Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Queries

Could people let me know what they think about these? Thanks, Opus33 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Title guidelines

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:

(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)

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)
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)

"Never translate titles"

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

What is best here, what in Manual of Style?

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)

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

Citing sources

To whomever may be interested: I have noticed that articles on classical music seem to be very lacking in sources. What I find most problematic is how many articles quote composers or other musicians and then fail to cite a source; this seems to me to be a serious shortcoming. Also problematic are certain cases in which we give "tidbits", for lack of a better term, about the creation of a piece and fail to cite these. I've done a cursory search which suggests to me that this problem is widespread in our articles: here are some examples I've found: [1] ,[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. And I managed to find many of these in the course of about forty-five minutes. I would say this would be something we would really want to work on fixing, if not through any organized effort, then at least by individually seeking unsourced material and sourcing it. Heimstern Läufer 04:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Right on. This only part of a gradual shift in the Wikipedia as a whole - from its pioneering "write what you feel like" days to a more mature version based entirely on scholarly sources. Opus33 03:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
And, frustratingly, a lot of these assertions are ones for which I'm not having an easy time finding any sources. Unfortunately, Google searches do not seem to turn up many useful results for this sort of thing. If anyone has suggestions for how to source things like this, I'd be glad to hear them. In the end, though, I suspect we will have to delete a fair bit of information as unsourced. Heimstern Läufer 06:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how many of these are quietly taken from CD booklets (or sleeve notes, or even program notes)? I'm not commenting on the copyright problem here, which is another issue, but on the frequent lack of attributions in those media — after all, their authors are not writing a reference work, but just trying to inform readers with information they just plain know. David Brooks 19:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, CD booklets and program notes propagate a lot of the more interesting anecdotes. For that type of writing, colorful and flattering anecdotes serve to glorify and increase interest in the specific music or composer being discussed. No real harm there even if the truth is a bit stretched. For an encyclopedia, it can be frustrating trying to track citable versions of these anecdotes down. Listening guides (e.g. Steinburg's series) plus numerous analysis books (Grove, Hutchings, etc) plus biographies are a good help. DavidRF 21:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Ouch, I would feel very uncomfortable about stretching the truth deliberately! I'm all for vivid anecdotes, but I think it's best to say where the anecdote comes from, and give some assessment of whether informed scholars think it might be true. I think that's why readers visit us.
Concerning how to get articles sourced, I find it easier first to find the source (i.e. in a library), and then add/fix whatever can be done based on that source. Sooner or later it will emerge that some stuff is sourceless and can then be removed. In anticipation of this, editors like Heimstern should feel free to tag unsourced assertions ruthlessly. Cheers, Opus33 02:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, believe you me, I'm feeling very free to do so. :-) About the earlier post: I've cited liner notes myself on occasion, though more often for descriptions of a piece than for history or anything that needs solid scholarship. I also think we ought to be careful about anecdotes: while it's certainly good to record, for example, the famous "too many notes" anecdote as an anecdote, we don't want to present anything like that as fact if we can't back it up. Remember WP:RS. Heimstern Läufer 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Understood. I definitely think the standards should be higher for Wikipedia than it is for liner notes and program notes. I was just explaining how some of the more colorful yet hard-to-verify stories get started. There is a lot of hagiography rather than biography when it comes to stories about the great composers because of how good listening to their music makes us feel. I hope we can fight that and strive to me as level-headed as we possibly can. DavidRF 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the current WP policy is to provide sources for everything. Actually, the policy still seems to me to be ambiguous: on the one hand it says provide sources for everything, and on the other to provide sources only for material that is likely to be challenged. Assuming the rule is to source everything: in the case of a musical work, does that extend to the score? It is the source for information like the orchestration or "the first movement is in sonata form". Yet it sounds as pedantic as an article about a novel giving the published novel itself as its only reference. So, list the score, or take it as assumed? David Brooks 06:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Look at the discussion right above -- factual observations don't need to be sourced (like your example of something in sonata form), but it's not a bad thing to have a reference either that talks about it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there some recommended format for citing the liner notes of a CD? I just made up the formatting when I gave a reference for Les nuits d'été, under the assumption that it would be easier for someone else to verify the reference by knowing the composer, main performer, and recording label/number, rather than by listing the author of the liner notes first. Thanks. --Kyoko 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
This is how I did it most recently: include the CD and author of the notes in the references section (Meinolf Brüser in this case), and then use the author's name for the note. I've seen others do it this way too. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I ended up doing something a little different, but more in line with what you have than what was there before. --Kyoko 03:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The see also list

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)

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)
The same thing has irritated me. Both seems the most logical to me. Asmeurer (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A question and a request

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)

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)

I have created List of works by Bohuslav Martinů and am waiting for a little bit for any objections on the Bohuslav Martinů talk page (and for when I have time) to move the works. Asmeurer (talk • contribs) 02:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

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)

Organization

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)

Capitalization

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)

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)

What should works lists pages be titled?

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:

as well as:

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)

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)

Well, the page could be moved to List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven (which oddly enough is a redirect). There appears to be an (incomplete) category page for these types of pages. It seems to have mainly the former type, but many pages do not include the full name. What should be the policy on that. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 00:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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)
I also agree that "the former", i.e. "List of compositions by Full Name", is better. Cheers, Opus33 02:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the Beethoven Page. Now I need to find a bot to fix the double redirects. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 03:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Help on Homophony

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)

Organization II

I would like to Organize a sort of Newsletter to update members on the project. As of now, the member's list has little purpose. ALTON .ıl 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea if enough people can commit themselves to it. That would really help with collaboration on this thing. What sort of things were you planning on having in it? Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought these types of projects usually had a "to do" list. Something like Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Operas, stage musicals and classical compositions but perhaps more targeted. We'd need lists of:
  • Pages that should be created
  • Stubs that should be expanded
  • Pages that need references
  • Pages that need clean-up
  • Other
If we had those lists here and had them on all of our watchlists, then we could focus our efforts better. The clean-up and need-references categories that are created when a page is tagged are too big and too generic. It would be create if we could have a way to focus those with these lists (or classical-music versions of those cats). DavidRF 14:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. Especially since many people are requesting help on this very talk page, and nothing is happening. ALTON .ıl 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've made a preliminary newsletter-esque thing here. Please review this for quality and content. Edit with abandon; it's only a beta. ALTON .ıl 23:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I added a sample of the types of lists I was thinking about. It took me a while to scan page by page to find these. Does anyone know of some sort of automated way to scan articles in classical music categories for certain tags and put them in a classical music version of that tag? Are there any bot experts here? DavidRF 03:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The newsletter test stretches and creates a sidescroll on 800x600 resolutions and there's a list of bots here, so you can check and see if any there can do what you need. Cheers, oncamera(t) 03:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I've reduced the width to compensate for the left sidebar, but it shouldn't stretch because the width is defined, not a percent. Any idea why it does for you? ALTON .ıl 04:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, it creates a sidescroll for me, with the "ER" of newsletter being cut-off if I don't scroll over. And if I knew why, I would tell you. oncamera(t) 04:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It should fit now. ALTON .ıl 06:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. I've been playing around with the autowikibrowser which can do a category intersection search. (e.g. Beethoven Symphonies AND Unsourced Statements). Unfortunately, I can only do one category at a time (e.g. Beethoven Symphonies) so although this helps quite a bit, its still a bit tedious. I did a few of my favorite categories... let me know if you want me to do a scan of your favorite categories for these tags. I'm talking to some wiki-admins to see if there is some way to automatically create a list of all pages under, say, Category:Compositions_by_composer. If I had that, it would be easy to autogenerate these classical-specific tag lists every few weeks. DavidRF 06:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It would, but I had in mind more of a general pool of which to choose from, instead of arbitrary tags such as Stub categories and picky cleanup templates. The requests should be through the group, of what next to work on, like Homophony has been requested here: it shouldn't be totally automated, and should require a little group research. But a header with Cleanup needed could work as well. ALTON .ıl 06:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Understood. I understand that giant lists can be a bit daunting and should probably go on a separate child page. Highlighting a much shorter list of high-priority pages that need attention (like Homophony) sounds like a great idea. DavidRF 06:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Great. Well it should sit for a while before being dispatched, and it of course should be cleaned up and finalized in the mean time. Is that list on the page generated or static content? ALTON .ıl 06:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Static. At the moment, I have to run a scan on each category in classical music. In the long run, once I figure out how to get a full dump of a category tree, then I think its just a few scans and I can post instructions on how to update the list. DavidRF 06:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be very useful. Thanks for doing that. ALTON .ıl 07:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we might get a Bot to generate a weekly version of the larger list I was talking about. There's a discussion here and the bot-masters don't seem to think this is a big deal. I'm curious to see what the output looks like. Anyhow, I told them to dump it on some child page of this project, so it would have a separate page. We could refer to it by link which would make it easy to find but won't clutter up the whole newsletter. DavidRF 14:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot-generated "Todo" lists

The good folks in bot-land (bot-swana?) have generously agreed to scan the Category:Compositions by composer category tree to see which articles have certain tags. Here is a link to the discussion. The list will be updated every Wednesday.

It looks like they are missing one of the tags ("unsourced statements" is not caught, only "lacking sources"), but this is a great start. Anyhow, I'll put links to the lists in the newsletter. DavidRF 20:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's really nifty. Now all we need is participants' participation. ALTON .ıl