me.  Both seems the most logical to me.  Asmeurer (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The see also list 

message: My question is this:  Should a composer's list of works always be in separate article?  Many articles such as Martinu have the works listed in the composers main page.  If they should be separate, can I just copy and paste the information into a List of works by Bohuslav Martinů article, or is there some kind of merge operation that needs to be done to preserve the edit history?  
My request is for someone to help me with the same article.  There is a link in the external links section that has extensive information on each piece of his.  However, the page is not in English, and it is a lot of work.  Asmeurer (talk • contribs) 20:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think as long as it's anything over a small amount that yes, a seperate page should be good. Lists should not overwhelm the articles they are in. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question and a request 

message: I've requested a peer review for Agrippina (opera) at Wikipedia:Peer review/Agrippina (opera)/archive1: all opinions welcome and requested. Slightly spammy, this, but I thought that some people might be interested. Cheers, Moreschi  Request a recording? 16:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Who organizes this project? In short, who manages what this project should be working on? I have a couple assistance requests for the group. ALTON .ıl 07:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: The page mentions that, when referring to keys, the root is should be capitalized whereas the term "major" or "minor" shuold be lowercase.  However, in general music theory, you are taught that when referring to a minor key, the root should always be lower case.  For instance:
*D major, d minor.
Should we adopt this as an across the board policy? Kntrabssi 10:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same question earlier, but the consensus seems to be to capitalize key names and lowercase the word major or minor.  This policy can be found on several of the policy pages.  Asmeurer (talk  ♬ contribs) 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: Should works lists pages be titled "List of works by So-And-So" or "List of compositions by So-And-So"?   
‎For example, there exists:
* List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin
* ‎List of compositions by Johannes Brahms
* ‎List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
as well as: 
* ‎List of works by Beethoven
I'm guessing that the former is correct, as ‎List of works by Beethoven doesn't even include his first name, but I could easily see cases where differentiating between works and compositions could be ambiguous.  Asmeurer (talk  ♬ contribs) 23:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the former.  Is there any way to change the latter so this is an across the board policy?  Kntrabssi 04:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I prefer the former. Musical workers are generally also compositions, so unless there is some rare exception of which I am not aware, let's keep "list of compositions by John Doe." -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree that "the former", i.e. "List of compositions by Full Name", is better.  Cheers, Opus33 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should works lists pages be titled? 

message: This article could use some help, especially in the area of history, and I figured that people around here might know a thing or two. Anyone care to lend a hand? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 02:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help on [[Homophony]]