Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 8

message: Hello Classical Music buffs! I have been doing some work on the Disambiguation Links project, and have found that there is a style/type of music composed "for tape." This really seems like it's the sort of thing that should be explained, whether on the Minimalist music page or else in its own article, but I can't find an explicit definition of it. The term is used all over the place in naming pieces, it would seem, but I still don't have a clear conception of exactly what it means. This is the closest I was able to come to a definition.
Anyway, if someone knowledgeable on the subject would create this article, I would gladly use it to fix some of the many links which people now point at the general tape disambiguation page. Oh, and if this is the wrong Talk page for this, I'm sorry! Please let me know who I should ask about this. Thanks. -- ʞɔıu 06:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Tape music, Tape loop, Process_music, It's Gonna Rain, etc.  Personally, I don't know anything about this music, but you should be able to find editors who do by looking at the history of those articles.  DavidRF (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining "for tape" 

message: Here's the thing: even if we did decide WP:CM should cover conductors and instrumentalists, I feel we would be called up on ownership and bad faith by other editors by making this decision now so that we can use consensus we've reached here, at our WikiProject, on infoboxes. After all most of these articles have long been tagged by WP:BIO and a there a LOT of pro-infobox editors at that WikiProject. This all of a sudden means we have two WP at loggerheads. I reckon if we had a WikiProject Classical Musicians, we could make these subprojects of WP:BIO and then those projects could have the final say on the infobox matter. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 17:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: May I add another point - read our project page. Apart from Biographical infoboxes, not one section mentions how we should write for classical musicians. The whole page is virtually geared at writing for pieces of classical music. Even or stub template acknowledges our project covers only classical compositions. My argument is why bother totally restructuring this WikiProject when we could easily make a new WikiProject with the added benefit of higher gravitas on the issue of biographical infoboxes. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 18:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think we really came to any consensus over whether we should create a separate WikiProject. The discussion quickly turned into an agreement that conductors should not get infoboxes. But I for one support an offshoot project. As Kleinzach points out - there are over 3,000 articles on conductors - that's more than enough for a WikiProject. Besides most of the classical music editors on Wikipedia are members of Composers, Opera and CM projects - having another WikiProject is not going to dilute our editors - it simply makes it easier to manage the articles on Wikipedia and also come down with firm guidelines. At the moment we can't really argue that we have the last say on infoboxes for conductors given we've said for quite some time - we cover articles not already covered by other music WikiProjects and all biographies are covered by WP:MUSICIANS. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: TFTR, I was really wanting to highlight that this was not a new subject of discussion. As far as how things should be organised is concerned, I know that WP:DOGS recently took over WikiProject Dog breeds with the latter becoming a taskforce. If we have such a substantial overlap between the CM-related projects, are taskforces the way to go?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this idea. The gigantic WikiProject Biography manages its articles by creating task forces, allowing articles still to "fall under the jurisdiction" of the main project, while concentrating efforts and directing questions to a smaller group of editors. Also, if we have all these offshoot projects (Composers, Compositions, Musicians), then the banner for this project will become redundant, having to be included with at least another one of its child projects, or miscellaneous, as the fallback template for odd articles with no specific project. I'm still not entirely convinced about the apparent need for delegation in the first place, but maybe I'm understating the gravitas of the situation. ALTON .ıl 03:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alton: Not really. We can always do what WP:BIO and WP:MILHIST do...put this parent WikiProject banner on all the pages and then say underneath, this article is supported by the following subWikiProjects and then say either composers, musicians or compositions. Heck, I reckon composers and musicians can even be merged. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 03:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see what you've done, and it's excellent. ALTON .ıl 06:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break 

message: There's a old (unfinished) discussion whether 3 Études, No. 1 (Chopin), 3 Études, No. 2 (Chopin), 3 Études, No. 3 (Chopin) should all be merged into one article. Personally this seems wholly reasonable. The main short discussion happened here Talk:3 Études, No. 1 (Chopin). What do you guys think? Centy – [reply]• contribs – 02:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trois Nouvelles Études (Chopin) – (a.k.a. something to take our minds off infoboxes) 

message: You may have noticed the project page shorten somewhat. This is because I have moved all guidelines about works of classical music to the new task force Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force. This should mean that some guidelines concerning classical musicians should probably be drawn up and inserted in the relevant place. Also note that once I sort of the distinction between conductors and bandleaders, all conductors will join our flock.
Sometime we will have to tag all classical musicians and conductors with our banner. I suggest using SatyrBot for this so we can keep the To-do lists together. For now I will try and start up my new task force. Feel free to join. Centy – [reply]• contribs – 05:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on setting up the new task force! Will it have its own discussion page? I'd recommend introducing the task force to WikiProject Contemporary music as well. They have the greatest potential overlap with what you will be covering. -- Kleinzach (talk) 05:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Task Force 

message: As the portal didn't show any image I tried to add a few here but can't see them in the portal. Any idea on what's going on ? P-e (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a bit more tinkering, adding links to a couple more of our sister projects. Of the two items in the news, one was almost 10 months old, and the other was written by someone whose first language is not English. I've removed the one and edited the other. I've also added a reference to the Beaux Arts Trio's final tour as something that will remain current until August. Unfortunately, the articles on the Trio and its pianist read as if they were written by their agent. I've tinkered with the former, but if anyone has access to Grove or another suitable source, that woulde be helpful.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Portal:Classical music]]

message: Hello all. I just joined the project and recently created an article on the Boston Chamber Music Society. I would love your feedback and I look forward to working with everyone.Nrswanson (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Boston Chamber Music Society