Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Symphony No. 3 (Górecki) 2 Sibelius symphony description? 3 Popular Culture 4 Structure problems of articles 5 Need help! 5.1 Quick question 5.2 Featured Sounds 6 Infoboxes for conductors? 7 Proposal on bio-infoboxes 7.1 Canvassing 8 Music of Hungary at Wikipedia:Good article review 9 About the new section added... 10 Notes 11 Fragmentary works in Templates 12 Naming Conventions for Chopin Nocturnes

Symphony No. 3 (Górecki)

I'm going to take Górecki's 3rd to FAC in a week or so. However, I dont have training in music theory, and as I synthesized the text from a number of sources I would appreciate if someone could take a look at the "Instrumentation and score" section. I am concerned that it still makes sence. Thanks. Ceoil 20:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Just some comments.

The "Instrumentation and score" is quite cluttered and dense. Information such as length, titles of movement and the list of instruments should be clear and instantly readable. (See Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn), the only non-opera/ballet piece of classical music that is currently a GA or FA). Also use something like LilyPond to make some excerpts of the piece, they are far more useful than say the CD cover. Finally I've put the media at the end of the article, as per most other classical music articles and corrected some formatting. Centy – reply• contribs – 12:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input at various places. Now at FAC. Ceoil 03:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, for making it a Featured Article! ALTON .ıl 05:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sibelius symphony description?

This is my first post to this area, so I hope I am not out of line in asking the following. Another user and I are going back and forth over his/her description of the middle movement of the 5th Sibelius symphony. I am not happy about the state of the article generally...it seems to me an uneasy juxtaposition of A) over-specific theoretical stuff better suited to a scholarly journal, and B) the kind of fluff that turns up in CD liner notes. Specifically regarding the middle movement, I don't see that just two sentences are sufficient, and I especially disagree with what those sentences say. See the talk page for some more. How to proceed? My thanks in advance! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's usually a good idea to link to the page in question somewhere. Anyway, the whole page needs some work -- not as bad as a lot of pages, granted, but the entire second half is barely linked, it's HUGELY weighted on the first movement, and there seem to be few refs relative to the text. Theres plenty out there written about this work, it's just a matter of finding it and putting it into good article form (alas, not something for me). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have edited in Wspencer11's talk page. We should find(or wait) more Wikipedian to discuss. If your views get more support, you can correct the sentences or simply delete the original and rewrite it. I also see that a Wikipedian also edit the SECOND MOVEMENT section later than me . May be Wspencer11 can ask for his/her opinion. Thanks!(Addaick 00:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Popular Culture

Given pages such as The Planets in popular culture have been deleted, I think we need to come to some sort of policy regarding trivia and popular references in classical music articles. This is especially true for popular pieces such as Adagio for Strings and Dvorak's New World Symphony. My own opinion is to remove ALL trivia as they say nothing about the piece except its popularity (or overpopularity). Centy – reply• contribs – 20:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there have been discussions around Wikipedia in general against trivia sections and "popular culture" sections. Perhaps it would be adequte to just mention the Wikipedia page against trivia sections on this page. Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 20:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with Centy. I suggest we put wording such as the following into the Wikiproject page:

Use of works of classical music in popular culture

Often Wikipedia articles on works of classical music get edited along the following lines: "Work X was used in [movie/TV show/electronic game] Y". Such edits should be discouraged: they are usually of little interest to readers who want to know about the musical work, and would be of greater interest to readers who want to know about the movie, TV show, or electronic game. For instance, viewers of these items often would like to know what music they are hearing.

Contributions of this sort should be politely reverted. It may be useful to encourage the contributor to include the item in the article about the movie, TV show, or electronic game, if this has not already been done.

See also: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections

Comments welcome. Opus33 21:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. However, I can think of one exception to this rule. Some classical composers are so universally known for the use of one of their works in a film that a person with now experience in music might still recognize their name in connection with that film. The example I’m thinking of is György Ligeti, who is probably known best in America and Brittan for the use of his music in 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Shining, and Eyes Wide Shut. I would suggest that a clause be inserted in you paragraph to allow for exceptionally notable circumstances. (And of course the information should be integrated into the article. I don’t think there is ever any need for a popular culture section.) --S.dedalus 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I somewhat disagree with the logic. Someone might easily hear something on the radio and wonder where they heard it before -- I'd think someone who heard Adagio for Strings is just as likely to want to know that it's played in Platoon as someone watching or remembering said film is wanting to know what was played in that scene. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but what about references in electronic games, TV shows, popular songs, commercials etc. For instance the 1812 Overture must be used in dozens of popular applications. Would a casual reader want to know that? Perhaps we could just use the standard notability guidelines to decide what pop culter references deserve inclusion in an article. --S.dedalus 04:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that, if left unchecked, the pop culture references would take over the entire article. Pop Culture references are fun and a wiki-style way of entering them is cool, but what Wikipedia is saying is "not here". There are "classical music in pop culture" sites out there, someone should upgrade one and then wikipedia can just add a single external link at the bottom of each relevant pages rather than maintaining these lists themselves. DavidRF 01:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We should agree to a wording of the policy and then enact around WP:CM articles. We should start with the 9th symphonies of Beethoven and Dvorak, both of which are getting a lot of edits to their popular culture sections. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Structure problems of articles

Recently, I have rearranged the format of Symphony No.53 (Haydn). But this have been reverted later. The reason why I have rearranged is because when I gone through other Joseph Haydn's symphonies articles, most of them have a standard format. For example, Symphony No.82 and Symphony No.54, which there is a section called "DATE OF COMPOSITION AND SCORING" and "MOVEMENT". When I edited the article of Symphony No.53, I followed this format and the result is being reverted.

Non-standardized articles also appeared in other articles, for example, Symphony No.9 (Dvorak), there is not a section called "STRUCTURE" and the information of movemnts are put in the top paragraph instead. Same case happens in Symphony No.4 (Mendelssohn). However, most articles have this section and movements information are clearly shown there. It is interested to see that the articles which have the "STRUCTURE" are relatively having a longer contents.

Non-standard structure problem also appear in information about instrumentation. Some are havng a section and some are not.

Are there a standard format for music articles, if so, why there are different format appearing among music articles and I made something which is inproved the structure of articles would be challenged? (Addaick 13:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Hello Addaick, Sorry if this sounds mean, but I think User:Anton Mravcek was quite right to revert your changes to Symphony No. 53 (Haydn). The article is quite short and therefore doesn't need to be divided into sections (which are more appropriate for a longer article). That's one reason we should not rigidly dictate the form of articles; each one is different and has different requirements. Sincerely, Opus33 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Another reason why Anton Mravcek reverted might have been that your edits had bad English grammar and diction.

If you look at Symphony No.2 (Sibelius and Symphony No.9 (Dvorak) you can see there are a section called ORCHESTRATION and a long paragraph respectively. What I have seen is that even in a single article, the formats are incopreate and this appears in some of the articles.

P.S. I admit my English is not very good, but I didn't not make any mistakes on grammar and somehow on there. (Even this, this is not good way to delete it.) (Addaick 02:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Need help!

Last night, I emailed John Mitchel, professor of Music at Central Washington University. He has agreed to release a huge amount of music for use on Wikipedia. All the recordings at:

• http://www.garageband.com/artist/cello
• http://www.garageband.com/artist/cellolive
• http://www.garageband.com/artist/encore and
• http://www.garageband.com/artist/violinist

I'm still finalizing the arrangements, but I think in the very near future I will be uploading a lot of music files (to Commons). Each of those files needs to be added to my master list at Wikipedia:Sound/list, and added to the composer's article and the song article (if extant). I need a *lot* of help on this one. Raul654 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me a couple to upload and I'll help out. Recordings are always an asset, and should be added to the composer's article, if no individual article exists. ALTON .ıl 02:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Commonist makes uploading them very simple. I've already started. You can track progress here. I whipped up a script real quick to generate some of the sound list but (A) someone is going to have to fill in holes (composers and songs) in the list. In addition, (B) there's the all-important job of actually putting them into articles. I need help with A and B. Raul654 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I finished uploading the files [1], and my script generate the skeleton for the table. Now I need help filling out the list (for each song, linking to the composer's and song's article) and inserting them into articles using the multi-listen template. Raul654 04:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm making progress but the going is very slow. Also, a number of these songs should have articles and don't. I created two last night - Piano Sonata No. 10 (Mozart) and Violin Sonata No. 21 (Mozart) - but this is certainly not an area I am well versed in. Raul654 20:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is that some of the pieces are arrangements for violin and cello which is not encyclopedically the most useful thing (eg. Symphony arranged for cello + orchestra) when trying to illustrate a piece of music to someone new to the piece. Centy – reply• contribs – 11:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

These are clearly two different works, but I cannot tell from the almost-identical file names what they are? Can someone help identify the following:

• CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S Bach Gamba Sonata in g 1st mvt .ogg-
  

  
• CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S Bach Gamba Sonata in g 2nd mvt .ogg -
  

  
• CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S Bach Gamba Sonata in g 3rd mvt .ogg -
  

  

• CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S BACH GAMBA SONATA in G 1st mvt.ogg -
  

  

• CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S Bach Gamba Sonata in G 2nd mvt .ogg
  

  
• CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S Bach Gamba Sonata in G 3rd mvt .ogg
  

  
• CELLO LIVE PERFORMANCES JOHN MICHEL-J S Bach Gamba Sonata in G 4th mvt .ogg
  

  

I need to know how these files are different before I put them into the Bach article. Raul654 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also: this edit might need to be verified. I'm not sure why that file is labelled as "recapcad." Raul654 23:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on the letter case of the "g"s I'm going to say the first three are BWV 1029 (G minor) and the last four are BWV 1027 (G major). Nice find! –Outriggr § 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Sounds

Now we have all these new sound files, do you think we should nominate some of them as featured sounds, given some of them are of very high standard? Centy – reply• contribs – 16:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means. Raul654 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes for conductors?

Greetings from the Opera Project. Do conductors come under your bailiwick, I wonder? As most conductors work both in and outside opera, we've tended to leave their articles uncategorized and unclaimed.

The reason I ask is that bio-infoboxes are now being added to these articles. These have been removed from all opera articles. Are they also still being discouraged here? Should they be deleted? What is the policy here? -- Kleinzach 01:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the WikiProject on Composers has hosted a large discussion that resulted in all composer infoboxes being removed (see bulk of it here), and here we have decided to remove all composition infoboxes. (I don't have an opinion on the matter) ALTON .ıl 02:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but what about conductors? We are talking about Claudio Abbado, Lorin Maazel, Herbert von Karajan, Felix Weingartner, Clemens Krauss, Valery Gergiev, Colin Davis, André Previn and probably many others. -- Kleinzach 03:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understood that, I was pointing out what had already happened in similar circumstances. Hence the small note. ALTON .ıl 05:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kleinzach, I'm all for weeding these out. Taking a quick look at your examples, I see:

• that the infobox for Colin Davis places major emphasis on the fact that he plays the clarinet (an utterly minor fact in context),
• that the totally useless field "Occupation: conductor" is used (why would anyone visit Colin Davis if they didn't know he was a conductor?)
• that the term "act" is used to describe the Berlin Philharmonic, as if it were some kind of temporary, thrown-together organization.

I would be happy to participate in a removal campaign. Cheers, Opus33 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is Template:Infobox musical artist and seems to be the property of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. In this context "music" is used in its contemporary meaning of popular music, despite some minor nods in the template and project description to the classical world. It's like the subdivisions in newspaper music reviews: "Music" is different from "Classical", "Jazz", "World". Shouldn't some contact be made with the Musicians Project? I'm sure that they don't want to be bothered with classical music, so it's just a matter of asking them politely to get their tanks off our lawn and leave us to do our own thing.

BTW, it isn't just conductors, they'll be getting round to singers soon - click the "show" link in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography box on the Talk:Luciano Pavarotti page ....... --GuillaumeTell 17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering whether this project has a policy on conductor infoboxes? (Opera singers fall into opera categories and the boxes have been removed from all the articles - as far as I'm aware.) IMO infoboxes are just as bad and inaccurate on conductors' pages (as noted by Opus33) as elsewhere, but I think we need the agreement and support of participants here before we take action. -- Kleinzach 00:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CM doesn't cover orchestras, conductors or performers at the moment. The project mainly covers compositions. Centy – reply• contribs – 09:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining. I read that " WikiProject Classical music aims to improve . . . . all articles related to Classical music, that aren't covered by other music related projects." Does that mean that this project could cover performers in the future? Or do they belong to another project? -- Kleinzach 09:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Really silly that a project devoted to classical music doesn't cover...classical music. Why not rename it to WP:Compositions if that's what it is? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

From what work I've seen from the project members, the scope is broad. Ceoil 20:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree WP:COMPOSITIONS would be better but we can easily organise an offshoot of WP:CM - WP:CONDUCTORS. Centy – reply• contribs – 22:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think an offshoot would be unwise; we have only a small gathering of users here, and no steps should be taken to dilute our effort. For example, work is needed here. Ceoil 22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have just done a (partial) count and I believe there are about 2,500 to 3,000 articles on conductors. This is substantial and would certainly justify starting a project. (By comparison the Opera Project has about 3,500 to 4,000 articles.) -- Kleinzach 03:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think conductors certainly need to be covered by at least one of the classical music-related projects. Whether a separate project is a solution, I don't know. I suspect that there won't be that many people interested in just that issue and those with an interest in conducting will have it because of their interest being in the performance of orchestral music in general. I think that people like Hans von Bulow and Hans Knappertsbusch are so important to the history of Wagnerian music-making that they ought to fall within WP:Wagner's remit, but that obviously only paritally covers the scope of their work. In the absence of a separate conductors project, WP:CM is the obvious main home for this type of article. --Peter cohen 08:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because there's a WP doesn't mean work gets done. The work in CM is so decentralized, as it is, another project would probably just hurt what enthusiasm we've got here. The guidelines suggest forming a Task force in situations like these.

For the lack of a separate project, as Peter states, CM covers conductors in the broadest scope. Therefore, the answer to Kleinzach's question is: yes, WP:CM covers them, but no, there is no policy. However, the two previous situations that I cited suggest that the verdict here will probably be removal.

You can do the "official proposal" thing and get all our Oppose and Supports out here, so we can get a policy going. ALTON .ıl 09:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I wonder if anyone noticed there was a WikiProject Compositions, which is now defunct. Does anyone know what happened to it? ALTON .ıl 02:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal on bio-infoboxes

I propose the following guideline on bio-infoboxes (to be included on the main project page):

Current consensus among project participants holds that the use of biographical infoboxes is often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians, including conductors and instrumentalists. They should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page.

Please oppose or support. Thank you. -- Kleinzach 09:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Opus33 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Reasons given in numerous previous discussions; I can reiterate or link to archived commentary if necessary. Antandrus (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure how compatible this is with WP:Bold. Of course, once one of us has quickly reverted it, it needs consensus to reinstall it.--Peter cohen 16:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. The arguments for removals on composer bios hold true here. Your orchestra is your associated act, hmm? Love it...no. I'm not sure how being bold is really relevant here. Moreschi ^Talk 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. In view of the unanimous support for the proposal, I've added the text to the Project page (section 4.8). -- Kleinzach 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

hangon!: i'd like to raise objections to your request for comment. two days, and three comments does not a quorum make....particularly with regard to an entire class affecting hundreds of articles. i know very well there are those of you who for one reason or another loathe the infoboxes, but quite frankly, i've have put alot of work into dozens of those conductor articles myself, and i am not at all sanguine about seeing it summarily removed as has been happening lately. indeed, the template requires modification, and that is what should happen. one does not raze a house because the door hinge is broken...one gets a new door! well...let's fix the door. cheers! --emerson7 05:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm sure we all appreciate your work on conductor articles. The proposal above has not been archived so to that extent it's still open. However there were four votes above in favour of removing the bio-infoboxes and none against - which would be sufficient to confirm the project guideline. -- Kleinzach 06:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, it's not two days, but 17 days. I am prepared to tolerate infoboxes for conductors so long as a template is used that doesn't make Wikipedia look ridiculous ("associated acts" indeed!), so please go ahead and produce one. The other objection to them that I have is that they repeat all the information that is in the article lead right alongside it. They thus add nothing to the article and waste space. --GuillaumeTell 15:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We have reached a decision on this and I don't see any reason to overturn it. -- Kleinzach 08:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry, i'm not willing to accept your conclusion. the use infoboxes is an overwhelmingly accepted convention in wikipaedia, and as far as i can tell the only arguments against their use is, 1) the odd/inappropriate field names, which is valid, and i'm more tham willing to see corrected, and 2) they are 'counterproductive' which is purely opinion and unsupportable. --emerson7 18:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the guideline adopted by the project here for articles related to classical music cannot be changed just because one person objects. Please respect the other participants here and their wishes. -- Kleinzach 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's so... Nurse Ratched-esque. How about this: Four people is not enough to make a guideline. And by "other participants", you mean those... four people?--Wormsie 19:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To Wormsie: You were one of the users canvassed by emerson7 [2]. The message doesn't appear on your page because emerson7 deleted it afterwards. I think you should withdraw from this debate. -- Kleinzach 23:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry I'm late seeing this. If people are inclined to keep infoboxes (which the relative majority of comment would appear not), I'm with GuillaumeTell in that something like "associated acts" can be removed. The convenience of format, at least for purposes of appearance, to me is the "frame" that it provides for a picture of the artist. Having a bare bones summary like dates and profession would be fine. But I can live with the consensus either way. DJRafe 02:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking through the conductors' categories to see how many articles have biographical infoboxes. I've found at least 40 boxes in the German and Austrian categories - which suggests the total must be much higher. All of them appear to the work of the same user: emerson7 and many of them have been made recently despite, or inspite of, the decision of 12 September. Some infoboxes were removed, but in each case emerson7 has reverted the articles to the infobox version.

The bio-infobox that is being used is the 'Musical artists' version which is specifically for popular musicians, hence fields such as associated acts etc. The guidelines at the Biography Project actually warn users not to use them for classical music.

This question has been more than exhaustively debated here and on the Composers Project and the Opera Project. I and Antandrus (see above) can provide links. -- Kleinzach 03:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

has nothing to do with this, here, and now.--emerson7 03:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the reasons why editors objected to bio-infoboxes on these related projects also apply here. The reasons are the same. -- Kleinzach 03:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The infoboxes are very helpful for giving basic information at a glance in the articles, especially in the case of lengthy biographies. Sallyrob 11:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: The above is a canvassed comment (see [3] ).--Folantin 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Support We definitely established this guideline for composers. Conductor boxes look pretty dubious too. As GT says, the case for them is not helped by the obvious lack of effort which has gone into their design, especially the ludicrous "Associated acts" category. Hot diggity! It's Tommy Beecham and his Swinging Royal Phillies! Disruptive editing like blatant canvassing isn't a very smart idea either. --Folantin 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why not put the effort to fix that instead of crying out how horrible it is? (or to put it another way, Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should I? I definitely don't want the composer bio-boxes and I'm highly inclined to say the same of the conductor ones. It's up to those who want the latter to fix them. Actually, let's simplify matters: bio-boxes in general tend to lead to disaster. Unless somebody comes up with a highly convincing new version for conductors, I'm going to make my opinion a definite no. --Folantin 12:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Melodia, there have been attempts in the past to redesign these boxes, but in each case they've been a failure and have been rejected by the project concerned. We have discussed the reasons for this failure at some length (I can give you the links if you want). It's unfortunate that many of the box creators are not concerned about accuracy and see their role as that of 'benign trolls' with a licence to provoke other editors into correcting and polishing up their work. -- Kleinzach 13:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Numerous people have expressed strong doubts about the consensus even on Project Composers. I supported the use of user boxes for composers conductors and musicians. I also question whether any guideline created by this project concerning the use of user boxes is in compliance with Wikipedia wide policy. Consciences about the use of a user box must still be handled on a page by page basis. If users on the Steve Reich page establish consensus for the use of a user box there will members of this project attempt to overrule that decision? I also object strongly to the way this consensus has been formed. Even if a guideline here is useful and Wikipedic a major Wikipedia wide change like this should involve more than the half dozen people present here. This seems very hastily pushed through. --S.dedalus 19:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

NB: The above is a canvassed comment(see [4]) --Folantin 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You cannot discredit my opposition just because emerson7 sent me a message! I do not condone canvassing and I came here of my one volition with my own opinions. Please have the courtesy to Assume good faith and withdraw your rude comment. I consider it an Ad hominem attack. If you examine the Project composer talk page history you will see my opposition to the removal of user boxes extends far before I had ever heard of user emerson7. It seems that there are however members of this community that do not wish a free discussion to take place. --S.dedalus 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To S.dedalus: You are not guilty of canvassing, but you are here as the result of it. You should show your integrity by withdrawing from this debate and striking out your comments. You will be respected if you do this.-- Kleinzach 23:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Once and for all I am not here in any way because of emerson7’s canvassing! I resent the fact that he has put me in this uncomfortable position. Usually I keep very close track of the projects I’m involved in, but in this case I have been distracted for some time by the deletion debate at Shneur Zalman Friedman and didn’t notice this proposal until I recently checked all the project pages last night. However, if you still feel that my comment is for somehow invalidated by that message on my talk page, I will strike it in the interests of Wiki harmony and only say that the objections I raise above will not go away as easily. --S.dedalus 23:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. How dare you tell someone they can't ever participate because of how they happened to hear about the debate. It's ridiculous. I'm tempted to bring this up at ANI if you keep being uncivil about this. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

To Melodia: who was that addressed to? -- Kleinzach 01:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Support - I don't mind if wikiprojects decide to against wikiwide use in cases like this. If they would decide to go against WP:NPOV or WP:NFCC or something similar it would be different of course. Admittedly, I was never a big fan of infoboxes anyway. The lead should be a summary of the article, I never saw the point basically of having a summary of the lead as an infobox. The next step is, already done, to summarize info in an infobox by using flags but that's a totally different subject. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Support -- many reasons given previously; can be reposted if it seems close. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

emerson7 has now canvassed at least 13 users to overturn the decision here, sending them a message beginning:

"i know canvassing is kinda tacky, but there is currently underway is an attempt by a just a few editors to prohibit the use of infoboxes in articles of all classical musicians . . . if you are at all interested keeping the infoboxes, please go here and join the discussion. . . ." .

emerson7, please read Wikipedia:Canvassing - specifically this section: messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive.

-- Kleinzach 06:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blatant canvassing like that is a definite no-no. Anybody who turns up as a result should be ignored. --Folantin 07:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I ask you to please Assume good faith and not attempt to minimize the contributions of those innocent users who were targeted by emerson7. To ask for large numbers of users to be ignored is NOT Wikipedic. I will be asking for a thorough review of the preceding here. --S.dedalus 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Blame emerson7. I can't ignore the fact he's skewed the debate here. Canvassing is quite clearly against the rules and he knew it. Disruption like this is not on. I'm not sure why this whole stupid infobox issue has re-erupted again. --Folantin 20:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but to discredit someone because they happened to come because of a canvass is ridiculous. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Users who have been canvassed have not been discredited - but they should have the integrity not to participate. -- Kleinzach 23:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Skewed the debate? The majority seems to be in your favor now, but you do NOT have a consencus. --S.dedalus 20:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got a nerve complaining about me pointing out that canvassing has being going on, Mr. Dedalus, in the light of this edit of yours from just a few hours ago [5]. --Folantin 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And how is pointing out a transclusion on a public talk page supposed to be canvassing? I’m getting tired of your attempts to discredit people. --S.dedalus 21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, it's not you canvassing it's you complaining about other people canvassing. Understand? You've done what I did here. --Folantin 21:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Transclusion is not canvassing. Notice that I am not objecting to it or calling for other users to be ignored. Also you don’t seem to mind that the above support vote by User:Garion96 was also made by a victim of emerson7’s canvassing. --S.dedalus 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

In a debate that wasn't going your way, you said of the opposing votes, "I’d like to point out that many votes for this deletion were obtained through the listing of this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism". Oh, and I hadn't even noticed Garion96's comment since I've been too busy answering your messages. But now everybody knows he was canvassed, so there's no problem. --Folantin 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to quote random bits of my resent work on Wikipedia, at least quote the entire thing instead of picking only the section that supports you POV. --S.dedalus 00:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, everybody can look at the context and make their own minds up. You are complaining about transclusion being a form of canvassing as this message of yours to User:Avraham makes clear [6]: "I didn’t realize that adding the whole deletion review to a project page was allowed. That seems awfully POV". But enough of this... --Folantin 07:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple things. First, emerson's message was quite friendly, and one of the type I've seen many times on talk pages. Going by the canvassing page it even says how fine a line it is, and reguardless of his own admition, it's hard to say if he crossed it. Second, it's not like people are coming here and vote stacking, they are coming and offering their informed opinions. I can't find it in ANY plausible way fair or sensible that if someone HAPPENS to have been informed 'illegally' that they are therefore banned from any contribution on the topic.

And for the record, the main issue I have with all this is the implication that somehow classical articles are special. Many of the comments seem geared toward things that would ALWAYS be an issue (the flags not existing back then, etc). I certainly support correct info, of course, but as I was saying above, the answer isn't necessarily to get rid of the boxes all together. But the problem is that there's sometimes too fine a line between ownership and consensus, and it's starting to look like the former is seeping in here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To Melodia. In clarification:

• 1. Classical articles are not special. There is considerable opposition to bio-boxes generally throughout WP, (see for example Biography Project archives).
• 2. Popular music artist infoboxes in particular should never have been used for classical artists. Emerson7 should have checked the relevant pages before he started his campaign to put boxes on all the conductors.
• 3. This is not an ownership issue except for the actual box creators who understandably feel bruised by attempts to remove their work. For the non-creators, on both sides of the argument, it's a matter of conviction/opinion. -- Kleinzach 00:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Popular music artist infoboxes in particular should never have been used for classical artists. Well THAT I can certainly agree with. And if the wind is blowing against the boxes (though I can't imagine them being taken off articles for animals and such, where they seem more natural), that's fine, I was just saying that it seemed many of the arguments were somehow putting classical person boxes (this was back when talking about composers especially) as the only ones this affected. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I emphasize what I've just written at the foot of this topic: Nobody AFAIK is against infoboxes in general. They have their purpose. The objection is to biographical boxes. The only animal we're referring to is Homo sapiens sapiens, and only notable musical examples at that. -- Kleinzach 01:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on, his message broke every rule in the book on canvassing:

currently underway is an attempt by a just a few editors to prohibit the use of infoboxes in articles of all classical musicians. in my view, the manner in which the policy was adopted was just a bit underhanded, and skeevishly done. if you are at all interested keeping the infoboxes, please go here and join the discussion. if you would like to loose them...well...just ignore this message. cheers!

We have failure to assume good faith and poisoning the well with suggestions of a cabal and the comment: "a bit underhanded, and skeevishly done" (whatever "skeevishly" means). Of course, he's going to be "quite friendly" - he wants these people to vote his way. "if you are at all interested keeping the infoboxes please go [here]]" - blatant soliciting one side of the debate. I'm not sure what his selection procedure was for choosing those names either.

We certainly have a consensus on composer bioboxes (regardless of what happens with conductors) and I'm not sure why this whole debate has been restarted after we went through pages and pages establishing a policy on this matter. --Folantin 21:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

yes yes yes, mea culpa.....i'm guilty of canvassing to individuals who were previously involved in this issue previously. i did not know that it was explicitly against wp guidelines, and i have been duly admonished and advised. my arguments are still valid, however, and no supportable argument has yet been made to completely abolish the infoboxes...not one. --emerson7 00:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. No one is suggesting that all infoboxes should be abolished. We're recommending that they shouldn't be used for biographies of classical musicians - that's all. -- Kleinzach 01:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My last message got accidentally deleted so I'd like to repeat my main point again here:

Biographical boxes are problematic because people are not easily reduced to data in pre-determined fields - especially if they've been innovative. There have been attempts by knowledgeable editors to design 'compromise' boxes for classical musicians but they've all failed because of the inherent difficulties. -- Kleinzach 13:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Music of Hungary at Wikipedia:Good article review

I've put the following comment on this GA/R

The classical music section could do with a bit more especially about Hungary's contribution to the establishment of the Austrian/Viennese classical tradition and to operetta. Haydn was someone, born just on the Austrian side of the modern border with Hungary, who worked for the Hungarian House of Esterházy much of his life. Franz Lehár is categorised as a Hungarian composer and is, after the Viennese Strausses, the best known operetta composer. And when mentioning non-Hungarian composers influenced by Hungarian folk traditions, then Brahms's Hungarian Dances are the best known example.

I hope people here agree with these points. But does someone have references to quote and want to patch it up?--Peter cohen 10:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

About the new section added...

Such edits should be discouraged, they are usually of little interest to readers who want to know about the musical work, and would be of greater interest to readers who want to know about the movie, TV show, or electronic game. For instance, viewers of these items often would like to know what music they are hearing.

I disagree with this logic. Why is someone wanting to know what music they are hearing any different than hearing it and wanting to know where they heard it before? Now obviously some pieces are everywhere, and I'm not saying that every little reference should be included in the article (though mention of popular use is a must). I do, though, think that the weight this statement implies is wrong -- is Night on Bald Mountain's use in The Wizard of Oz more important in the later's article that it should be mentioned there but not in the piece's article at all (where it currently is, granted a bit out of place)? I'm not so sure. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the guideline which I believe is in line with WP policy on discouraging trivia sections. -- Kleinzach 09:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Melodia is logically correct, but I think she's not taking into account the likely feelings of our readers. Classical music listeners often have strong emotional attachments to particular works, bordering on veneration. For such listeners, hearing that a favorite work has been trivially adapted for a videogame is uninformative, even irritating. So, let's not pester the classical fans by including uninformative, irritating stuff in the articles they are most likely to read. In contrast, videogames etc. are typically a more light-hearted and recreational experience, one which we can enhance by identifying the background music in the pop culture articles. Cheers, Opus33 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Notes

I've requested a peer review of Six Moments Musicaux (Rachmaninoff). If anyone has spare time, I'd like comments on how to improve this article at its peer review page. ALTON .ıl 02:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I am rewriting List of compositions by Sergei Rachmaninoff in my sandbox, User:Alton/Work. Please improve it if you can, and offer suggestions on either talk page. The current list is missing many entire compositions, and isn't comprehensive enough. I will be replacing the extant page with the new version if there are no objections. ALTON .ıl 06:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the look-and-feel of the old list, with the wikilinks and subsections. DavidRF 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am not going to submit it without any links in the text, and the thing is still a work in progress. The problem with 'by opus number' is that there are so many works that don't have one, so they have to be dumped in a section at the bottom sorted by date anyways. Chronologically, the opus numbers are somewhat preserved, and pieces without them aren't put somewhere less significant.

Ultimately, I think two sections serve the purpose—chronological, and by class, since he wrote in a wide range of formats, from operas to chamber music. ALTON .ıl 06:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fragmentary works in Templates

I've been looking at many of the list-of-works templates and I'm seeing a number of "fragmentary" works showing up on the lists. I don't want to see these fragmentary works getting "top billing" in the templates. For symphonies, I'm taking about Beethoven's 10th, Sibelius's 8th, Tchaikovsky's E flat symphony, Elgar's 3rd and Schubert's 7th and 10th. I'm not talking about Schubert's 8th where the symphony is famously "Unfinished" and ends after two movements because those two movements are each polished and complete in themselves and the two-movement work has been part of the standard repertoire for years. I'm talking about works that only exist in fragmentary sketches. Its just not right looking at a list of Beethoven symphonies and seeing the numbers go up to 10. And its terribly confusing seeing the Schubert symphonies template and seeing two symphonies on the list that are much less finished than the "Unfinished symphony" with no indication of their "sketch"-iness.

I realize the fragmentary works need articles at least as much as the completed works so that the story of why they were never completed can be told, but is there some way they can be given a less prominent position in the templates? Like listed on the bottom line in a smaller font or something? DavidRF 19:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wonder what you mean by top billing? Do you mean they have 'unfinished' next to them which makes them stand out? Basically we have to clearly indicate the work is fragmentary, but I don't see how that makes it stand out. Centy – reply• contribs – 20:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

By top billing I meant that they really shouldn't be in the same list. If Beethoven's 10th gets a link at the bottom in small print, fine, but I don't like it being on the main list. The main list should go from 1 to 9. Maybe they could be added list at the very bottom after the list of works (similar to where the 'arrangment' is on the Beethoven String Quartets template). My opinion is that these fragmentary works might be interesting footnotes, but they shouldn't be in the main section. DavidRF 20:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Beethoven symphonies - how's that?. Also it appears they've fixed the line break bug with the Navbox template meaning we do not need to put everything in a nowrap template anymore. I'm too lazy to remove all these from all the templates (they do no harm) until I have to. Centy – reply• contribs – 20:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks OK. I'll see how it looks on some of the others I mentioned. DavidRF 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're way ahead of me as usual. Thanks. DavidRF 20:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about moving Schubert's 7th out of the list though - it upsets the pattern if one just is missing - just like the Michael Haydn 25th still appears in the navbox even though it's not by him. Centy – reply• contribs – 20:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The Schubert case is indeed interesting, but if you buy a Schubert symphony cycle, you'll get 1-6,8-9. The gap in the sequence is always there and its mentioned in the liner notes. As for the Michael Haydn, #25 is composed by MHaydn. Mozart only wrote the slow introduction to the first movement. It was misclassified as Mozart-37 for many years (also why it is now common to see it omitted in Mozart symphony cyles). I talked to the main Michael Haydn editor, User:Anton Mravcek, about what that article should be called and he said "Maybe it's my POV talking, but I think it would benefit Michael Haydn's promoters to embrace Mozart's contribution instead of trying too hard to prove Haydn's individuality.". I'll try to figure out a way to put #37 down on the bottom of the Mozart template as well. DavidRF 21:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Argh! I've just read that a one of the piano sonatas by Schubert are also incomplete (D. 613). What do we do there? Centy – reply• contribs – 21:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, on Klempf's Box Set of Schubert Sonatas, No. 2 is listed as incomplete, No. 11 is a 'fragment' and Nos. 3, 8, 10, 12 are just missing. However on Stephen Hough's CD, he included No. 10. When do we decide a piece is unfinished like Schubert's 8th symphony or unfinished like his 7th symphony? Centy – reply• contribs – 21:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave the Schubert piano sonatas alone. It may seem contradictory, but there's no harm there. His sonatas are much more known by their D-numbers and the famous ones are all at the end. DavidRF 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank to DavidRF for noticing this problem and to Centy for responding. The prominence given to "Beethoven's Tenth Symphony" has always bothered me, too. Opus33 16:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for Chopin Nocturnes

If we start to expand and create articles for the Chopin nocturnes, how should we name the articles. Currently, our guidelines say we should name them eg Nocturne No. 11 (Chopin). But no one really refers to the Nocturnes like that. It's usually key (which is ambiguous ) or opus number. I know we've reached a consensus that the Ballades and Impromptus for example should be numbered, but should we also do that for the Nocturnes? Centy – reply• contribs – 12:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO by opus number, like Nocturne Op. 9 No. 2 (Chopin). You're right as they tend not to be numbered. Guidelines are just that, not set in stone, and a bit of overriding for the sake of general practice common sense can easilhy be used. A shame they aren't all in different keys...though I do doubt the ability of each one to have enough for an article anyway. Hmmm...♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest it would be best to do articles only on the entire opus, meaning Nocturnes Op. 9 (Chopin). Usually the information about a piece's history comes as a history of the opus as a whole, and the only thing that differs is the content or performance technique. I don't know though, there might be a lot of material for nocturnes. ALTON .ıl 21:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've made the {{Template:Chopin nocturnes}} which should guide people as how to name the articles. Annoyingly, the two Chopin nocturnes that have no opus number also share their key signatures and U've yet to come up with a satisfactory working article title (the one I've used is VERY cumbersome). Centy – reply• contribs – 14:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)