Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Biographical infoboxes: Milton Adolphus

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) insists that this composers biographies must have infoboxes despite the guideline here on this project.

On Talk:Milton Adolphus he writes: " Individual projects don't determine global Wikipedia policy. Please leave the infobox intact until a global Wikipedia policy is in place. Wikiproject New York can't create a rule that all New Yorkers don't get infoboxes, it has to be determined at a global level, so the look and feel of the encyclopedia is consistent among biographies."

He has also, for reasons I don't understand, referred this to Wikipedia:Notability (people), see Individual wikiprojects are deleting infoboxes from articles.

My own understanding is that there is no new policy on WP to say that biographical infoboxes must be used. --Kleinzach 09:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

  • This issue again. FYI, Richard can be a very querulous editor. His edit-warring has I believe been the subject of an arbcom case. I would recommend that you post the link to our debate on that page and make sure it includes the exchange with Andy Mabbet since he made many of the same accusations about ownership and the like. I don't know why he would post to Wikipedia:Notability (people). Eusebeus (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Right. Actually Andy Mabbet is indeed again involved in this, see here. --Kleinzach 13:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I reverted back the infobox addition and we now seem to have a low-level edit war on our hands. If editors think it salutary to reopen the infobox debate, I am happy to engage in further discussion. Meanwhile, it does seem as if we are heading back to where we were just before Andy was slapped with his yearlong restriction. Eusebeus (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has once again put the infobox back on Milton Adolphus. He's also restored infoboxes to Andrzej Panufnik and Alexander Spendiaryan.

He's now posted new topics all entitled either "Individual wikiprojects are deleting infoboxes form articles" or "WikiProject Classical music is deleting infoboxes from articles under their control" on:

(With one crossreference to: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council)

The most substantial discussion at the moment seems to be at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Individual_wikiprojects_are_deleting_infoboxes_from_articles. --Kleinzach 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed them. Probably won't last long; they may return before I finish typing this note.
I don't think our reasons for not wanting them have changed, but it is very possible that people from outside our Wikiproject are not going to understand the nuances of why infoboxes are bad for composers. We can try, -- but oy. There was a suggestion a while back that we may have to compromise on something inoffensive (are they ever inoffensive?) that has, say, only the birth and death dates, as all the other stuff forces the box-maker to make broad and often inaccurate assessments (French or Franco-Flemish? Opera or singspiel? "Occupation" say what? And then it's redundant to have the box stating the same information you see in the article lead) -- but you know -- I don't need to rehash all the arguments. Antandrus (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
At the moment we do at least enjoy whole months of relative tranquillity in which we can get on with writing and editing articles. I'm concerned that this could end if our approach changed. One-sided compromises rarely work. --Kleinzach 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, are you serious that you bring up the hideous argument of location again? Noone has EVER shown why composers are any different from other historical figures in the respect of the location and date issues. So leave that stupidness out of it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Melodia, please learn to indent. Also, how do you put 'infobox drama anywhere' on your watchlist? Just curious! --Kleinzach 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? I indented just fine. As I was replying to Antandrus, who used one colon, I used two. And I have no idea what you mean by " how do you put 'infobox drama anywhere' on your watchlist". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
So you're telling me that I'm "bringing up stupidness"? I don't understand. I was trying to summarize some of the problems we have with infoboxes we have had in the past. Are you an infobox supporter? If so please defend them in a sensible manner. I'm listening. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
My point, again, is that the date of birth issue has nothing to do with being a composer, yet you're using it as an argument against using it on composer boxes. (are italics better for you, Eusebeus?). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, your comments are getting to be pretty ornery on this topic, but yes italics are better than allcaps which is frankly pretty juvenile. And as I recall, many of us had no problem with a basic infobox that just listed Place+DoB/DoD, (although many dislike such infoboxes altogether), if such was deemed useful. Eusebeus (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • (Melodia, while crassness, incivility and ALLCAPS may have their place, it is not this particular corner of the garden, so please tailor your comments accordingly.) I would note for the interest of editors here that RAN's behaviour (e.g. forum shopping in the hope of soliciting enough support so that he can avoid 3RR) has unfortunately been on display before and was the subject of a recent arbcom case. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes. We should expect animosity and self-righteousness with generous accusations of ownership and the like as well over this issue. I suspect this will, as with Andy, end up at AN/I. Meanwhile, I suggest we continue to remove the infobox per the consensus of our group unless some kind of reasonable debate is rekindled that provides compelling grounds for their inclusion. Eusebeus (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I note that in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes, RedSpruce writes:
"I'm including User: User:Alansohn as an involved party because he has a pattern of supporting RAN in this and other edit conflicts. He generally does this with little or not participation on an article's Talk page."
Alansohn is the editor who twice replaced the Milton Adolphus infobox, see [1]. He's been blocked at least three times in the past. --Kleinzach 06:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(tell me about it). Eusebeus (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not this again. *Rolls eyes*. Naturally, I'm still opposed. --Folantin (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This isssue has now been taken over to The Village Pump. --Kleinzach 00:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Class project on Renaissance/Baroque composers

Hi everyone,

A music history class at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee, has evidently assigned its students to pick a topic (usually a composer) and improve the article. If you see a brand-new user show up on an article on your watchlist adding references (invariably to books -- I'm yet to see a web cite), and rewriting prose (sometimes well), it may be related. I bring it up because the same thing happened exactly a year ago, and it took much of my free time between Christmas and New Year's to repair the damage; not all of the edits were of the quality we would like. So far I have identified the following articles as being part of the project:

Here and here is the first successful contact I've had with this group of students. So anyway this is just to let you all know; any suggestions, or assistance after the project completion in fixing what they do would be appreciated. Antandrus (talk) 05:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Would it be reasonable to slap on a 10 day semi-protect for these pages? Who assigns a project like this? (Amendment) Although, looking at the Monteverdi page, the consequence is an abundance of sourced information. Eusebeus (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It would certainly be nice if the instructor 1) let us know it was coming, and 2) (I realize I'm daydreaming) took responsibility for cleaning up any inaccuracies introduced. (For example the editor of the Arcadelt article is using a source from 1900 which is, uh, just not appropriate, being even 49 years before Alfred Einstein's magisterial tome on the topic.) I don't want to screw up their project, but am I being too nice? (There are some issues with the Monteverdi edits, but I'm not going to tangle with them until the editor is done.) Antandrus (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I think, frankly, this is irresponsible, especially considering the overall quality of the editors we have in this project and the fact that we tend to choose our source material carefully. So, yes, you are being too nice ;) - But I defer to your more seasoned judgment. (Meanwhile - I'll take care of Monteverdi when the smoke clears, so you can focus on the 50 other articles that are being screwed around with.) Eusebeus (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
(Getting a word in between edit conflicts) Yes, I also think you (Antandrus) may be in danger of outright canonization, rather than simply being 'too nice'. --Kleinzach 05:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. I volunteer to keep a watch on George Frideric Handel --Kleinzach 05:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Ah, thank you. Monteverdi has needed a facelift for a while anyway. There are still articles from their project last year that are a mess. One or two were so bad I just reverted them, but most of the time I tried to incorporate their material and rewrite their choppy sentences. Marenzio will be some work; the author does not seem to understand the topic (see second paragraph under "music" for example). I have this funny belief that people writing an encyclopedia should understand what they are writing about. Antandrus (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I have this funny belief that people writing an encyclopedia should understand what they are writing about. You are aware this is Wikipedia right, right? Eusebeus (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and I have my moments when I think I must be quite insane for having endured almost five years here ... LOL. Antandrus (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to endorse the more skeptical comments made above. I don't think university teachers ought to be using WP in this way. Their students are academic apprentices, usually very young and not yet qualified for prime time. They ought to be writing term papers, duly graded and commented on by their instructors. We regular WP editors are in the business of assembling reliable information for the public, not in the business of serving as involuntary teaching assistants. Thanks for listening. Opus33 (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, Wikipedia encourages such projects (for better or worse). See Wikipedia:School and university projects. There was recently a kerfuffle over at AN/I about a college project that went rather arwry [2] and another one last May [3]. There have also been some brilliant projects, e.g. [4]. It's worth remembering that the hapless students have no choice about this editing - it's their assignment, so best not to be too 'bitey'. Otherwise they and their instructor go underground, and it's even harder to forestall any potential disruption. I'd suggest putting a welcome template on the relevant student-editors' talk pages plus a message along these lines:
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you are editing here as part of school project or university assignment, please ask your instructor to read this and this and to get in touch with Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers for further help and advice. Best wishes,
Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC) PS It might also be worth contacting the music department [5] at Union Unversity with your concerns if the instructor doesn't make contact. Voceditenore (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've restored this section because actually it's still active. I've been in email correspondence with Prof. Joshua Veltman of the music department at Union University. I tried to persuade him to personally check and vet his students' material before they put it into Wikipedia. He replied quite courteously but noted that he's busy with finals right now and will take a while to formulate an extended reply. At any event, since I invited him to take a look at this very page, I'd like to leave the discussion up here until he has the chance to do so. Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping, Opus! Really appreciate that.
I've started repairing the articles, and am almost finished with the rewrite of Arcadelt (but for the first two long paragraphs under "secular music" and the remainder of "works", which I haven't written yet). The result will be a much better article than was there originally. Probably I'll do Marenzio next. I have not initiated contact with the professor myself.
Professor Veltman, if you are reading this, and I hope you do: this is an encyclopedia, and we take great care to get it right. Our composers project has high standards for accuracy, and there are a lot of people writing articles here who are quite knowledgeable in the area. Please be careful of giving assignments such as the one you have done, since the people who added material to the articles in question have a clearly limited understanding of the subject matter (I can point out specific examples if you wish, but intend to fix them, with a considerable investment of my personal time, possibly before you even see them). I've been kind so far in not simply reverting the articles to their previous versions, because at least some of the additions were good, although all need extensive work. If you choose to assign this again next year would you please consider coordinating with us in advance, and perhaps having your students writing their versions in subpages, which we can then incorporate later?
Thank you all, Antandrus (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Kaschica07 (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)I was a student in that class in the last few years, and my article has yet to be changed because I provided reliable sources. I did extensive research on my topic, Antonio Vivaldi, and when I started editing, the author of that article had less than four sources for the entire article. The article that I edited is accurate, researched, and intelligently written. As adults, I find it disappointing that you have generalized an entire age group (college students) as being unintelligent, incapable of accurate writing, and generally uneducated. This is not the case and I appreciate it if you would not be so quick to judge the work of everyone involved. My work has stood the test of years without changes because of its validity and factual content.

Scrolling box on George Frideric Handel

There are three screenfuls of media files on this biography. In order to save space I put in a scrolling box - reducing the size to half a screen. I thought this was one of my least controversial edits on WP, but I was wrong! The box has been removed, see [6]. I'm very surprised. What do other people think about this? Should we use scrolling boxes to reduce clutter? Is there another solution, perhaps?--Kleinzach 10:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a scrolling box. The editor who removed it gave as reason for it MOS:SCROLL#Scrolling_lists, but the media icons are neither prose nor references, so I'm not sure how that applied. The media icons for ogg files are big and clunky and this article has a plethora of them. Their size causes layout problems in a lot of articles too. I frankly don't understand why they have to be so big. Another possible solution is to put them in 2 columns and remove the unnecessary and (tacky) image of the loudspeaker with musical notes coming out of it. Here's an experiment I tried: [7] - Voceditenore (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the scrolling box fails WP:Accessibility requirements, screen readers used by the blind and equivalent aids can't handle them, taht's really why we have WP:SCROLL David Underdown (talk) 11:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
There was a similar discussion (and objection) at Ludwig van Beethoven — see Talk:Ludwig_van_Beethoven#Media. I then used a more economical method of placing those media files on the page (in a "side-bar"), and similarly at List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
For what it's worth, I think that Voceditenore's version with two columns is much preferrable to the status quo and certainly less laborious to implement than the "side bar" method. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly dislike these long lists of media files - I find them cumbersome and ugly. I don't think that the scroll MOS restrictions apply and certainly think that we should consider different ways to list them more effectively. Eusebeus (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but I suspect the scroll restrictions do apply since there is a considerable amount of text accompanying them and a screen reader wouldn't be able to access all of them. The sidebar certainly is an elegant solution. Perhaps it would be worth the work. But I'm wondering if the article really needs all those files. Wouldn't a representative selection of his work plus a link to this be enough? There's an article about the Messiah where those 3 files could go with just 1 used in this article. Likewise are all 4 movements of Suite I, No. 2 in F Major and Sonata in E minor needed? Or all 3 of Organ Concerto, Op. 7 No. 1. Or 3 "Fitzwilliam" sonatas? Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, a couple with a pointer to the commons page should be good. After all, we don't list all pictures of an artist that are on commons, I imagine. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Exactly! Raphael has 313 images in the Commons. And although his article makes a pretty good stab at it, it only includes 36 of them, and they're much nicer to look at than those horrible clunky ogg things. Besides, images are more immediately 'accessible' to the general reader. Sometimes there's a tendency on Wikipedia to: "If it exists, it must be used." But that can sometimes be counterproductive to providing a good experience for the general reader, who has come to the article to find out more about Handel. How interested will they be in all 4 movements of one of his organ concerti? Also, the labelling on the sound files doesn't always include the HWV number which makes them difficult to cross-reference with the List of compositions by George Frideric Handel. This leaves someone unfamiliar with his work with considerable difficulty in trying to track down more information about the piece. Voceditenore (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't object to providing an extensive list of media files, but the current manner of listing is simply beyond ugly and very awkward for navigation purposes. Could we shift the list to a separate page? The sidebar is better, but as long as the physical space taken up by each file is so big, we'll have the same issue once more than a handful of files are listed. Eusebeus (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
A separate page would be good too. It would allow not only the inclusion of more files, but also for a small bit of explanatory text (with links to the article on the work, if any, and on words like adagio, sonata etc.) which help the general reader know more about what they're listening to. Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with most of what was said above. The boxes are really ugly and cumbersome, but WP needs to be accessible to blind readers. So a separate article seems like the right answer. Opus33 (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I dislike long lists of media files, and think composer articles should only have a representative few. I did try an experiment at Franz Schubert (where there is still a scroll box full of media), moving some files into sidebars (also currently scrolling, but could be made bigger and non-scrolling) near relevant discussion or mention of the work.
Another obvious way to make it known there is more media, but avoid the big media icons, is to list some composition articles that have media. Magic♪piano 20:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We're obviously in one mind on this - thanks to everybody for their comments. I like the idea of putting large collections of media on a completely different page, but I'm not sure what a page of Handel sound files would be called, and whether it could be considered as an article. I wonder if putting them in a compressed (and collapsible) navigation box would be possible? --Kleinzach 03:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Beethoven article

I finally got around to reviewing the article on the little-known, obscure composer by the name of Ludwig van Beethoven. This article (which is deemed to be a vital article) is in fairly poor shape; I tried to characterize my issues with it in my review on the article's Comments page. Is anyone else interested in devoting at least some effort to changing this? (If so, probably the best place to continue the discussion is on the article's talk page.) Magic♪piano 16:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Magicpiano. I don't have this article on my watchlist but I took a look just now. I agree with your assessment and have a couple additional thoughts.
It's quite a job to give a major-composer article real structure; you have to really know the subject (i.e., read multiple biographies), and then think up some general framework of expository organization. It's this overall organization that is very hard for the group, editing communally, to achieve.
In addition, Beethoven's life after about 1800 is especially hard to organize: it was not marked by particularly salient stages or events; but rather involved pretty much the same struggles (bad health, troubled love life, deafness, quarrelsomeness, financial worries) and triumphs (his compositions) repeated over and over again.
Here's a thought that popped into my head: perhaps User:Brianboulton, who has an amazing track record in producing Featured Articles, might be persuaded to take this one on.
For now, there are two things that could produce a quick, easy improvement: delete or satellite-ize the pop culture section and remove that irrelevant little yellow medal. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I've read the article. I agree with the Magicpiano analysis above – it needs a lot of attention. While I'd be willing to help, I don't have a Beethoven library, so I'm not that well up on his biographical details. I know a lot of his music, and usually have some knowledge of the context in which it was written, but I am no expert. I don't know what timescale you have in mind, but I have a bit of an overload at present: a couple of exploration projects I'm currently working on, then Mozart in Italy, so it's probably end-Jan before I could contribute anything. Also, is the objective to produce the most authoritative possible article on L van B, or is it to knock the present article into a presentable, FA-worthy form? Without wishing to sound cynical, I would probably be more useful at the latter than the former. Brianboulton (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've ditched the coincruft, per our earlier discussion about that particular issue. As to the article, I am surprised MagicPiano that you even bothered with a formal review since the article is such a horrendous mess. To do it justice, I think a concerted effort to arrive at a suitable bibliography, structure and content division would be a necessary first step. I would note that many of the trickier aspects of the topic could probably be dealt with in subpages (e.g. stylistic innovations). Eusebeus (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like unnecessarily stepping on toes, so I wanted to be sure I characterized what was wrong before I went off proposing how to fix it. (I normally spend 15-20 minutes on a review; this one was almost 90 minutes before I finished.)
My personal opinion is that the "right" way to fix this is to improve and correct the content, especially the bio. I think formal review should wait (the article is good when it's good, not when the review says so) until the content is more complete. Brian, even if you're not a subject expert, commentary and copyediting at appropriate times would be useful. (I'm not a subject expert either, but I have access to relatively high-quality libraries, and at least some time to use them...) I'm also not suggesting any sort of specific time frame -- now is probably not the best time to start, but sometime in January might be.
Here's what I came up with as an overall sketch. This is based on ideas I've been batting around for Franz Schubert, no reason they can't also apply here:
  • Biography (Life of Beethoven) -- chronology, including personal details and a fair amount of compositional history (this would also cover the influences on him). Subarticle could be Life and work of Ludwig van Beethoven, expanded to be a complete life history rather than a primarily musicological one.
  • Music (Music of Beethoven) -- either genre-based or period-based discussion of his music (possibly further sub-divided). May include contemporaneous as well as modern critical and popular reception of a reasonable number of his works.
  • Impact (Beethoven's Legacy) -- discussion of his influence on other composers over time and reception since his death.
The main article would summarize the above, probably giving more space to the bio. It would also include things like "in popular culture", unless they get too big, in which case they get split too. Also an extended Further Reading section (or even a prose section devoted to different approaches to analyzing his life and works).
Probably the easiest thing to do as a near term "fix" would be to take the Life and work article and the bio in the main article, basically merge them, and then summarize that for the bio portion of the main article. This would reduce the suckage, even if it still leaves gaps, which are less obnoxious to experience.
This discussion is probably best continued on the article talk page. Magic♪piano 01:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
A few points here since the organization of Beethoven articles is relevant to that of other major composers. IMO we should avoid general, wide-ranging articles like Life of . . ., Music of . . ., . . .'s Legacy (three main pages) as this will lead to repeating similar information on multiple pages, thereby confusing the reader, who will not know whether he or she is reading a main text or a summary. ('Life', 'Music' and 'Legacy' are all subjects normally covered by the same main article.)
We need a clear structure - a structure that the first-time, Google-directed reader can understand - which avoids duplication. It's better to have a main article (the name of the composer, Ludwig van Beethoven etc.) with conspicuously less important subpages, if necessary indicated by a navbox. That would be more encyclopedic - less cluster-article magazine-like.
So specific, targeted genre/period/relationship based subpages, Beethoven's String Quartets or Critical appreciation of Beethoven in the 19th century would be preferable to general ones and also be in line with WP policy on splitting articles, if and when individual sections grow out of proportion to the original article.
We had a similar problem with Liszt and its subpages - which was resolved in a way that, in my view, has made the articles less accessible that they should be. I hope I've expressed myself clearly. (If not please tell me!) --Kleinzach 02:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

KZ raises some important points. I would comment on the Beethoven talk page but I grow too tired scrolling down the endless reams of projects. Can we hide those damn things? Eusebeus (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe remove the Beethoven 'To do' list? --Kleinzach 02:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I just love how Kleinzach is suggesting the opposite of what is generally encouraged. Oh well, he can keep 'wasting his time' trying to fix it all... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
An inaccurate and unhelpful characterisation of Kleinzach's comment. Eusebeus (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the question of where/how to split is a valid one. KZ's point is valid, and worthy of consideration. I'm not certain what he thinks is wrong with the Liszt pages, but I understand what he's driving at -- carving out smaller things rather than larger ones. The question becomes: how much do (or can) you summarize away in the "parent" article? Duplication is unavoidable; that's what summarization is. Can we write an article that is in large part summarizations of other articles, and still have it be informative and coherent?
(Oh, and I've collapsed the banner box and the todo list on the talk page.) Magic♪piano 04:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Right. I agree summarization is sometimes necessary (though it's not quite the same thing as duplication, i.e. when you repeat facts and examples). I think it's best if the reader can see clearly which is the summary and which is the main text. That's much easier if the summary is considerably shorter than the main text (ideally by a ratio of 1:8 or 1:10).
In the case of Ludwig van Beethoven / Life and work of Beethoven the difference is about 4,500 words to 3,500 words, so it's not clear which of the two articles is supposed to be the more detailed. (For Franz Liszt/Life of Franz Liszt it's 4,000 words to 12,000, i.e 1:3 - too high a ratio IMO, confusing both readers and editors.) --Kleinzach 05:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Archive_18&oldid=1190125539"