Talk:Symphony No. 8 (Mahler)

message: I think this article needs citations and references. I am saying this because of a change on August 5 (2006) by an anonymous person. A Wang (talk/contrb.) 18:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazil premiere and citations and references

message: What about the text to the work? Anyone want to add it? Justin Tokke 16:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven). The text is lined up side by side with translation. I'd do it myself if I had time.Justin Tokke 00:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am planing on doing the text, Original German with English translation. I have already started but is is a lot! Should be done by the end of next week, time permiting. Justin Tokke 00:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't! Rather put the text in Wikisource and link to that. --FordPrefect42 01:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text 

message: Is the spoiler warning a joke? I'm having a hard time seeing how that is a spoiler in any meaningful sense of the word. I mean, what is it spoiling? The first several notes? Derobert 04:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler warning?! 

message: I noticed that Mr. Tokke has reemerged, reformatting the instrumentation section, which I am completely agreeing to. Debates similar to this have been voiced. Defending Mr. Tokke, I should say that the edits are acceptable to this article and symphonies related to this. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 01:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the support. All of the Mahler Symphonies are like this and continutity was the ultimate goal. Justin Tokke 15:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've undone this, again. It's simply wrong, for reasons that have been amply explained and discussed to death all over the place here on various "talk" pages. You're just wrong, Mr. Tokke, but what's happened is that other people have grown tired of fighting with you, the sole instigator of all this controversy, over this matter. +ILike2BeAnonymous 15:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply, I suddenly have another suggestion: why not put the text around a "blockquote"?. Adding the text:   around text makes it smaller. I know I did not bring this up during the large discussion on the WikiProject page; it just occurred to me now that this may work for large instrumentations, especially for this page, if a list is used. Opinions? — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you put a little demo here in this discussion? Don't know what you're talking about would look like; would like to see it before trying. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I did the "blockquote" on the page. I am thinking about bringing this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music although instrumentation was discussed already. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 11:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't like it. I'm reverting to the standard form. If it's good enough for the vast majority of scholarly writing on music, then we should use the standard, recognized formats here, not some made-up idiosyncratic style that some young eager writer thinks is better. +ILike2BeAnonymous 16:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority of scholarly writing on music?! Cite at lease five sources that look just like this one. In fact, no page on Wikipedia looks like this with the ugly bullet point squares. You are just mad that you don't get your way every single edit you make. I can tell from your editing history that you HAVE to have your way no matter the cost to others. It's really a disgrace. Justin Tokke 17:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Andy, in therms of the block quote style, I think it's a good idea. However, it ultimately doesn't save space. Just because Mr. Anonymous here doesn't like it doesn't mean it's not worth something. I think it would work but the spaces between the lines of text don't change. So ultimately you're just straining your eyes to look at what's on the screen. Anyways, my $0.02.Justin Tokke 17:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (To Andy, mainly.) This is how I see it. This is essentially the same kind of list that we've already established consensus against (and I'm sure you know where I stand), only smaller. The main thing, as I see it, is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We already have a consensus-backed format that works, and I'm not convinced that there's really any problem with it. EldKatt (Talk) 20:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instrumentation reformatting 

message: As part of a general pro-Mahler drive this year (150th anniversary of his birth) and next (100th anniversary of his death) I am working on several of the more important Mahler articles. The Eighth Symphony is doubly important because it has its own centenary this year (September 12). The chief areas of revision proposed for this article are:
*Adoption of an article structure closer in character to that of featured works such as Symphony No. 3 (Górecki), and drafting of new sections.
*Removal of the full texts and replacement with external links to online editions. It is not necessary or desirable to have such lengthy texts within the article; their retention creates potential copyright issues, and the space can be far better used to develop the article.
*Other sections, e.g. "Duration" and "Premieres", will be absorbed into larger sections dealing with reception and performance history
*Increase number of images
*Expand lead to conform with the requirements of WP:LEAD.
I expect to post some of the changes later today, and will continue with the development during the next week or more. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article reconstruction

message: Why the prefix "The..." in the first line of the article? So far as style is concerned, Wikipedia gives mixed signals; the Beethoven symphony articles tend to start with "The" while the Mozart ones don't. Neither does the Górecki No. 3, the only symphony article with featured status. Some (e.g. the Bruckners) evade the issue by adopting a different beginning. This is not a major issue for me, but I feel there needs to be a reason for puutting "The" there. My instincts are to go for the less assertive opening: "Symphony No. 8...", but I am open to persuasion. Brianboulton (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian, definitely not. It doesn't sound right, and articles should never begin with "symphony", nor should the piece be referenced as "Symphony No. n", but rather "nth symphony". I hope that has also been established as a style guide at WikiProject Classical Music. I suggest this style be changed in the Górecki symphony, if possible. Another way to look at it: "The Eighth Symphony". It's not "Eighth Symphony". "Symphony No. 8" does not serve as a title for the piece. It refers to the eighth composition in the form of a symphony that Mahler wrote. I hope this claifies the issue. Other ways to introduce the article: see Symphony No. 2 (Tchaikovsky), Symphony No. 1 (Bernstein), Symphony No. 28 (Mozart), and String Quartet No. 3 (Carter). — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 15:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Why ''The'' Symphony No. 8?

message: I'm a little puzzled why my edit was reverted, or how I 'deleted' material. Section by section, let me go through the changes Brianboulton reverted:
* Section 3: Material was moved to another paragraph, so that the section in question concerned the piece's position in Mahler's career. Paragraphs need to address distinct issues, after all.
* This section also makes talk of Mahler's middle period far more concise and readable. The original was... putting it bluntly, a little clumsy and redundant. In fact, my shorter revision takes pains to pose the Eighth not just apart from the 'Middle period', but also as separate to the 'Late era' - and it's still shorter.
* Section 4 becomes completely concerned with the work's thematic content, 5 completely with performance history.
I'm not so bothered about people disagreeing with me, but I do think it would be productive to discuss the style of this section. I believe mine is the better version. But, I would!
Thanks.
Bosola (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * The revert that I made, here, was of your attempt, without discussion,  to restructure the article's lead significantly. As is clear, this involved both rearrangement and removal of material. For what it's worth, I don't share the view that the changes make talk of Mahler's middle period "far more concise and readable", or that the original wording was clumsy and/or redundant. These are your untested personal opinions and are by no means indisputable. If you believe that a discussion on the style of this section would be useful,   you should have instigated it here before making your unilateral edits. Since you have belatedly done so now, we can have the discussion, but you will have to excuse me if I don't address the matter for a few days, as I am occupied with other things at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Reversion 

message: Wow! Great article, easily vastly superior to all the other Mahler symphony articles. I just have 2 thoughts to throw into the mix:
1. Shouldn't the instrumentation mention the string section (and the need for a large one)? Currently everything else (winds, brass, percent, voices, etc.) is perfectly laid out and described, but the string section gets no mention. 
2. Not really a question, I guess, but that huge Stokowski performance photo right in the lead is really throwing me off. I can't think of any article that features two photos in the introduction, let alone one that's so darn big. It is a great photo, though, so maybe it can be included in another section.
Thanks
ExplorerPlus (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, but the main editor should check this, not me OboeCrack (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideas/Questions 

message: There is a dead link of reference 22: Mahler's Symphonic Premieres". British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A65204390. Retrieved 8 May 2010. I would rather repair it myself as I found the new link, but it has two parts and I'm not sure if its the right one: 
#Mahler's Symphonic Premieres - 8th Symphony: Part One from BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A66568963 
#Mahler's Symphonic Premieres - 8th Symphony: Part Two from BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A66568981
Could somebody check this, and, in case is the right one, place the two separate links in two separate cite webs when appropriate? Thanks, OboeCrack (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Happened the same with: Gibbs, Christopher H. (2010). "Gustav Mahler: The Symphonies in Sequence". The Weill Music Institute, Carnegie Hall. http://www.carnegiehall.org/article/sound_insights/Mahler/art_symphony8_mahler.html. Retrieved 7 May 2010. I found this one but again I'm not sure:
#http://www.carnegiehall.org/Article.aspx?id=4294967687
OboeCrack (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:   Links repaired with the correct ones as cited here, OboeCrack (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link ref 22 and 26

message: There is a tendency by some editors to add details of recent performances of the symphony even when such performances do not have any great notability. The fact that a particular city has a "Mahler festival" is not of itself notable; there are dozens of such events every year. Additions to this section should be confined to performances that have a real historical significance, and of course must be cited to a reliable source. Since this is a featured article, it is necessary to maintain the standards required by the FA criteria. I have therefore removed uncited content, and also details of a performance that does not appear to have more than local notability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Subsequent performances"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Symphony No. 8 (Mahler). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603163519/http://www.chandos.net/pdf/LM%207415.pdf to http://www.chandos.net/pdf/LM%207415.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.gustavmahler2010.eu/Mahler-Dilo.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603163519/http://www.chandos.net/pdf/LM%207415.pdf to http://www.chandos.net/pdf/LM%207415.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.gustavmahler2010.eu/Mahler-Dilo.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Symphony No. 8 (Mahler). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160323193453/http://www.carnegiehall.org/article.aspx?id=4294967687 to http://www.carnegiehall.org/Article.aspx?id=4294967687
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160323193453/http://www.carnegiehall.org/article.aspx?id=4294967687 to http://www.carnegiehall.org/Article.aspx?id=4294967687
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified