Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archive
Archives
  1. 2006
  2. Jan – Mar 2007
  3. Apr 2007 (incl. Instrumentation)
  4. May – Jul 2007
  5. Aug – Sep 2007 (incl. Infoboxes)
  6. Sep – Oct 2007
  7. Nov 2007 – March 2008
  8. March 2008
  9. April –

Contents

[edit] Time for an new bot run?

Is it time for a new bot run? Perhaps the run can include the articles that weren't covered last time? Perhaps the bot can automatically assess stubbed articles as stub class in the way that SatyrBot assessed Opera Project articles? IMO bannering would serve to define the project more clearly and attract new participants. Any thoughts? Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, although I'd be very much against any attempt to rate articles beyond the FA/GA/stub distinction. The difference between stub and start class is completely up to any one editor really and has no real issues either way. What I don't want is any time wasted over B-Class reviews. The criterion for B-Class are nowadays almost to the standard of a GA-Class article and an article that is B-Class now is probably so close to GA you might as well take it to GAC, get told to get more inline citations and then either have it promoted or not depending on whether you do that. It's a waste of time for a WikiProject to review articles itself. You might as well let the dedicated article review bodies do that. Centy – reply• contribs – 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I agree. I'm not enthusiastic about full-scale assessment either. I'm just suggesting the minimum automatic stub class marking by the bot. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, our usual bot SatyrBot has been halted due to technical issues and is not making any bot runs at the moment. Centy – reply• contribs – 22:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, SatyrTN has been away. The Opera Project is stuck waiting for a bot run as well. In any case my time has been taken up by the mammoth image placeholder debate (about the thing that goes in the bio-infobox). --Kleinzach (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'No Free Image' placeholder graphic

Currently, there is a controversial campaign to put a 'No Free Image' graphic on all biographical pages. This is the 'female version':

If you're interested there is a discussion about this here. --Kleinzach (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been around a while. Many infobox templates default to this type of image if no other image is provided. The point is that the garish ghost head is supposed to motivate users into uploading a better image. While I think its a good idea to have pictures when possible, there's got to be a better way to motivate users to upload their own images. DavidRF (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and would add that there are zillions of historical figures for whom no image exists--I guess they would get the garish ghost head forever... Opus33 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well no since generaly it is limited to living people.Genisock2 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is now a centralized discussion about this at: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. --Kleinzach (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion will close at midday GMT/UTC on 23 April. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was supposed to close, but it has in fact continued, despite some objections. A suggestion just emerged that infoboxes should be added to articles lacking them in order to facilitate the insertion of a revised take on the placeholder concept. Objection that such a course was not in keeping with the consensus of classical music editors (and some other groups) was met with responses that refusing to include infoboxes is irrational and that if an infobox is inserted, other editors are always free to remove it again. Those with views on this issue might wish to review the ongoing discussion (on the centralized discussion page referenced above) and participate if they have contributions to offer. The disscussion of "no infobox" articles has an entry in the table of contents. Drhoehl (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Friedman (2nd nomination)

Would appreciate more specialized users to weigh in on whether this musician is notable enough for inclusion. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tempo links

I had always been using Tempo#Italian tempo markings for my tempo links. Today, an experienced editor (Centy) changed some of them to Glossary of musical terminology#A (or whatever letter the term started with). I really have no preference either way, but I'd like to know what the standard is so that I can train myself to use the corect links. Since these links are everywhere, I thought I would pose the question here. Where should I link to for terms like allegro, andante, allegretto, adagio, etc. DavidRF (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is Glossary of musical terminology has French as well as German tempo markings and links to terms with their own pages. Personally I think Tempo#Italian tempo markings should redirect there. Centy – reply• contribs – 16:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you wouldn't use Tempo#Italian tempo markings for a german tempo, you'd use Tempo#German tempo markings. Both links are quite "ugly" in that they are long, have #'s and still don't take you directly to the term. The Glossary of musical terminology is indeed more comprehensive, but Tempo will tell you at a glance which markings are faster than others. Since they are both so ugly, I guess I'd hope there was a third option, but I'm not sure what that would be. DavidRF (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. Then I guess this is one of those issues were its up to the editor (like hyphens in key signatures). Centy – reply• contribs – 17:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beethoven Middle String Quartets

There has been a long running merge proposal to merge the two parent pages for Beethoven's middle quartets String Quartets Nos. 7 - 9, Opus 59 - Rasumovsky (Beethoven) and String Quartets Nos. 10 - 11, Opus 74 "Harp" and 95 "Serioso" (Beethoven).

Personally it seems sensible to group the Rasumovsky quartets whereas the Harp and Serioso seem a pairing only by process of elimination. To me, I think we should just delete String Quartets Nos. 10 - 11, Opus 74 "Harp" and 95 "Serioso" (Beethoven) as there's really no real need to say Beethoven composed two other quartets that aren't in one of the two obvious groups. I mean the navbox does just read Other middle period quartets. There's no real need to link to that. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Redirect the 74-95 link to List_of_compositions_by_Ludwig_van_Beethoven#String_quartets. DavidRF (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bach Cantatas

There are dozens of Bach cantatas that don't have articles. Could someone work on stubs for each of them? --Ted-m (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] recent edit in Symphony No. 3 (Mendelssohn)

There's an extensive (though perhaps suspicious) edit that was recently made to the article on the Scottish Symphony. I'm trying to decide whether to clean up or revert. Could you all take a brief look and see if you recognize the prose? I don't want to bother cleaning it up if it was just lifted from somewhere. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Your browser may not support display of this image." LOL. It's obviously lifted from something. Brute force copy and paste. Someone's paper? I'm trying various phrases in Google and not finding anything. Considering how disastrously formatted it is, and confusing and useless without the images, I think reverting is justified. We could ask the person where it's from -- "did you write this?" Antandrus (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] José Iturbi tangle

I stumbled upon this tangle today. Can someone here give some advice on this? Something's got to be deleted, but I'm not sure which or how many or how. Here's the story...

23:13, 27 December 2006 NiNgis Ereh created José Iturbi International Piano Competition which despite the name was and is entirely about the XV José Iturbi International Piano Competition in Valencia 2006. Full of totally uneccessary detail about the comptetitors in each round accompanied by zillions of flag icons and virtually no text.
Two minutes later...
23:15, 27 December 2006 NiNgis Ereh created XV José Iturbi International Piano Competition with identical content to José Iturbi International Piano Competition These stayed pretty identical with both covering only the XV José Iturbi International Piano Competition in Valencia 2006 until...
17:16, 16 April 2008 when Michael Russell Group replaced the content on José Iturbi International Piano Competition with a load of unformatted and probably copyvio PR blab about the 2008 competion in Los Angeles, how to apply, etc.
Meanwhile on...
21:54, 28 February 2007 NiNgis Ereh had created Jose Iturbi International Piano Competition (no accent mark over the e in Jose). This one actually has the history of the entire competition and is listed as an external link (!!) on XV José Iturbi International Piano Competition. This one probably needs to be kept, although technically the article name should probably have the accent over the since that's how it's spelled on the official web site of the José Iturbi Foundation who run the competition.

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've merged Jose Iturbi International Piano Competition into José Iturbi International Piano Competition. Hope that helps for a start.--Kleinzach 23:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)