Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 80

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 75

←

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Dido's Lament video FPC

File:Henry Purcell "Dido & Aeneas" (extrait) - Les Arts Florissants, William Christie.webm has been nominated as a featured picture candidate; the nomination can be found here. Since the picture falls under this WikiProject's scope, I am posting this notice here. It currently needs more comments, so if you've got time, please comment on the nomination page. Thanks in advance! czar 21:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not convinced that this is a freely-available file as there's no information from the creators. - kosboot (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems a rather controversial nomination overall. I suggest to Kosboot and others to read the discussion at the nomination and vote.--Smerus (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Klemperer PR

I have been overhauling our article on Otto Klemperer and hope to take it to FAC. I have put it up for peer review here, and would welcome suggestions for further improving it. (One of the advantages of being a septuagenarian is that I had the luck to go to Klemperer concerts at the Festival Hall in his last years and I have never forgotten them and hope I never shall.) Tim riley talk 18:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Input request

Opinions are appreciated on a page move discussion at Talk:Anthony Jennings. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I like to follow up all such suggestions in diesen heil'gen Hallen, but I must duck this one, I'm sorry to say, as I have never heard of either of the Messrs Jennings. Would a dab page be such a frightfully bad thing? Tim riley talk 17:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC at Opus 20

There is an RFC at Talk:String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn). Members of the project are welcome to weigh in. 06:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Ravpapa (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Commented, as has Smerus. I hope others will wade in, too. I mean, well, really! Tim riley talk 17:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on selection criteria and naming for repertoire lists

I am starting a new RfC that will hopefully be more neutral and lead to some actual progress rather than me being brash and presenting poor options. The RfC will involve these articles:

(Note: As Euphonium repertoire and Organ repertoire are largely prose, they are not included in this proposal.)

Question 1: Should this batch of articles be renamed to "List of compositions for (instrument)"?

Question 2: What should the criteria be for inclusion in these articles? (For example, 'it must have a Wikipedia page', 'must be listed in several index of works', 'must be written by a notable composer', etc.) This was briefly discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Establishing criteria for entries, but was never formally settled.

Question 2 is extended to include articles such as:

Why? I Ask (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Yes to Question 1: I believe that a list of repertoire may be hard to upkeep and will inevitably break WP:NPOV without several suitable citations. Thus, I think having a simple list of compositions, named as such, for each instrument would be helpful for navigating notable pieces. Question 2: I think these lists would be best kept as navigational tools, thus I would require a Wikipedia article (which should also demonstrate notability of the piece in question). However, if it comes down to it, I have no hard prejudice against adding other works without Wikipedia pages provided that they are well sourced. To me, that means several in-depth mentions of the piece in books or dissertations/theses about the instrument or its repertoire (e.g., in Notes for Flutists: A Guide to the Repertoire by Kyle J. Dzapo (ISBN 978-0-1998-5707-4), about 35 or so pieces are mentioned in great depth), not just an entry in an index or bibliography of works. Hopefully, this RfC is more productive, and I apologize for the mess that the one I started prior was. However, I think there is still some room to flesh out consensus on this topic. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I have gone ahead and made a bold edit to rename and cleanup List of compositions for flute. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes to Question 1For the reasons stated above, except I would suggest naming it "Notable Compositions for . . ."Writethisway (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Alkan/Masarnau

Editors' comments are requested here on a matter of appropriateness of quotation/citation. Smerus (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

List of compositions for viola: A to B

What would be a good selection criteria for these collections of articles? The second AfD was closed as no consensus due to many saying that it met WP:NLIST (which was not the reason for the nom), and that. However, even then, many expressed that it needed to be trimmed, and that that discussion should be held elsewhere. This page literally, objectively does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines, and with the existence of Viola repertoire, I'm unsure of what to do. Last time I trimmed it, it was complained about by a couple of editors and reverted to status quo, but the status quo is not suitable for the encyclopedia. So rather than deleting, how can we improve this article? Why? I Ask (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

A first step would be to delete the items where ther is n article for the composer. And then delet all entries without an appropriate citation.--Smerus (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
And I think the WikiProject would benefit from a discussion with what an "appropriate citation" is. For example, is an index of works a citation? (There are several such indices where simply emailing the piece in or just having the piece exist is enough for inclusion.) Or something more specific like a dissertation or short article about that piece. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again, trimming the list to remove non-notable composers has been opposed by one of those couple editors. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox RfC at Mozart

This is simply a notification that there's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart#Mozart Infobox RFC. The rest of this comment chain has become inflammatory, non-neutral, and off-topic, so I've collapsed it. Shells-shells (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I see the Compulsory i-box Wehrmacht have their tanks on the lawn chez Mozart. Attenders in diesen heil'gen Hallen, who may even have actually read the article, may have views. Tim riley talk 21:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Information about a RfC should be neutrally worded. "Wehrmacht" hurts me, being in the process of writing an article about a woman whose life changed drastically because of the Nazis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Gerda Arendt. Comparing users that want infoboxes to Nazis is not cool, man. I highly recommend you redact that. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The Wehrmacht weren’t Nazis. They were the regular military. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

... Of Nazi Germany. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

That doesn’t make them Nazis. Try reading up on the difference between the Wehrmacht and the SS, the latter of which were Nazis. SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

We have a page about this: Myth of the clean Wehrmacht. I'm not continuing this discussion. It was a poor choice of words on the above user's part. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t say they were not culpable of war crimes, but that they were not Nazis. I’m glad you’re not going to continue the silliness, which is a welcome relief. SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to call me a Nazi I don't really care, but please don't perpetuate the myth of the clean Wehrmacht. Coffman worked really hard to remove that from the encyclopedia, let's not bring it back. Levivich (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven’t called anyone anything, nor have I claimed the Wehrmacht were “clean”, as I clearly said above. - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

And you say I'm the one who's insulting people? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Just clocked this: a bit excessive, me judice. I used "Wehrmacht" as a well known perpetrator of tanks on the lawn (OED: "The name used for the German armed forces between 1921 and 1945") but if I knew what the Soviet army was called I might just as well have used that. There is no political implication in the term. Can we simmer down! Tim riley talk 18:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Some quotes:

On the night of 8 to 9 November 1938, during the November pogroms hundreds of Frankfurt's Jewish citizens were driven across the city centre to the Festhalle and some were seriously mistreated. The noted Frankfurt Opera singer Hans Erl was forced to sing "In Diesen Heil'gen Hallen" ("In These Holy Halls"). From here, the first mass transports went into the Nazi concentration camps. The Festhalle is thus of considerable relevance for the Holocaust. The Frankfurt physician and Holocaust survivor Dr. Max Kirschner describes the deportation in his memoirs. Since 1991, a plaque displayed in the rotunda bears remembrance of this dark spot in history. (from Festhalle Frankfurt)
Another poignant moment that Dr Strimple recounted was from the period when large convoys of prisoners from Hungry were being taken to camps, a group of Hungarian Jews were rounded up and driven into the synagogue in the dead of night. While they could only speculate what their fate was to be – they had heard tales of groups of people being herded into places of worship by the Nazis, before the building were set on fire – they could do nothing but huddle together in the pitch darkness. At that moment, one cantor arose in the unlit room and began to sing ‘In Diesen Heil'gen Hallen’ from Mozart’s The Magic Flute. from [1]
Another highlight was a lone male singer who stood up in the audience to perform Mozart’s In diesen heil’gen Hallen. The lights in the theater were turned completely off to simulate how the song was sung in a Hungarian synagogue when hundreds of Jews were trapped there in 1943. from [2].

Poor choice of imagery there. Levivich (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you're a bit unkind to blame Mozart (or more precisely Schikanader) for Nazi appropriations of Sarastro's second aria, and the Wehrmacht isn't mentioned in your three quotes, but as I say, can we just simmer down? Tim riley talk 19:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I think what you meant to say is, "I'm sorry." Apology accepted. PS, re: ...if I knew what the Soviet army was called..., it's called the Red Army. Levivich (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

How kind of you to tell me what I meant to say. Wrong, but heigh ho. Perhaps you'd like to favour us with your views on the racial implications of Monostatos-v-Sarastro. Tim riley talk 19:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe that "simmer down" would best be achieved by a neutral wording, such as this. Comparing participants in a discussion about an infobox to any military organisation seems not exactly what arbitrators had in mind when they wrote: All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes. My agenda is deescalation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment as an observer who has not participated in these infobox discussions in the past, coming upon this post with no context I can say without question that the tone of the original comment seems to me to be utterly inappropriate, and out of keeping with Wikipedia policies on appropriate decorum. PianoDan (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Luis Batlle Ibáñez

I created a draft for pianist Luis Batlle Ibáñez. Any help would be appreciated! Best, Thriley (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

References needed

Hello everyone. I've been wanting to make an article on Paul Harvey, the musician (not that one I made). He is a composer, clarinettist and saxophonist who has a wikidata entry here. I have already found a substantial thesis on his compositions and a short description of him in The Cambridge Companion to the Saxophone. If anyone at this project knows where I could find more information on Harvey I would be appreciative. I don't have that much access to resources outside of the Wikipedia Library and the wider internet. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 00:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Primous Fountain

I recently brought back the draft for Primous Fountain. Any help finding sources would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes for composers

With the RfC currently underway at the Carl Nielsen talk page, I have to ask: instead of slogging out the matter composer-by composer, why can't we just have a project-wide RfC about composer infoboxes? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure this is a perennial proposal that only ends up with even more slogging from people that hate infoboxes and those that have no issue. From my basic wiki-archeology, it seems it has even ended up with a couple trips to ANI and ArbCom even saying to do it based on individual pages. Personally, I usually support infoboxes, and the last few composers with this discussion have gone successful, so consensus may have changed in a decade. I assume you may also want to check the Mozart page, though. It has been edit-warred over the infobox this month. Someone just re-added it today. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Before having seen this thread, I asked a similar question at the Nielsen discussion. I suggest we let that run, and then look at a general place to discuss, which could be right here, because it concerns only classical composers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

ps: the Nielsen talk has a discussion, no formal RfC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

As I have pointed out (yet again) on the Carl Nielsen talk page, infoboxes for classical composers are completely redundant. Anyone wanting quick info on a composer - photo, birth and eath dates and places - can get it simply by entering the name on a search engine - Google or Bing. The search engines automatically root out and present this information from WP articles, so it isn't even necessary to enter WP if that's all that you want to find out. Try it with the composer of your choice and see. It is about time that WP editors became of the reality of the internet outside WP. And, while I'm at it, how could an infobox be in any sense considered 'minimal' when it contains (as the proposed Nielsen infobox does) the subject's utterly useless singature, which conveys no information whatsoever?--Smerus (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
By that logic, why even have a Wikipedia article about any classical composer at all? Clearly the internet already has all the information.

Every famous person has an infobox, and they're often the first thing people look at when they click on an article. It seems arbitrary that composers, specifically, should be exempt from this. Removing those infoboxes is counterproductive.

They're not redundant; They're a summary. Wtfduud (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Giving it more thought, I'm going to preemptively say this is a bad idea. The two users above know how easily infobox debating can lead to escalations even up to ArbCom and that such discussions end up pretty circular. Every argument for or against infoboxes is purely WP:ILIKEIT. I would prefer going composer–by–composer simply because even if we did have a discussion, what would it hold? Would it say that infoboxes are allowed? That is already the case. Would it say that infoboxes should always be on a composer's page? That probably doesn't help for smaller articles where maybe an infobox is not the greatest idea. Should we decide if X article is X bytes, it should have an infobox? That is complex and WP:CREEPY. I am open to see how you would start the discussion, but I do not see how it would be productive, even if going large composer-by-composer is a slog. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Infoboxes are allowed? That would be progress. At the moment we have hidden messages saying (in other words) that you have to establish consensus before adding one, which I believe is not in the spirit of BRD: bold editing, and discussing only if challenged. If you haven't seen it yet, look at Stravinsky as it was: "Before adding an infobox, please consult Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes and seek change of the current consensus against an infobox on this article's talk page." The "current consensus" is based on a 2010 RfC, just a project guideline, and not binding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- So in the spirit of BRD it's OK with you if editors delete existing info-boxes without seeking a consensus? That would be progress. Tim riley talk 12:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  - The spirit of BRD would be that if someone does delete an existing one, it could be reverted and discussed and should be left there until after the discussion. But certain people wouldn't care, they'd just go "blah blah info boxes are horrible and nasty and how dare you be redundant". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
    Oh, dear! Name-calling and deceit are no substitute for reasoned, civil argument. How many more times is it necessary to point out that nobody, as far as I know, has ever expressed the view that info-boxes are "nasty" or invariably redundant? Most of us include them in new articles we create where they are useful. I did so myself the day before yesterday. But they are not always useful, and it is unjustified to scream at those who dare to say so. Tim riley talk 14:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  - Yes, of course. It happens all the time. Normally I just let it happen, and only make a note of the revert. After my collection of revert memory was deleted as an "attack page" I do that on my user page. - The definition of useful will vary from reader to reader, so why not serve different interests? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
    You mean a compulsory info-box for all articles? Please answer this question honestly. Tim riley talk 15:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry for having been unclear, I answered your question "So in the spirit of BRD it's OK with you if editors delete existing info-boxes without seeking a consensus?" The answer is: yes. It happens all the time that infoboxes are reverted without seeking consensus. Normally I just let it happen. ... - Adding: we have now many editors who have never heard of an infobox conflict. They add one and get reverted, and I feel sorry for them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
    No mention of the highly questionable Nixonesque "silent majority" rubbish yet, Gerda? That's another golden nugget pulled by people on your side of the argument to justify infobox inclusion. 92.40.219.203 (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not certain what you are saying. A simple yes or no would reveal your agenda to everyone: do you assert that all Wikipedia articles should have an info-box? Tim riley talk 19:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No. I have no agenda. I believe that with clear data of birth and death together - as biographies normally have but our MoS doesn't recommend (which actually says that just years of birth and death are enough for the first sentence) - an article is more accessible, but if a user doesn't think so, I don't care. See Debussy for a recent example. - I want articles that I stand for to have an infobox, which to achieve was hard for Peter Planyavsky in 2013 (perhaps you remember that one of the arbs wanted to see an editor banned because he had uncollapsed and moved an infobox there for me), still hard for Max Reger in 2016, and still for Psalm 149 in 2020 (with a now banned user ), but I had no problems afterwards. See also User talk:Gerda Arendt/2021#Infoboxes for top composers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for answering the question. As you now say there should be articles without an info-box please help us all by telling us which, with particular examples, and explaining why. Tim riley talk 21:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I said that I care that "my" articles have an infobox, and I don't mind too much if others don't. (Example: I proposed an infobox for Richard Wagner in 2013, and made a bet that he'd have an infobox by 2020, and when 2020 came I didn't care any more.) How you get from my reply that articles "should be without" I don't understand. Leave "my" articles in peace, and I leave "your articles" in peace has worked rather well, no? I'm talking about biographies, per the header. An infobox for an opera reverted in 2023 is a different story: the template - concise from the start - was designed for the project, and has been well accepted over the 10 years. On the Main page today: Nabucco, mostly by Viva-Verdi, including the infobox from 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

10 years

Looking back at the more than ten years I've seen infobox disputes, I remember some highlights of the peaceful revolution against treating composers differently from other creative people, - for my own memory but perhaps it helps others also.

article	diff	by user	date	discussion	notes
Clara Schumann	add	Sixtyseemonkey	12 Sep 2012
Ilse Weber	add	Kschlot1	16 Nov 2012
Robert Stoepel	add	kosboot	4 Mar 2013	disc
Peter Planyavsky	start	Gerda Arendt	4 Mar 2013
Percy Grainger	experiment	Brian Boulton	29 Oct 2013
Imogen Holst	risk	Brian Boulton	24 Feb 2014
Erich Wolfgang Korngold	add	IP	3 Sep 2014
Frédéric Chopin	RfC consensus	Brian Boulton	19 Feb 2015	2014, 2015	restored in 2023
Javier Álvarez	add	TobiasAD	26 Apr 2015
Ludwig van Beethoven	RfC consensus	Worm That Turned	14 May 2015	RfC
Leonard Bernstein	add	IP	22 Aug 2015
Edvard Grieg	add	IP	5 Sep 2015
Johann Sebastian Bach	add	Nyetoson	14 Oct 2015	disc 2013
Gian Carlo Menotti	add	Apokrifos	28 Jan 2016
Carl Orff	add	BPK2	2 May 2016
Max Reger	try	Gerda Arendt	9 May 2016	disc
Max Bruch	add	Ezhao02	21 Jul 2017
Ferdinando Paer	try	Gerda Arendt	27 Apr 2018
Ethel Smyth	add	WomenArtistUpdates	6 May 2019
Jörg Widmann	try	Gerda Arendt	6 Feb 2020
Judith Weir	add	Willwal1	17 Mar 2020
Elena Kats-Chernin	add	Maryphillips1952	23 Sep 2020
Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji	per PR comments	Toccata quarta	23 Nov 2020
George Enescu	add	RAMSES$44932	14 Apr 2021
Paul Hindemith	add	Gerda Arendt	20 May 2021
Jean Sibelius	try	Gerda Arendt	8 Dec 2021	disc
Darius Milhaud	add	Valentinejoesmith	27 Jan 2022
György Kurtág	add	Mandtplatt	22 Feb 2022
Karol Szymanowski	add	IP	4 Apr 2022
Artemy Vedel	add	Gerda Arendt	9 Sep 2022
Boris Blacher	add	Toadboy123	26 Sep 2022
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky	RfC consensus	Shibbolethink	5 Jan 2023	RfC
Sergei Prokofiev	add	Pearman2	16 Feb 2023
Johannes Brahms	finally	Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov	24 Feb 2023
Alban Berg	add	Engineerchange	26 Feb 2023
Zoltán Kodály	add	Dseay2	3 Mar 2023
Igor Stravinsky	add	MyCatIsAChonk	9 Mar 2023
Carl Nielsen	add	Silence of Järvenpää	29 Mar 2023	disc
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart	RfC consensus	Shibbolethink	30 Mar 2023	RfC
Giacomo Puccini	no objection	UndercoverClassicist	3 Jun 2023
Clarence Barlow	add	IP	29 Jun 2023
Dmitri Shostakovich	add	EthanCheung19	5 Jul 2023

This was meant in response to the thread below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC) ... announcing the RfC for Mozart, archived --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I reiterate that this project is an outlier and that with most other projects there's no disputes or objections to having infoboxes. Please don't think of the infobox as a literary device; it is a structural device which will eventually be driven by Wikidata (as has been done on some already) in order to have the same information on different language wikis. - kosboot (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Concerto delle donne Featured article review

I have nominated Concerto delle donne for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

List of Compositions complete in one page vs multiple pages

So recently SaryaniPaschtorr spun out the piano and vocal works from List of compositions by Robert Schumann. Normally it's always been the goal to have complete composition works on a single page with any sub articles needing to be more than just list articles, while still keeping the complete composition articles (though I suppose a number of composers mostly known for operas don't keep to this). It seems anti-helpful to do it the way it's been done...to me the goal should be a full sortable list on a single page, and flat out removing two large sections runs counter to that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Makes no sense to me removing from the main list as well and I've just reverted that portion of the edits. Aza24 (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Für Elise by Andy Williams

What's the proper way to handle this song? If someone goes to the She'll Never Know article it needs to be made clear that's a different song, but I can't find reliable sources that will permit an article on the Andy Williams song or even more information in another article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Piano Quartet (Schumann)#Requested move 8 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Piano Quartet (Schumann)#Requested move 8 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Input request

Members may wish to comment here as some classical musicians have been the recipient of this award. The outcome could also impact other categories on awards in the arts by setting a precedent. All opinions welcome. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 1#Category:Kennedy Center honorees.4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hello everyone!

I'm curious if there are any people, events, compositions, etc. that are in need of creation immediately? I know there is a list of To-Do items but I wanted to inquire personally. JohnDVandevert (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Music editor

Surprisingly, we didn't have an article on the occupation of music editor and this was a redirect to music sequencer. I just knocked off a quick article. If anyone cares to expand, have at it.4meter4 (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Corelli move discussion

Project members may be interested in this move discussion. – Aza24 (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Schubert's last sonatas

Schubert's last sonatas has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Article overlap tangle

Chicago College of Performing Arts, The Music Conservatory of Chicago College of Performing Arts, and Chicago Musical College, all seem to be in a tangle. I don't necessarily oppose three articles, but it seems to me that if we are going to have three, then the "Chicago Musical College" article should be trimmed to stop at 1954 as it doesn't exist anymore, and the later content should be moved to the currently existing The Music Conservatory of Chicago College of Performing Arts. Further, alumni, faculty, and directors of the Chicago College of Performing Arts should be removed from all alumni and faculty of Roosevelt University categories unless they were part of the institution after the merger. Thoughts?4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I think your solution makes sense, although I'm having trouble understanding what exactly The Music Conservatory of Chicago College of Performing Arts is in the first place. Aza24 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Baetz

Comments would be appreciated. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Gaetano and Pietro Sgarabotto

This article has several issues, including oddly no lead section.4meter4 (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The absence of a lead section is among the lesser issues… Keriluamox (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I gave it a lead and trimmed the ornamented prose of the biographies (which looked copied from somewhere). That's all I have time for right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amin Ghafari

I would appreciate input at this AFD. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion at Talk:Gioachino Rossini, regarding the question if a link to a composer's works in an infobox is a break of policy. Such a link - instead of listing individual works - has been the concept of {{infobox classical composer}}, dating from 2008, and has been used in infoboxes such as Chopin and Beethoven since 2015. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override policy. - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

There can still be discussion about how to interpret the policy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

About what proportion of readers we want to ignore and not serve? That would even less constructive than endless pushing for IBs into a range of articles, but whatever floats people's boats, I guess. - SchroCat (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is not about the infobox, but how you understand what seems not even to be policy, according to a comment at Rossini. - About "pushing infoboxes": they come by community consensus, Chopin (2015), Beethoven (2015), Mozart (2023), and how many more discussions do we need until we can end this dispute? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Like Claude Debussy (2023)? How long? As long as people keep pushing for them or there is a central RFC. So far, every time someone has tried to have a guideline that all biographies should include one, the community rejects it. Again, this is unlikely to turn into anything constructive, so I'm going to step away. - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The community didn't attend Debussy, knowing that the principal editors don't like it. Who wants to annoy them? Not me. - The community, however, attended Mozart and supported an infobox, both by number of participants as by quality of arguments. You may not be aware that project opera changed its guidelines in the matter in 2019. Perhaps this project could do the same. The 2010 recommendation seems not to reflect current use. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course the community attended Debussy: that's what an RFC does. I have been aware of the change here for a few years, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the link used in IBs is a breach that ensures many of our readers are unable to see the information. It was an argument pushed by those wanting IBs for several years, so it's surprising to see it dumped so quickly now. I'm going to take this page off my watchlist for a while, as this is not constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for input

There is a current discussion over the appropriateness of a particular quote about composer Samuel Barber at Talk:Samuel Barber#Most celebrated composer?. The quote in question was written by Donal Henahan in The New York Times. This is the quote and source: "Probably no other American composer has ever enjoyed such early, such persistent and such long-lasting acclaim." Donal Henahan (January 24, 1981). "Samuel Barber, Composer, Dead: Twice Winner of Pulitzer Prize". The New York Times. The quote was removed from the lead of the article here: [3] Please comment at the discussion at: Talk:Samuel Barber#Most celebrated composer?. All opinions are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Contemporary music

After a discussion, Contemporary music is no longer a redirect to Contemporary classical music, although the redirect came from a merge. It left hundreds of articles with a misleading link. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Wikipedia:Bot requests :) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It can't be done automatically, because how would the bot know if (only) classical music is meant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Are submissions for classical music articles being fairly judged by non-expert editors?

I am concerned that some reviewers may not be applying appropriate criteria to proposed new wikipages on classical music and may be rejecting them unreasonably. I have tried twice to create Draft:Leonkoro Quartet. The first time it was rejected on notability criteria (which I believe the reviewer failed to apply properly) but also on lack of verification for sources, which was a reasonable point requiring improvement. I did this to his satisfaction (I believe), but the reviewer did not accept the article, but suggested I resubmit it. I did so, but it has been rejected again by a different reviewer. I had documented my discussion with the first reviewer on the article's talk page. Is it possible that some reviewers are misapplying criteria which are designed for rock bands to classical music, and has this happened before? If so, is there any action that this WikiProject can take? Or does the article require improvement, in which case I would welcome suggestions, as frankly I am losing the will to live with this. It seems to me that the Leonkoro Quartet do clearly meet Wikipedia notability criteria and that I have provided adequate sources, so I am puzzled how to proceed further. Is there any right of appeal against a reviewer who seems to have incorrectly applied the criteria that they quote? Hyperman 42 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The Gramphone review clearly meets the criteria; you need more like that, not mere announcements and PR. As is often the case, neither of the reviewers are I think regular editors in this area. They seem notable to me. Johnbod (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I had a look. The Wigmore Hall links are both expired and unavailable. Pretty much the only reasonable reference is the Strad review. If you could get more like that review, the article could be improved. As far as the content, to me the article seems purely promotional and thus runs again WP:SOAP. It mentions a number of awards (which exist mostly to perpetuate classical music or satisfy a donor's ego), but....so what. Literally the article probably barely passes notability, but the spirit of the article is merely promotional and exploitative of Wikipedia. - kosboot (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging up about the difficulty with the Wigmore Hall links, I will recheck this. I have no connection with the Leonkoro Quartet and the purpose of the article was to give them a Wikipedia page, like virtually all previous winners of this major triennial competition. It would be anomalous not to do so. Hyperman 42 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Further to this, I have checked the Wigmore hall links and they were indeed broken because they have reconfigured their website and not provided redirect links to previous page addresses. However, the relevant pages still exist, so I have now provided replacememtn links which do seem to work. Thanks for spotting this and flagging up the problem. Hyperman 42 (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I looked. Perhaps look at other articles about string quartets, Arditti Quartet for example. I miss: who are the people, how did they get together, where did they study, with whom, what kind of music do they play, and how? To jump right into awards tells me nothing about music. I don't feel I'm an expert, but those are basics. - There is no need on Wikipedia to say that a hall is prestigious, - stay factual. The official website should not be used as a reference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

OK - it's not the hall that is referred to as prestigious (though it in fact is) but the competition itself, which is triennial and one of the 2 or 3 leading competitions in the world for this format, as well as being the oldest. Interesting point about the level of detail desired on the quartet; I felt much of this would be on their official website, but it could indeed be expanded if felt worthwhile. Hyperman 42 (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Update; I'm pleased to say that the original reviewer has now reversed his decision after I engaged in discussion with him and explained the background, and the article has now been accepted. Thanks for everyone's feedback. Certainly improvements are possible, and thanks for the suggestions on these. Hyperman 42 (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Improvements for article

Hi, I wanted to share this article List of burial places of classical musicians hoping it can be a nice resource.

However, the article could greatly benefit from additional contributions, especially in finding and adding new pictures of the musicians' tombs to Commons (or improving some existing low quality ones). If anyone lives nearby or happens to travel to these locations, it would be wonderful if you could visit and take photographs, which could also help improving the own subject's article.

Of course, any other improvements or suggestions are also appreciated. Gor1995 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Gor1995, your list looks good and well sourced!

You should take another look at the Geographic distribution maps. They have a good visual element, but for regions/continents with say 3–5 (or less) burials, I don't really think they add much. Having an entire map of South America for just one burial, or even having a Russia-specific map for three is uncalled for.

You might also consider sorting the locations differently: it would be nice to click on that column and see each German city next to each other, rather than alphabetically throughout the world. To accomplish this, you can put | data-sort-value="COUNTRY, CITY"| in front of each entry. Best – Aza24 (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your feedback!

I agree with your observations about the maps... I was not completely satisfied with the number of maps and the way they're displayed in the page. I'll try to find a better way...

Regarding the sorting of locations, that's an excellent suggestion. I'll work on adding the data-sort-value attribute.

Thanks again for your input. Gor1995 (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Guto Puw

Guto Puw has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 07:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist WP Classical music

Is there a way to watch the recent changes made on articles under the scope the project? I know you can watch changes made to pages in Category:WikiProject Classical music articles, but that's just the talk pages, not the articles themselves. It looks like there were some tools that helped with that, but they got shut down (tool1 , tool2).

I noticed that WP Medicine created this page (looks like via PetScan) to list all 53000+ pages under the scope of the project and then they use the related changes to watch the articles. That's an option but it's a huge page and also has to be updated manually...

If currently that is the best option, would you support doing that for this project? thanks -- Gor1995 𝄞 01:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to copy the WP Med model via petscan, although I'm not sure there would be a demand for such a page. You might already know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Article alerts, which has at least some of the more "important" changes. Personally, adding 50k pages to my watch list is a bit intimidating :) Aza24 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to have something like Special:RecentChanges but limited to a certain topic. Luckily Classical music "only" has 25k articles :)

I'll wait a bit in case someone comes out with a better option...

In Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Tools I included other resources that I believe could be explored. Thanks -- Gor1995 𝄞 10:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)