Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

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:

• Flute repertoire
• Bassoon repertoire
• Trumpet repertoire
• Trombone repertoire
• Tuba repertoire
• Viola repertoire

(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:

• List of compositions for cello and organ
• List of compositions for two violins
• List of compositions for viola: A to B (and other letters)
• List of compositions for piano duo

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)

Score

I am looking for an equivalent to de:Partitur, the kind of sheet music showing all parts of a composition together. I thought that is "score". Score, and Score (music), however, are just redirects, and what I am looking for is not an option, because sheet music can many types which do not show all parts. Autograph score doesn't help either. Help? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be covered in the "Types" section of sheet music, especially the ""Full scores, variants, and condensations" subsection, rather than being split to an independent article. TJRC (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That's way down in the article. How would a reader see in the first few lines what a score is? Reading the present intro, I felt I was at the wrong article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not defending it; I'm just pointing out where the treatment is on enwiki. TJRC (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Gerda - the equivalent of Partitur in English is "Full score", not, as you thought, just plain "score". As the lead for the article Sheet music states, "The term score [in English, as this is English WP] is a common alternative (and more generic) term for sheet music, and there are several types of scores, as discussed below. The term score can also refer to theatre music, orchestral music or songs written for a play, musical, opera or ballet, or to music or songs written for a television programme or film." The link full score would take you to the definition if you need it in an article.--Smerus (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, always learning. I bet I did it wrong in hundreds of articles, and nobody told me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, you don't always in English have to use 'full score' (in the sense that you might in German if you were writing 'Partitur'). It's perfectly OK to say (for example) 'In Beethoven's score of the 9th Symphony, he included bass drum, triangle and cymbals.'--Smerus (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

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: 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)

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)
• 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)

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)

Mozart

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)