Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Susan Eichhorn Young[edit]

Please help find sources. There's nothing on Google news and a single recognition in one Dummies book. Good luck. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt notability. I checked Google News too and it's empty. The only mentions on Amazon UK are 10 audio books by other authors, for which she is the narrator. She has a single album listed at AllMusic (ref 2). Ref 1 is her bio as a faculty member at a 2013 festival. Ref 3 is her bio as an examiner for the Royal Conservatory. Neither of these helps to confer notability, imho. Ref 4 is a primary source used only to identify her husband. All the external links are primary and promotional. There's an obvious COI here, and I don't think notability is even close to being shown. --Stfg (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cum decore (song)[edit]

Dear classical music experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. However, even I, a bluegrass musician, have heard of Tielman Susato. There are plenty of search engine hits for this song, but I can't tell which ones are useful as references. Should the page be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about your last question, but it needs a lot of work. First, the title is wrong. The title is Signum, and Cum decore are merely the first two words. I suggest Signum (Cum decore) as the page title. This is also the title it gets on the CPDL page (ref 1). (Signum already exists as a disambiguation page). Ref 1 is good. Ref 2 definitely isn't, as it's a blog. Rather a good-looking blog, and I'm tempted to believe it may be reasonably accurate. But a blog nevertheless, and if they know all that stuff, they must have got it from somewhere; where is that somewhere? Ref 3 is lousy: all it has to do with the song is the words of the first stanza, which can be read at CPDL. Apart from that, it hosts continuous advertising, and McAfee blocks some of its content. Ref 4 also merely duplicates what is available at CPDL. The statement that "Wrekorder Wrondo" is a cover of it is OR by the author's own admission in this diff. He's right, of course -- but that's my own OR, I suppose. Face-smile.svg Hope this helps, but I still don't know the answer to your question. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Stfg, for taking time to check this out. Since it seems rather dubious, and I have a long list of other pages to improve, I think I will leave it to either be improved by someone more knowledgeable in this area, or to fade away if no one takes an interest in it. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cármelo de los Santos[edit]

Once again, classical music experts, I ask your opinion about a draft article that is about to be deleted at AfC. The violinist appears to have won some prizes; are these notable awards? Should the article be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO a blatant autobiography and puff piece. --Stfg (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
That's as maybe, but the issue is one of notability; if the subject is notable, the quality of the article can be fixed later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
No, the issue is emphatically not solely one of notability. If you argue like that, anyone can write a puffy autobiog and we're trapped in the ritual of doing their research for them, not to mention cleaning up all those inline external links to individual whose notability would presumably need to be checked as well. All because we're too scared to delete a rubbish article about a subject that may be notable, even though no credible attempt has be made to demonstrate it. There are better ways to improve Wikipedia. We have WP:TNT, and imho this is a prime candidate. --Stfg (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
In that case, since I've just published it, you'll have no problem making a successful AfD nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ooh, snarky! And short-circuiting discussion. No, I'll not bother to AfD it. Enjoy your clean-up exercise. --Stfg (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: Would you be willing to reverse the promotion of this article while further discussion takes place, please? It high-handedly overrides legitimate objections. Moreover, Mabbett is insisting that the issue is one of notability, contrary to WP:AFCR, which also identifies failure of reliable sourcing and NPOV as grounds to decline. AFC is not the same as AFD. The POV nature of the article is pretty obvious: it's blatantly promotional and the REVEL section contains a sales pitch for a CD. As to sourcing, let's just have a look at the claim to have been a semifinalist in the Paganini "important international competition". Both the inline link to the competition site and ref 3 are dead links, and the only mention of the latter on the Wayback Machine is today's archive of its "page does not exist" version. itself does exist, and de los Santos is listed as a participant on its participants page, but he is absent from the lists of semifinalists at its history page. A Google search for him on yields nothing. Furthermore, the Career, Teaching, REVEL and Discography sections are all completely unsourced. So much for reliable sourcing. I would suggest that, per WP:AFCR, the article should have been declined. And an hour of my time should not have been wasted by that WP:POINTy promotion. --Stfg (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear Stfg andAndy Mabbett: Sorry to have taken so long to respond; I have been camping in an alfalfa field at a Bluegrass Festival, an internet-free zone, and returned to find several items requiring my attention. The draft as it stood definitely wouldn't have passed a proper AfC review - far too promotional. I have edited it to remove the name-dropping promotional links and tone down the puffery, but more needs to be done per WP:NOTINHERITED if the article is to be kept. If it just needs that and proper sourcing with inline citations as a BLP, tagging it for its weaknesses would suffice. However, if Stfg is correct that the subject is non-notable, moving it to Draft space would be pointless unless it's on the verge of becoming notable, since the page would just become eligible for deletion again in six months. I will wait a few days to see if anyone adds some reliable sources, or adds a demonstration of notability in response to this discussion, and, if not, I will post it at WP:AFD, unless someone beats me to it. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: I didn't say he was not notable, Anne. I said that he "may be notable, even though no credible attempt has be made to demonstrate it". The Júlio Cardona International String Competition may be enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO, but it's only a listing, not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so I don't know. When he "postponed" the G13, Mabbett added a note saying "A Google search suggests notability is clear." But in all his edits he added not a single source. And in my Google search I see mainly promotional stuff, concert announcements and primary sources, nothing remotely like "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Oh, and this article, which has already made it to the first page of the Google listing.
Well, this is too bad. The only issue at AFD will only be notability. All the other things that are supposed to be considered at AFC won't count, and we'll probably be left with yet another of the promotional articles that are turning Wikipedia into a kind of schizophrenic LinkedIn. Yes of course we can cover it with clean-up tags, which will show it up for what it is. But that's not very nice and it just contributes to the huge cleanup backlogs. What on earth is the point of AFC at all if it's so easy to bypass anyway?
And one last thing: it's copyvio. The original article is constructed from copy-pastes from de Santos's own web site (see the external links). Here's a DupDet comparison with the originator's version of the article, and here's a Dupdet comparison with the current version of the article. So it seems as if the first test for an AFC has been neglected here, and the submission should really have been deleted a year or so ago. I'd have thought that, when there appears at AFC a promotional article listing someone's great accomplishments and listing names of all the famous people they claim to have worked with, then doing a DupDet against the originator's web site is the most obvious and essential first step.
Do you want to delete the article now or shall I just put {{subst:copyvio|url=link to source}} over the copyvio sections (all except the lede, the reflist and the external links) and send it to the copyvio team? Your call. --Stfg (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
(sigh) Well, Stfg, it would have been helpful if any one of the people who worked on it (including me) had noticed the copyvio problem earlier! Thanks for finding it. While checking out the notability issue, I began to wonder why there were so many announcements of his performances by so many different organizations and very little followup news. I realized that the accent in his name was skewing the results: The announcements spelled his name correctly, but news reports often didn't. Also, of course, some of the information is not in English, making it difficult for an English speaker to choose the right search terms. By leaving out the accent I was able to find some reviews. In spite of having other projects I should be working on, I became interested, so I rewrote the copyvio material (except for lists of names, which should be okay) and added some citations. I agree with everything that you have said - the article shouldn't have been in mainspace as it was. Notability may be marginal (pending someone who can check non-English media), but hopefully the article is now not a disgrace to Wikipedia. About AfD: It's my experience that although notability is the usual reason for deletion or keeping, other weakness in an article are often corrected by editors who plan to argue "keep". —Anne Delong (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. That's a lot better, although there's still too much uncited bragging. I've placed cleanup tags on it, to illustrate how bad it still is, and done a little copy editing. Note that an announcement that someone will take part in a concert/festival/event is not a valid source for a claim that they did so; this is why I've removed one of your sources. Even now, the article still reads like a LinkedIn entry. What I mean by that is that it's full of what the subject would like people to know about him, rather than what the general public (who aren't looking to engage a soloist or teacher) would really want to know. Just for one example: what kind of reader, really, is interested in which festivals he has presented violin workshops at? That's all this article is: a resumé. I'll leave it at that.
Regarding spotting copyvio, I've put a little heads-up for reviewers on WT:AFC. This is really one of the easiest checks to do and one of the biggest savers of wasted time later. --Stfg (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good idea. Someone writes about it every few months, and it seems that the reminder is needed. It's too easy to assume that the first reviewer has checked, and not do it oneself. Oh, and by the way, as an amateur violinist who attends festival workshops which are not always productive, I would be personally interested in whether the leader of a specific workshop had previous experience in this area, so that makes one. Stfg, you seem to be a thoughtful editor with a good critical eye; I hope that you will choose to participate in WP:AFC in the future, since obviously we are 'way behind. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Haydn keyboard sonatas numbering[edit]

There was recently a discussion about which numbering scheme, Hoboken or Landon, to use for articles titles of Haydn's keyboard sonatas. That discussion didn't reach a conclusion and so I'm raising the matter again.

Both system are currently used for article titles, which is confusing. The previous discussion, and a subsequent one at Talk:Keyboard Sonata No. 62 (Haydn)#Number seemed to lean towards Hoboken, which is also my position. The current situation is:

IMSLP uses Hoboken, as does James Webster in Grove and my Lea Pocket Scores which is based on the Urtext from Breitkopf & Härtel's Critical Edition, as does this site of recordings (cited at List of solo piano compositions by Joseph Haydn), and even articles named after Landon, like Keyboard Sonata No. 62 (Haydn), use Hoboken in the text. This is a mess in itself (No. 33/34!) and it prevents further articles; it ought to be fixed, and I suggest Hoboken. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It certainly needs sorting out, one way or the other. The usual way would be to go with whatever the majority of reliable sources use, wouldn't it? Another way, since the bare numbers are not agreed upon, would be to include L. or Hob. XVI/ explicitly in the title and in redirects from the other scheme. If that is done, the ordinary Sonata No. xx titles could either be turned into disambiguation pages or deleted (if the latter, better salt them, as people will try to recreate them and probably make a mess). --Stfg (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Including "L." or "Hob. XVI/" in the article name seems a good way out of this dilemma. As there are no Landon numbers for the dubious nos. 15 to 17, and because what I consider to be the preponderance of sources, I suggest to use Hoboken numbers. I also have some doubts about naming them "keyboard sonatas". List of solo piano compositions by Joseph Haydn calls them "piano sonatas", as does IMSLP in their list of Haydn's works, but the category is called Category:Keyboard Sonatas by Joseph Haydn and IMSLP uses "keyboard" for the individual works. Google seems to favour "piano" by 10:1. I also prefer "piano" and suggest a minimalist scheme following a pattern of Piano Sonata Hob. XVI/52. Whether the category then needs renaming is in my opinion not urgent. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with that scheme. Haydn would have identified them as being for Klavier, I think, which reveals nothing. Peters and the Urtext editions use the German names with Klavier. There's an ABRSM Publishers series that calls them keyboard sonatas, and they use some of them as set pieces for harpsichord exams. Other English-language editions (Schirmer, Dover, ...) call them piano sonatas. Whichever we use, I think we should provide redirects from the other. --Stfg (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree too. Hoboken seems in my experience to be more widely used in concert programmes and recordings. My only slight reservation would be over the use of the forward slash character. It's not forbidden in article titles, but gives rise to a slightly odd behaviour on talk pages – see WP:NC-SLASH. However I think we could live with this for the increased accuracy such titles would bring. --Deskford (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, yes. The example of Talk:R/2004 S 1 given at WP:NC-SLASH could be solved by making a redirect because R/2004 S 1 itself is a redirect. We wouldn't be able to use the same solution. If we use the proposed naming, perhaps we should create Talk:Piano Sonata Hob. XVI and put a banner on it saying please write on the talk page for the actual sonata? --Stfg (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would probably be the best solution. --Deskford (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I had a hunch that using a slash in an article title might lead to problems. Thanks for pointing out the details.
Maybe such problems can be avoided by a small change in the naming scheme: I think the names would be just as well understood if they used a hyphen (-) or a full stop (.) instead of the slash. (Using one of the symbols that look a bit like a slash, e.g. virgule, solidus, fraction slash, division slash, or similar, would only be confusing.) With a hyphen: Piano Sonata Hob. XVI-52, with a full stop: Piano Sonata Hob. XVI.52. Or should we stick to the slash and work out the talk page problems as indicated above? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Guitar Duo KM[edit]

Hello again, classical music experts! The gutarists in this old AfC submission appear to have won some awards. Are these notable prizes? If so, I will look for references to verify them. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet another blatant copyvio that should have been deleted on sight. (DupDet report). I've tagged it for deletion per G12, G11 and G13. --Stfg (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It has gone. --Stfg (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Varda Kotler[edit]

Seems to me she fails WP:NOTABLE. Information virtually all from her own website and I can find no other independent sources. Any opinions?--Smerus (talk) 07:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Here are her AllMusic discography and her listing. As you see, only the Mélodies CD is mentioned (individual tracks in the case of Amazon), not the other two. Individual tracks of the Gounod CD are mentioned on, along with many other performances of these works. The fact that, some time ago, IPs geolocating to her home country have been spamming various articles to insert mentions of her perfomances (and a youtube video), push me towards the negative. (I've removed a few of those just now.) And we have the usual completely uncited list of names of great people the article claims she performed with and operatic roles/other works it claims she has performed. The career section is an obvious WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of her own web site, although edited enough to get no protest from Duplication Detector. HTH. --Stfg (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
OK I've listed it for AfD.--Smerus (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)