Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 4

message: I’ve nominated Elliott Carter for the Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. I thought someone might be interested. Regardless of whether you like his music, he really is a very important composer and his article could use some work. S.dedalus 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Elliott Carter]]

message: I've put this article up for GA nomination. Given the massive backlog, I think I can address most issues before the backlog clears.
Please could people review the article and tell me if there's anything that needs improving. Also if can find references for some of things in the article that would be great.
Centy 22:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! It passed...my first Good Article. Centy 11:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn) 

message: Given there are no collaborations listed in the newsletter may I suggest a page to collaborate on.
Looking through the To-do list the one page that really stands out in Dvořák's 9th Symphony which I would argue is one of the most well known symphonies in the repertoire. And yet its article page is a mess and needs serious cleanup.
There's been a few people who have said they were intending to do something about the article, but as of yet the changes are only cosmetic. The lead needs a total write up, the rather tiresome and redundant use in popular culture needs to be trimmed, and there needs to be more on the actual piece itself.
Hopefully these issues will be addressed soon.
Centy 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was one of the ones who said I would start up a cleaner and more detailed section on the formal structure of the piece, and I apologize that I haven't gotten around to it yet.  I still intend to do so. maestro 17:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborative Effort 

message: OK the SatyrBot thing has been cleared up. The only category requiring cleanup now is :Category:Bach Cantatas which should be renamed to :Category:Cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. Alas, this means having to change the category on all those pages. Does anyone have some free time? Centy 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdent 2 

message: OK.  I cleaned up :Category:Pieces quite a bit.  Often very generic categories are tacked on by wiki-editors writing new articles when a more specific category is warranted... so its good to sweep those cat's from time to time.  Among these mis-cat's is often the occasional article that is really "uncategorized".  In this sweep, I found :Category:Compositions by Johann Pachelbel and :Category:Compositions by Tomaso Albinoni had not existed before today and that the famous Pachelbel's Canon was pretty much "uncategorized" except for mis-cat and a slew of maintenance tags.  There is not much left of :Category:Pieces, we should probably finish recategorizing all of it, but I couldn't think of obvious homes for what was left so I stopped.  DavidRF 17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of its music was originally by Rossini. --GuillaumeTell 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't this category be renamed :Category:Instrumental musical compositions? "Piece" is vague and can refer to visual art too, not to mention that a musical piece isn't necessarily instrumental (a song is still a piece). -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Pieces]] 

message: :Note:  I'm cross-posting this here to solicit more opinion/help.  Please don't respond here; rather post any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Proposed new infobox.  Thanks
There's been extensive discussion at WikiProject Composers (check the archives) about the use of infoboxes in Composer's bios.  The consensus has been that, as currently designed,  and  rarely add much to these articles and are often actively harmful (conducive to anachronisms, overgeneralizations and other inaccuracies).  However there's been some passionate discussion and even a little edit-warring.
Since infoboxes seem to be in the ascendancy on most of WP, and since I think the general concept is a useful one, I've "boldly" taken a shot at designing a "New, Improved" infobox specifically for composer bios, trying to maximize the potential benefit to articles while minimizing the potential harm.  The "beta" version is here:
:User:Turangalila/sandbox/Infobox composer
The page includes a draft "template-documentation" page with cut-and-paste markup & instructions, plus a few hypothetical examples of the template "in action."  I've tried to leave almost all the paramters optional, and to emphasize in both the markup and the instructions that they should be deleted if not applicable, oversimple, etc.  Obviously if folks actually want to use it in articles it should be moved to the Template namespace.  
Please have a look and comment/criticize/suggest improvements — please leave comments at the WPComposers talkpage, unless they're purely technical, in which case a comment on my sandbox page might be better. 
Thanks,  —Turangalila talk 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new infobox for Composer bios 

message: Just some numbers for those who are interested. Now we have our banner, we can keep track of all the articles within our scope. Altogther, we have within WikiProject Classical music's scope current 2039 articles with:
* 1 Featured Article (Sylvia (ballet))
* 2 Good Articles (The Rite of Spring and Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn))
* 717 Stub Articles (35%)
I think we need to sort some of these stub articles out! Centy 10:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Statistics 

message: For those interested in how musicians are classified, but who do not have the WikiProject Musicians/Categorization talk page on your watch list, I have started a discussion here about whether we need the category level of :Category:American pianists by genre, etc, and I would appreciate views being expressed (at that location, of course).  My (possibly incomplete) list of categories that would be upmerged if the guidelines change as I suggest is here. Bencherlite 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on eliminating [[:Category:(Nationality) (instrument) by genre]] from the categorization guidelines 

message: This has come up recently - should we italicise the tempo markings or movements? For example when referring to the Moonlight Sonata do we list the movements as:
#Adagio sostenuto
#Allegretto
#Presto agitato
or
#Adagio sostenuto
#Allegretto
#Presto agitato
If one reads the MOS:MUSIC, you will see that generic composition titles such as "Symphony No. 2" or "Cello Concerto" should not be italicised even in the opening line. It also says common Italian terms should not be italicised either. So do we italicise these tempi markings when they refer to the title of a movement? Also what about for example Mahler symphonies where the tempo marking are more elaborate and programmatic? Centy</font> – [reply]• contribs – 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should italicize the tempo markings in movement names, and I don't see why we would. Neither movement names nor tempo markings are italicized. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian Music Tempi 

message: In line with discussion a few weeks ago, I have been creating a compositions by X category whenever I notice the corresponding opera category doesn't have a compositions category to belong to. I've been going through operas by composers beginning with A for other reasons and as a result now nine out of the eleven compositions by composers beginning with A have been created by me. If this is anything to go by, there are a lot of categories missing. I wonder whether it is worth checking all the symphonies by composer categories to make sure that they have matching composition categories. --Peter cohen 18:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just been through :Category:Symphonies by composer. Apart from Bruckner, everyone else's categorisation is fine. Centy</font> – [reply]• contribs – 23:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you linked Bax up too. So I didn't waste your time totally. I'm surprised the Bruckner Te Deum doesn't have an article. Actually I now notice :Category:Anton Bruckner and have linked the compositions up with it. I wonder whether this is another common gap.--Peter cohen 08:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing compositions by composers categories 

message: I've just revised this section a bit to add the full titles of several abbreviations.  Most I pulled from other Wikipedia articles, and it turns out they are inconsistent in their treatment of the original German for all those "WVs" (BWV, HWV, TWV, etc.)--sometimes Blah Werkeverzeichnis, sometimes Blah-Werkeverzeichnis, sometimes Blah-Werke-Verzeichnis.  I don't know whether any standard exists, or if so what it is, but, assuming that they don't vary that much in their original forms, perhaps someone with more knowledge or better resources than mine (not least including fluency in German!) could bring them all into line with each other.  Once that's done, I suppose it would be nice to spread the corrections back to the other Wikipedia articles, establishing a consistent usage for everyone.
Drhoehl 02:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bach Werke Verzeichnis" literally translates as "Bach Works Listing".  I'm not aware of any particular standard, but I'm not too literate on this particular issue.  It stands fine as three separate words, and if you hypenate it it becomes clean that it's "one thing".  Anyone want to check what grove does? Cheers! Fred 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grove has the whole term hyphenated: "Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis".  Also if anyone is going to bother going through it, make sure all the "Werke" have the final "e"--I noticed a couple missing. maestro 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opus Numbers 

message: I have a list of missing topics related to music. I wonder if any of you could have a good look at it? - Skysmith 10:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Starting to look over those articles, some of them already have articles under different names (for example, I've never heard the term "Vullton" before, but if it is indeed just head voice, then see the article head register). Do you mind if I just redirect those articles and remove them from your list, or would you prefer if I just redirect and leave them on the list? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Create redirects, please; I'd rather remove them myself to keep track of the progress when I'll update the page. Thank you. - Skysmith 11:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing music topics 

message: Following the opera WikiProject, I'd propose that we initiate a "Composer of the Month" drive, in which members of the project organize around one composer each month and improve articles related to him or her. I've created Template:CotM, which I will place on the project page once we've decided on what composer to use for this month, if other editors are interested. I'd propose either Bartok or Berlioz for this month, if only because Concerto for Orchestra (Bartok) and Symphonie Fantastique are lacking in quality (and I have a detailed analysis from a reliable source for Bartok's Concerto). Any other suggestions? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I was bold and just make Bartok the Composer of the Month for this month, and I placed the template on the main page. Once I get home and back to my materials on Bartok, I will start working on his article and his Concerto for Orchestra article. Hopefully others will follow in suit. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I really don't like it. We have trouble trying to get people to collaborate on single articles let alone lots of them. You should probably adopt an article yourself. I'll move the CotM to the talk page for now. Centy</font> – [reply]• contribs – 09:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should just adopt an article of the month? Would that make people more likely to collaborate? From what I've seen, there have been very few attempts at collaboration at all lately. I feel like we should at least open a dialogue here. Anyway, the idea of CotM was that we'd focus just on the composer's article and one of his works that needs attention, and then also create stubs for his works that do not have articles at all. If we all start to work, maybe that would encourage others to join in? Or maybe my hopes are too high. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm. I'm wondering if there is any way at all to start some sort of collaboration, or if we should just edit our own separate articles. It seems like that's one of the main purposes of a WikiProject, to collaborate, right? I understand your edit strategy of course, and it doesn't seem to jive with CotM, so that's understandable. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 20:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Cielo, Actually I think that these Talk pages are a good form of collaboration--both this one and the one at Wikiproject Composers.  It's good to talk with other classical music editors, try to reach consensus on important policy matters, see what's up, etc.  And perhaps other editors have a working style that lends itself better to collaboration than mine does.  Sorry if I sounded like a curmudgeon, I didn't mean to.  Opus33 22:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I know that this talk page is still useful. I was just hoping to have some collaboration on a specific article or set of articles. Hopefully if I just start, some other editors will follow suit. You didn't sound like a curmudgeon at all, no worries! -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly.  As in any volunteer job, people will do what they want to do; we're better off that way, since then people do what makes them happy.  I see the "composer of the month" as a suggestion for people who are looking for something to do.  My own way is -- "what do I feel like working on today?" -- and if a collaboration fits in with that, I'll help; if I'm feeling power-mad I'll go and swat vandals and trolls for a while, or perhaps I'll go and write more biographies of obscure Renaissance composers, and then grit my teeth in anticipation of the inevitable "start-class" tag left by one of the WikiProject Biography assessment drive "contestants" -- who, of course, are also doing what they want to do.  There's plenty of room for all editing, interaction, and collaboration styles.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed "Composer of the Month" 

message: Anyone know why "Category:Chamber music" has been changed to "Category:Chamber music, other" (sic) on some articles (see this for instance)? I find it very odd. --Folantin 21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor User:Classickol is acting unilaterally and doing sweeping changes to the category system. Centy</font> – [reply]• contribs – 00:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else think that :Category:Chamber music, other should be deleted at CfD, and all its contents just merged into :Category:Chamber music? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like he was trying to separate the miscellaneous compositions from the rest of the miscellaneous stuff in :Category:Chamber music.  Its noble intention, I suppose, but a category with a comma in it like that looks very strange and its probably better to clean up the rest of the miscellaneous junk instead.  These generic top level categories need periodic cleanup because lots of stuff tends gets dumped into them by new and occasional editors who don't know about the more specific categories.  Chamber music is especially troublesome because people also confuse it with chamber orchestras (which is not chamber music).  I moved a bunch of the ensembles to :Category:Chamber music groups.  Looks like we might need a :Category:Chamber music festivals.  Oh, and I'll vote for deletion of the other group and reparenting of its member articles. DavidRF 01:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's no reason for the other catagories. Nothing wrong with having a bunch of them in the parent catagory, it's what they exist for. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: There is a discussion currently taking place here. Please weigh in if you'd like. (Notes left at WP:VP, WT:WPBIO, WT:CM, and WT:MUSICIANS.) -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have explained to Cielomobile, the Opera Project (like the Composers Project) have recently had discussions about infoboxes and there is no enthusiasm for re-opening them yet again now. Unfortunately he's now invited members of WT:WPBIO and WT:MUSICIANS to vote in a poll he has set up here. -- Kleinzach 07:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no consensus on the issie of infoboxes for opera singers or composers. Many editors are "enthusiastic" (as you put it)  about using them. Ongoing and wider discussion is necessary. Andy Mabbett 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes for opera singers 

message: I note that editor Clavecin removed "S." as an alternative for BWV, explaining, "S is not in general use, if it ever war, for Bach's compositions - Schmieder himself was against its use."  I don't want to launch a reversion war, but I have frequently seen "S." used on older record labels, and, at least within not-too-distant memory, I often heard it on the radio.  Therefore, I'm inclined to think that it would be useful to retain it here for those who come across an old reference and wonder about it, perhaps with a note along the line of Clavecin's explanation.  In the grand tradition of seeking consensus, however, I'll just throw the matter open for discussion.  Any thoughts? Drhoehl 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen "S." on old record labels, too.  And I've certainly heard classical DJ's say "Schmieder listing" a lot.  My suggestion is:  note the existence of "S." on the WikiProject page (so all editors will be able to identify it), and then say that purposes of for writing articles, one should use BWV.  Opus33 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: S. as alternative to BWV

message: Anyone with any thoughts can give them at the AfD here  Nick mallory 12:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of transcriptions of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach]] up for deletion

message: I noticed that someone created an article with the name The Nutcracker Suite to describe a 1992 recording of music from The Nutcracker.  Note that the phrase "The Nutcracker Suite" normally refers to the actual, original suite of music used in The Nutcracker ballet and does not commonly refer to this 1992 recording.  
I therefore recommend either renaming, merging or possibly deleting the article The Nutcracker Suite which is solely a stub article about the 1992 album.  The only thing I'm not sure about is which course to take.  Should the article be renamed to something like "The Nutcracker Suite (1992 album)", and then place a redirect from The Nutcracker Suite to The Nutcracker?  Or should the album article be merged/deleted into the main Nutcracker article as it is simply a particular recording of an individual performance of that music?  The answer to that would depend in part on whether the album meets the notability standards for music albums to have its own article.
So I'm putting the question to your project. How do you folks think this should be handled? Dugwiki 23:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, do the move and redirect. Then possibly challenge the album article's notability. If it is notable, we may need a short article The Nutcracker Suite about the composition by Tchaikovsky, with a "see also" template at the head, "For the 1992 album, see:"... -- Rob C. alias Alarob 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Tchaikovsky himself organized the suite for orchestra.  There is a section on it in the article for the ballet:  (The_Nutcracker#The_suite).  Sounds like Tim Sparks just arranged the orchestra suite for accoustical guitar and recorded it.  I don't think there's anything special about it.  I would vote for a full rename of the guitar article to The Nutcracker Suite (Tim Sparks album).  The Nutcracker Suite should redirect there with no mention of Tim Sparks.  Most wiki-editors don't realize that this is really not a Tchaikovsky link.  See:  Special:Whatlinkshere/The_Nutcracker_Suite  A "see also" note could be added at the bottom of the Tchaikovsky article, but not at the top. DavidRF 00:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should [[The Nutcracker Suite]] be renamed or merged with [[The Nutcracker]]?