Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

Charles-Valentin Alkan

I would like to bring this article up to at least GA, preferably FA, during this year, CVA's bicentenary . All comments/contributions/suggestions welcome.--Smerus (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Orchestra infobox: proposal

All the main orchestra articles at present use the ugly pop music Infobox Musical artist, with fields more suitable for individual musicians such as 'genres', 'occupations', 'associated acts', 'origin', 'years active', 'notable instruments'.

See: Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, BBC Symphony Orchestra, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, Cleveland Orchestra, Dallas Symphony Orchestra, Detroit Symphony Orchestra, London Symphony Orchestra, Los Angeles Philharmonic, Minnesota Orchestra, Montreal Symphony Orchestra, New York Philharmonic, Philadelphia Orchestra, Philharmonia Orchestra, Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Sächsische Staatskapelle Dresden, San Francisco Symphony Orchestra, Seattle Symphony, Toronto Symphony Orchestra, Vienna Philharmonic etc.

Perhaps it's time to do something to cleanup the appearance and the accuracy of these articles? I propose we make a dedicated Infobox orchestra with appropriate fields. Is that OK? I know many of us dislike boxes for biographies, but institutions should be a lot less controversial. It might be helpful if people could agree/disagree, and perhaps even offer to help with the box if the project was interested in going ahead with this. Thank you. Kleinzach 03:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I think that's a good concept and if we can create an infobox for orchestras, it will definitely work for us. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support per proposal. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - would certainly be a great improvement on current situation. But please don't make it too enormous! (Maybe date founded/founder/home town where not in title/base concert hall if any/present lead conductor/website?)--Smerus (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest to first look if existing infoboxes don't cover the requirements, for example {{Infobox organisation}}, or can be expanded to meet them, also compare {{Infobox choir}}, for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've proposed a box specially for orchestras, Gerda. If the proposal is accepted, we can discuss here what fields it will have. Kleinzach 09:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Why not update the documentation for the existing infobox, indicating which fields are not suitable for orchestras? Of the parameters you list, (place of) origin may be relevant, for orchestras with no place name in their own name; as might years active, for defunct orchestras, while a year of foundation is needed for those still active. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. We definitely need this infobox. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Fields for infobox orchestra

We have a consensus for a new box — which I hope won’t be disrupted — so what design and what fields are appropriate? My suggestion would be to use the 'clean design' of Template:Infobox person (pale grey tint with black hairline boxing). Per Smerus above, fields could be:

• date founded
• founder
• home city (if not in title)
• home concert hall
• principal conductor
• famous instruments
• website

I’ve added ‘famous instruments’ to Smerus’s list because a number of mainly American orchestra articles list Stradivarius instruments, organs etc, see for example Los Angeles Philharmonic. However we could leave that out, or put the info in a separate box, if people think the infobox would be too busy.

Please comment if you think any of the fields should be omitted, or if extra ones should be added. Thanks! Kleinzach 02:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Asking as someone having no knowledge, I would have assumed the instruments were generally the property of the individual musicians rather than the orchestra. (Obviously not an organ.) I take it this is wrong? Milkunderwood (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) See List of Stradivarius instruments for owners of some instruments. I think this might be complicated with some instruments owned by foundations etc. Obviously any info we include would have to be checked. --Kleinzach 03:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think listing instruments owned would count as trivia. It's not a widely known fact about any orchestra (whereas the identity of the music director and the name of the concert hall is). It also can't make that much difference to the sound of the orchestra; most musicians play their own instruments. So let's leave it out. Opus33 (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Opus33. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll strike it out for now. Kleinzach 03:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What about particularly important previous principal conductors, and dates? Szell Cleveland, Karajan Philharmonia, etc? -- Munch, Koussevitzy, Bernstein -- too much clutter? And isn't it likely that "founders" are unknown obscure names? Milkunderwood (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I withdraw my own suggestion about prior conductors. These should be listed in the text. But what about "founders"? I would relegate these to a text mention. Or, what is a "founder"? Occasionally a conductor will decide to create an orchestra for his own use, but generally it's some civic leader with a gleam in his eye, who acts as organizer and fund-raiser, and hires a conductor. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested fields (edited to strike guest conductors):

1. home city (if not in title)
2. date founded (and date disbanded, if defunct)
3. home concert hall
4. principal conductor

• principal guest conductors, if any, no more than two at most (? this is probably asking for trouble)

5. website

All significant prior principal conductors should be listed, with dates, in the text. The term "music director" should not be used, because a principal conductor may not have been officially designated as such -- cf. Philharmonia Orchestra early history. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Nordwestdeutsche Philharmonie
Years active	1953 (1953) – 1955 (1955): Wilhelm Schüchter 2006 (2006) – 2009 (2009): Andris Nelsons 2010 (2010) – present: Eugene Tzigane other conductors 1950 (1950) – 1952 (1952): Rolf Agop 1959 (1959) – 1960 (1960): Hermann Scherchen
Known for	concert tours to Japan Italy Switzerland United States
serving Bad Salzuflen Bünde Detmold Lemgo Minden Paderborn

Comments:

• The home city should be mentioned even if it is part of the title.
• Conductors: the current conductor and important predecessors could be listed open, other former ones in a collapsed list. For example: Nordwestdeutsche Philharmonie (In the real article, I would list all with an article.)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Re. principal guest conductors, and Milkunderwood's remark, "this is probably asking for trouble": Yup! Deciding which guest conductors are "principal" is a judgment call, often nuanced, and so properly addressed with prose in the article itself. One of the problems infoboxes cause is that they encourage editors to make all-or-nothing snap decisions on nuanced topics. I think if "principal guest conductor" is removed, an infobox containing the remaining five fields would not be likely to cause too much trouble. Opus33 (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) (revised below) Milkunderwood (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

We are at the beginning of a discussion, right, offering options. We could list all conductors, list all with an article, or highlight a few and collapse others, then again: others could be all others, all others with an article, selected others. - It's only an attempt to show possibilities, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, of course Gerda - we are just throwing out ideas. Here is the way I was trying to revise my paragraph above:

It occurs to me the same criticism applies to Gerda's example, where she specifies "important" predecesors, skipping some years as presumably unimportant(?). Further, there's no point in saying the Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, etc, orchestras are located in those cities - that's just clutter. NWD would fall under Kleinzach's exception. Also, NWD is different from most orchestras in "serving" a region rather than being located in a large city. Attendees may come from all over the world, to any orchestra. And I disagree with including tours in an info box. Let's keep it simple. What would be helpful would be to list the types of information that may be useful to discuss in the article, as opposed to putting it in the infobox. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, in a separate conversation on our userpages, Gerda has raised the issue of infoboxes needing certain information being specified for the purpose of inclusion of metadata, which I know nothing at all about. This would put the whole topic in a different light. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

For orchestras whose name is not in English, a parameter for |name_lang=, to take the two-letter ISO code (such as de for German). This would not be displayed, but applied using {{lang}}. I can provide markup if necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Re 'metadata': this is a red herring, as far as I can gather from discussions about infoboxes in other arenas. Maybe Gerda has got the wrong end of the stick. Metadata may be linked to infoboxes, but don't have to be (and vice versa). It's a quite separate topic, and shouldn't be allowed to muddy the waters of this discussion, which otherwise could risk becoming yet another attempt by fanatics to slap infoboxes on everything in sight by falsely citing metadata and other little-understood topics as excuses for global standardization. There seems to be some consensus here on orchestras; let's not put it at risk by seeking to broaden the issue. Oh, and of course keep doubtful topics sch as 'guest conductors' and trivia such as tours out of any orchestra box. WP:KISS--Smerus (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't mention the word you don't like, and told you, Milkunderwood, better not to do so (on my talk), and certainly hoped if doing so my name was not mentioned. - I didn't raise a stick, so can't drop it ;) - I could begin a template on a user page, to be edited by all until we are happy, - perhaps easier than showing too many examples here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No offense intended. If there's a controversy, I know nothing about it. I certainly agree with Smerus, to keep it as simple as possible, which I thought had been illustrated in my (amended) five fields. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never before had occasion to look at an infobox template, but looking now at Template:Infobox choir, this mess is exactly what we are trying to avoid here - it has fields for every conceivable item of information. Would it help for this Template:Infobox orchestra to specifically say in the explanation that fields should not be expanded, and additional information such as [...] should be listed, mentioned, or discussed only in the text of the article? Milkunderwood (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The fields don't have to be filled, of course, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

But this is the whole point - if the fields are there, people will fill them. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A latecomer as usual, I do support the proposal, but I have a couple of thoughts. First, something specific: might it be useful to add a line for former names or predecessor organizations? I'm thinking in particular of the George Enescu Philharmonic, formerly the Bucharest Philharmonic, and what today we call the New York Philharmonic, which until sometime in the early '50s or so was The Philharmonic-Symphony Orchestra of New York, derived from merger during the Great Depression of the New York Philharmonic and the New York Symphony. Seems to me that's the sort of "un-nuanced," purely factual information that a "quick glance" user, say, somebody coming to Wikipedia because confused by dueling Toscanini reissues citing different names for the same organization, might be grateful to have presented without need to resort to the text. Second, and rather more generally, might we do well, before going much further, to take a look at a cross section of the orchestra articles and systematically assess what pitfalls they may present and how well the proposals to date would deal with them? Better to chase out potential problems now, I think, than to discover them after the box has come into being. Drhoehl (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

And a couple of others that might bear consideration (sorry if somehow I missed them earlier): what about, for want of a better term, "type": broadcast (e.g., NBC Symphony), concert (e.g., Philadelphia Orchestra), recording (e.g., Philharmonia Orchestra), etc.? And what about record labels? Drhoehl (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

To me these are both very interesting ideas. The first, concerning different names, I agree would be important to include in an infobox for the reason given. Concerning "type", first, all three categories suggested did make recordings. I had not been aware that the Philharmonia did not give live performances. And I wonder if these might be difficult to reference. (Note that at the top of the major section on his proposal, Kleinzach listed a number of orchestras for reference in this discussion.) Milkunderwood (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary

Thank you everybody. I think we have some agreement about essential fields and some good ideas for optional fields. Without making any final decisions on these, I've gone ahead and created:

• Template:Infobox orchestra
• Template:Infobox orchestra/doc

These will require tech checks before they are usable. Can we continue discussions about fields at Template talk:Infobox orchestra? Kleinzach 03:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Followup: 'Native name' field

Unfortunately changes are already being made to the box without discussion, see [1] and [2].

We now have a field called 'Native name' which no-one asked for! (The name of the orchestra is now sometimes in more than one language, i.e. English and the 'original'!) etc. (We also have microformats, coordinates etc.). It's a pity because these changes are being made before the setup is even finished (which can't be done in userspace). I had asked Frietjes to look at it. --Kleinzach 14:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

(I was not involved but would assume that) for the Vienna Philharmonic, there should be a parameter saying that they call themselves "Wiener Philharmoniker", and the information that this is German. - I didn't know that anything is ever "finished" on WP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, do you really want to see the 'original name Vs English name' can of worms re-opened? Don't you realise that many editors want all German names to be translated into English? --Kleinzach 15:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I observe names such as Deutsche Radio Philharmonie Saarbrücken Kaiserslautern which I hope will not be translated, and I see that in some cases you could not deduct the original name from a translation, for example "Symphony" could have been Sinfoniker, Symphoniker, Sinfonieorchester, - and some names are awfully similar: WDR Symphony Orchestra Cologne is the WDR Sinfonieorchester Köln, until the 1990s Kölner Rundfunk-Sinfonie-Orchester, but there's also a different orchestra, WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln, which is a wrong redirect at present, it should be a translation of de:WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln. To make it short: these names are the worms, not the discussion, and if you go to the native names you are safer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This has got nothing to do with infoboxes. Wrong redirects etc. should of course be corrected. No-one is disagreeing with you about this. --Kleinzach 00:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I put it back to the last version edited by Kleinzach, considering this a case of simple vandalism. I apologize to editor Frietjes for the collateral damage. Opus33 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was vandalism. Gerda pointed out to that editor that the box might be a "fork" [3], and he was trying to improve it by bringing the code in line with other boxes of that type. Some of it is an improvement in its mechanics. The "native name" field is debatable. Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I wrote "These will require tech checks before they are usable." That was disregarded. 'That editor' (who many of us think should be topic banned, see [4]) characteristically went in and took pre-emptive action to get what he wanted included in the box, including the language stuff. Obviously not everything he did was bad, but that's hardly the point. Kleinzach 17:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I know who 'that editor' is. The way he made the changes was not at all collegiate, but not vandalism either. Voceditenore (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I support Voceditore's view, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? Voceditenore (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Are we are being a little naive here? 'That editor' wrote: "This new infobox looks promising, but should not replace infoboxes with additional, useful, parameters, such as those in City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, until it can handle similar detail (with better labels, of course)." [5]. So he's determined to inflate the number of fields until the new box matches the trivia of the pop music one, contrary to the intentions of everybody here (except possibly our poor Gerda who thinks this is about Germany-language titles!). Are we all ready for another huge-waste-of-time edit war? "Not at all collegiate" yes, well . . .Kleinzach 10:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Naive? No. Disingenuous? Yes. I said nothing about "trivia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Opus33 should be aware that false accusations of vandalism are not allowed on Wikipedia. I invite him to strike that comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As also noted on the template's talk page, there is no requirement for prior discussion before changes are made, especially to a draft temp[late. You say "no one asked for" the native name parameter; I did so above, yesterday, and it clearly didn't arise spontaneously. And there is no coordinates parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to throw a spanner into this discussion, is Württembergisches_Kammerorchester_Heilbronn WP's standard format for other-language orchestra/chamber groups? Milkunderwood (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

We are probably the most German-friendly group of editors on WP — Gerda please note — but that might be pushing it. --Kleinzach 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Appreciating your friendliness, I started a new thread for this topic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Guideline

Can we add a short paragraph to our guidelines about orchestra infoboxes as follows?

A dedicated infobox for orchestras is available. This is called {{Infobox orchestra}} and is available at Template: Infobox orchestra. (As noted elsewhere, the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article.)

Thanks. Kleinzach 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The first two sentences can be shortened to: "A dedicated infobox, {{Infobox orchestra}}, is available." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Native name fields again added

The native name fields have again been added to the template[6]. As there is no significant support for these fields (adding invented translated names of orchestras that don't have official English names) I've reverted. It really is difficult to develop bona fide info boxes for CM articles when this kind of thing is going on. This again illustrates why so many of us think the attempt to work on fit for purpose boxes is counter-productive. (And yes, the same editor, is of course involved here.) Kleinzach 04:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

For the second time today these fields have been added. [7]. --Kleinzach 15:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

TFD for collapsed infobox code

The Infobox collapsing code discussed during the past few days at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes has been sent to Templates for discussion (or rather deletion), see here. --Kleinzach 09:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The code collapsing complete sections is discussed, - collapsing lists within a parameter is not discussed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Leo Mouravieff (?)

Has anyone ever heard of a Russian composer whose transliterated name might be Leo Mouravieff [8] or Leon Mouraviev [9], or perhaps Leo/Leon Muraviev/ff [10], without the "o"? According to a Vox Records CD, he was born in 1905. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

According to this source:

"Leon Mouraviev was born in 1905 in Kiev, studied with Gliere, and later in Germany and France. He left the USSR in 1937, and lived in Paris until his death in 1987. His Nativiti is a rather dark, morose work for strings without much character."

Voceditenore (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Great - thanks very much for this info. I'm guessing that since he lived in France, the Leon Mouraviev is the spelling he used there for his professional career. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Württembergisches Kammerorchester Heilbronn

As pointed out, we have Württembergisches Kammerorchester Heilbronn, starting the lead with a translation, - strange. The orchestra abbreviates itself WKO, leaving out Heilbronn as the location. Heilbronn seems officially part of their name, but not commonly used, has a different colour and line on their web. - Do with it what you like, but make it consistent ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The official English name is Württemberg Chamber Orchestra Heilbronn. Should I move it? --Kleinzach 15:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I've now made the move. This means it's now searchable in both English and German. --Kleinzach 04:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm torn. In general I prefer using "real" names - I'm a fanatic about using people's correct diacritics - but as long as there is an "official" name in English, for en:wp I think it ought to be moved, with all appropriate redirects. I had just stumbled across this one rather than going looking for an example. There are also names in French, which I'm not thinking of at the moment; and just now searching for Orquesta Pau Casals I find Pablo Casals Orchestra which I'm sure was never used, and in the lead further down in the text is misspelled Orquestra Pau Casals. In sum, we should not be doing our own translating without good sources. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The last point is important: we should never invent English titles that don't exist. That would be inviting ambiguity and misunderstandings. --Kleinzach 04:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"There are also names in French" - Conservatoire de musique du Québec à Montréal ??? Milkunderwood (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've checked this one and (surprisingly) it doesn't have an English name. Kleinzach 10:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I guess not so surprising after all - the Québécois wouldn't allow it. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Orquestra Pau Casals

Kleinzach, I don't suppose you'd be willing to stick a hand into the Pau/Pablo imbroglio? That Orquesta Pau Casals ought to be fixed. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. BTW it's a Catalan/Spanish thing. Kleinzach 11:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes - and very emotional. Thank you. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln

Thanks for creating that one! Now we have one symphony orchestra of the station in German, one in English, long live internationality ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln doesn't have an official English name as far as I can tell. --Kleinzach 15:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we always still need redirects from the full name in any case. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Redirects don't have to be correct, official, full or whatever. They just have to be practical. --Kleinzach 03:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Confusion: We have WDR Symphony Orchestra Cologne (which states The orchestra was founded in 1947 by Allied occupation authorities after World War II, as the orchestra of Nordwestdeutschen Rundfunk (NWDR; Northwest German Radio).) And we also have WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln (which seems to have generally a similar origin, but doesn't say so). Okay, so there are two different and separate WDR orchestras in Cologne. Now the "R" stands for "Rundfunk", but then that is repeated in the name: "WDR Rundfunk"? Is that right? Milkunderwood (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can check this out on the official websites. Semantic satiation is probably common in German. --Kleinzach 10:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, good catch! I'd never encountered that term. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And both WDR orchestras were founded in 1947. There's something fishy about this history. There may be two distinct orchestras today, but I can't see the US Army establishing two separate radio orchestras in Köln right after the war, unless they had different purposes - and even so ... Milkunderwood (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there were too many unemployed musicians in Cologne and environs in 1947. And obviously radio was the only way of reaching an audience then. No one had food, much less transportation to a concert hall. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Music to Starve to Death By? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 17:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Not too far off - the Marshall Plan hadn't kicked in yet; it was pretty desperate. At least this was the American Zone, not the Russian. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Gregorian chant demoted

I've added the {{classical banner to the talk page of Gregorian chant which seems to have fallen through the cracks, just being busted down from Featured article to C class in a review which was not participated in by previous reviewers or editors of the article. Sparafucil (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital articles

There is a discussion regarding which musician articles, if any, should be on Wikipedia's 10,000 Vital articles occuring here. Your input would be appreciated. pbp 21:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Templates

I have been looking at the 45 composers level 4 at Vital articles. Some of them have their works in a single template, some have their works in several different templates and some of them have no template enumerating their works. I am in pursuit of more consistency in this regard. Would people have a problem if I replaced separated templates with something like the following:

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are the sections in reverse alphabetical order? Also why are the section headings duplicated? Perhaps TonyTheTiger should think a bit more about the design and come back to us when he has worked out what he is trying to do. --Kleinzach 16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverse alphabetical was a coincidence. Now alphabetical. Working on alternate format.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Might this information be expressed better as an article than a template? I have in mind the fact that for many composers, some of the works are of doubtful authorship (for example, no is one sure whether Mozart wrote the Sinfonia Concertante for four wind instruments that is attributed to him). When you use a template, you have to make an either-or decision about whether a work belongs, but an article has the space to include appropriate commentary. Opus33 (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Oddly, although I may have created as many navboxes as anyone in WP history (see User:TonyTheTiger/creations#Templates_Created), I don't know what all the advantages are. There are at least two advantages to the templates over lists. One, it is at a glance, since in most cases the whole template fits on the screen. A list requires scrolling and scrolling to see the same presentation of available content. The second advantage is that the templates provide access with a single click rather than bouncing over to a list article before having to scroll around until you find what you are looking for. I am not sure how many other advantages there are but single-glance and single-click access to available related content are two worth noting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tony, the tricky bit concerning template size is that many of the great composers were extremely prolific. If you look in the work-lists provided by the New Grove, you'll find that they often go on for dozens of pages, in fine print. So, a thorough-going template, especially as WP grows over time, would definitely not fit on a single page. As for the option of making a briefer selection of "most important works" -- this is a really serious judgment call, which if it is done at all, ought to be done by an experienced editor who has read multiple books about the composer and is familiar with what critics have said about the composer's work -- it's really not something that ought to be taken on by a visiting template-maker.

In sum, my feelings about these templates match those expressed by David below: for navigating within a genre for a particular composer, the templates are fine, but we really don't want to let them grow to the point that they overwhelm the articles to which they are attached. At the very least, perhaps you could take some of the really big templates you've done and adjust the default setting to "hide" rather than "show"? Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Following on from the above: can someone put in simple words exactly what purpose these templates serve? How do they help the reader understand the topic of the article to which they are affixed, or add to that uderstanding ? - exactly what perspectives they add to the article? It seems to me that TtT is undertaking a lot of work for something which ultimately adds no value either to the article or to Wikipedia - as regards Opus 33's comment, such articles already exist in 'List of....' formats, which give the opportunity to comment on authenticity, etc. Moreover, if templates of this type are felt to be appropriate, what happens if TtT or some other bright spark sarts creating and posting templates, e.g. listing all the instruments featured in a piece of music, or all the recordings of a piece of music, etc.? (Not, please God, that these should be taken as suggestions). It would help to have an agreed Project policy on this before the project articles are cluttered up with the paraphernalia of the bright ideas of editors who do not seem concerned with the topic of the project, but seem to be imbued rather with the urge of graffiti artists to paint on any available wall.--Smerus (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the most snarky response that I have gotten to my efforts. At this point, I have created several templates for artists who previously had no templates. I have already deployed {{Franz Lehár}}, {{Jacques Offenbach}}, {{Georges Bizet}}, {{Giacomo Puccini}}, {{Giuseppe Verdi}}, {{George Frideric Handel}}, {{Antonio Vivaldi}}, {{Gioachino Rossini}}, {{Maurice Ravel}} and {{John Philip Sousa}}. I have already prepared and will soon deploy {{Johann Strauss II}}, {{Claude Debussy}} and {{Claudio Monteverdi}}. So if you want me to stop you better say so. However, the people over at WP:OPERA seem to be on board (and much more encouraging than the folks here) so we need to get our acts together. They seem to be reviewing these with some sort of priority as I am producing them. I don't know what you folks have against them. Basically, I have run out of operas to do so I am focussing more on composer templates. The only ones left are for more topical subjects such as {{Book of Exodus}} or {{Don Juan}}, which I recently created. There are about seven topical one left for me to do, but they take a lot more work than more specific work derivatives.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

PS, be careful calling me 'snarky' , I am a Boojum.Smerus (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I love nav-templates. I probably made half of the member templates included in the uber template above. It allows for easy navigation between works of the same genre. There's extra formatting that you can put in that makes it look nicer than the category page. But I think the uber template is too much. Its cool that it can be done, but I don't want every Beethoven template transcluded into every Beethoven article. The current pattern of including just the same-genre template which includes a linek to List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven is sufficient in my opinion. DavidRF (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiments expressed above. There is a difference between a navbox for an opera composer, say Wagner, who wrote a limited number of big works, and a box for a composer, say Mozart, who wrote hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of all descriptions. For readers who want to search out particular, perhaps obscure, pieces of music by famous composers we have the 'Lists of compositions by . . . .' pages. So, while I am basically pro-Navbox, I also think they must be 'fit for purpose'. Kleinzach 02:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

O.K. I will leave all the extant genre-specific templates alone. I may continue through the 45 composers at level 4 on the WP:VA pages. If a composer has no templates whatsoever, I am likely to take a stab at one. If I find some genre-specific ones already exist for a composer, I will leave him alone.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. After a first pass of the list, these 9 are the ones that I am apt to create templates for: Pierre Boulez, Edvard Grieg, Aram Khachaturian, Modest Mussorgsky, Josquin des Prez, Erik Satie, Arnold Schoenberg, Jean Sibelius and Arthur Sullivan (won't do because of the G&S template). It also seems that maybe I should not have created the DeBussy template. I'll have to have a closer look at how many template are out there for his works.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and deploy {{Claude Debussy}} despite its overlap with {{Debussy preludes}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• {{Arnold Schoenberg}} is ready to be deployed. Feedback welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Debussy L numbers

And, while I am at it, why the 'L' numbers in the Debussy template? - they seem intrusive and confusing, and are not habitually used or recognised by lay persons.--Smerus (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Are they different than opus numbers?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but they serve a similar function, to identify each work by a unique numerical label. See Catalogues of classical compositions for some details. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

My point here is that the L numbers don't add useful information to the templates, in fact they look rather confusing, especially to any reader who doesn't know what they are (probably 90%+++). Therefore they are counter-prductive as guides.--Smerus (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

They are also wrong, though Wikipedia for some reason doesn't have the updated list which is completely different (and just reuses numbers rather than, say, the Koechel catalog, so most numbers can refer to two different pieces). Honestly Tony, I understand you're trying to help and that's great, but when why are you bothering so much if you're not a 'classical music guy'? Doing stuff like putting the Ravel template on Pictures at an Exhibition is just ridiculous and really just makes Wikipedia look dumb. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems that there is agreement that the people I am doing are important enought to have navboxes and many people even find them important enough to review as I post them. I don't think what I am doing is all wrong. Maybe each template is 10% wrong and easily fixed. Sure a classical music guy could get them 99% percent right and not even need to alert everyone to come check things out. I think the end result of me trying and the community helping is a benefit to WP. If I am bringing down the classical music project with my efforts, I will stop, totally. I already agreed to limit my efforts to the 8 composers who really need it. If even that limitation is not enough, I will stop with just the one more that overlaps with WP:OPERA {{Modest Mussorgsky}} and one personal favorite {{Aram Khachaturian}}, since I grew up in Buffalo where the Sabre Dance is a part of life (it is played after every Buffalo Sabres goal). Would the classical folks prefer that I not even try to do Pierre Boulez, Edvard Grieg, Josquin des Prez, and Erik Satie?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed the L numbers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • P.S. Librettists Salvadore Cammarano, Oscar Hammerstein II, Metastasio are also under consideration for templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
    • P.P.S. I haven't yet made a short list of music performers. When I do it will come from level four at WP:VA. It may also cross with the Classical Music Project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

General: I think the navboxes are a great help! Please do more! - L numbers Debussy: I think the titles speak for themselves, this is different from Mozart's masses in C, where you need a number to differentiate several. Use numbers only when needed, as for Vivaldi for the two Orlando furioso, and if using them don't start with a number, as you would not start with Op. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Schoenberg transcriptions

Why are the transcriptions thought to be significant here? There are not separate articles for these - although someone might in the future perhaps usefully do a generic article sometime for them en masse.--Smerus (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Remember, I am not a classical music guy. I was just summarizing what WP includes on his list of works. I can remove it if you think that would be an improvement.--TonyTheTiger(T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion they are absurdly excessive, but obviously it would be a help to have comments from others to get a consensus.--Smerus (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll second the vote to remove the section. I do like a lot of the transcriptions, and its a prominent section of List_of_compositions_by_Arnold_Schoenberg so I can see why Tony it, but they aren't his compositions and all the links point to pages for the parent works by the other composers. Plus removing that section creates a leaner template which is easier to read.DavidRF (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Transcriptions removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Offenbach template

THIS DISCUSSION IS CLOSED AND MOVED TO Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Offenbach_template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Why please is a there an overall header 'operettas', then divided in to opera bouffe, opera bouffon, etc., etc.? 'Operetta' as applied to Offenbach in English is a convenience term, not one used by the composer himself. The template (more or less accurately) lists these works by the composer's own terminology, so the overall header for these terms of 'operetta' is both superfluous and misleading. --Smerus (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Convenience term: so is "cantata" for Bach's cantatas, he termed only very few that way. I think I will stll use "cantata" for being understood, and don't expect the readers of Offenbach to be familiar enough with his terminology in French, - why not conveniently help them? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well in fact you don't help them, Gerda, because not all of these Offenbach works are generally claissified as operettas - whereas all of Bach's works that you refer to are generally classified as cantatas, whether JSB actually called them such or not. The template is highly misleading as it suggests that there is consensus in calling all these Offenbach works 'operettas' - such concensus does not exist. Let me gently remind you that Wikipedia is here to report facts, not to 'create' them, however saintly the intention.--Smerus (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't know enough about Offenbach, was talking more generally, perhaps there should be a broader term for his works. - We know that there seems to be "consensus" to call some of Wagner's stage works operas although he argued against it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, this is scarcely helpful. Maybe there should, in an ideal world, be a broader term for his works, maybe not. We are here in Wikipedia to report, not to speculate. TtT has taken it upon himslef to classify virtually all of Offenbach's output as 'operetta'. If neither he, nor you - nor anyone else - can produce an appropriate citation to support 'operetta' as applied to virtually the whole of Offenbach's works, then the assertion that they are all 'operettas' should be deleted. See WP:CITE. It's as simple as that. --Smerus (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why all the subgenres are highlighted either. Differences between these types of genres are often subtle and open to interpretation (unless the composer strictly labeled them himself). That said, I'd leave the issue of Offenbach up to Opera wikiproject as the template is almost completely filled with stage works. At first glance it looks like it almost fully overlaps with their pre-existing infobox Template:Offenbach operas... but again, I'd leave it up to the other project.DavidRF (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea, I will refer it.--Smerus (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. regarding the overlap, WP:OPERA is having serious discussions about overhauling the infobox and standardizing navbox content in footer style templates, which is the more standard navbox style on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(e.c.) As the originator of most of the Offenbach material, I think I should explain some of the choices that were made in the past. First of all the composition list was/is called List of operettas by Offenbach. We were following most of the English language sources in using 'operetta' as an umbrella term. (Opérette couldn't be used because the meaning is much more specific in French).

The list gives the actual published genre designation used by the composer. These are explained to some extent in the List of opera genres (which I abandoned a couple of years ago after problems documented on the talk page).

Offenbach's genres are meaningful (though ignored by almost all the English language writers), but it's important to understand that they were determined as much by the location of the performance as the form of the work. Finally, in the past we have used the description 'Stage works' when opera or operetta or whatever didn't seem appropriate. I hope this helps. Kleinzach 14:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

THIS DISCUSSION IS CLOSED AND MOVED TO Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Offenbach_template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Compositions by year categories

Hi, I have just noticed that Category:Operas by year members are included within the appropriate Category:Years in music; but Category:Compositions by year are not, anyone know how fix this, Thanks ? GrahamHardy (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Other way round I think, but fixed now anyway.--Smerus (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed how? I think much more than this is required. I suspect GrahamHardy noticed that (almost) none of the member categories in Category:Operas by year, e.g. Category:1786 operas, are included in the respective Category:Compositions by year, in this case Category:1786 compositions. Four such opera categories are categorised in the respective compositions-by-year category: Category:1787 operas, Category:1792 operas, Category:1944 operas and Category:1972 operas. Something ought to be done to Template:OperasByYear to create the [[Category:mcdy compositions]] automatically for every [[Category:mcdy operas]]; replacing

[[Category:{{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}}{{{y|}}} works|Operas]] in Template:OperasByYear with

[[Category:{{{m|}}}{{{c|}}}{{{d|}}}{{{y|}}} compositions|Operas]] will probably do. I made a similar suggestion last June at Template talk:OperasByYear. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I misunderstood the comment - in fact the Category:Operas by year was not previously part of the Category:Years in music --Smerus (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pachelbel's Canon/Controversial move

I notice that it has not been advertised either here or on the talk page of WP:COMPOSERS, so I thought I should draw your attention to the discussion taking place at Talk:Pachelbel's Canon. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Quartettsatz Articles, a call for assistance.

Since last year I've updated/revised or created several articles on incomplete chamber works by major composers.

• Piano Quartet Movement in A minor (Mahler) (Updated/Revised)
• String Quartet No. 12 in C minor, D. 703 "Quartettsatz" (Schubert) (Updated/Revised)
• String Quartet Movement in E flat major (Shostakovich) (Created)
• String Quartet Movement in B flat major (Tchaikovsky) (Created)
• String Quartet Movement in F major (Dvořák) (Created)

I've been working from online resources including CD liner notes & concert notes where they are available, but I think that I've hit the limit of those. I'm planning to visit a major library soon to see what I can uncover about any of the above offline. If anyone has access to useful (& citeable) material about any of the above please feel free to add it to the pages. I've added notes in the talk pages of some of the articles to indicate questions I was unable to answer.Graham1973 (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

nice work, thanks! Now what about Anton Webern's 1905 'Langsamer Satz' for quartet?--Smerus (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into that one. I've also got (For anyone interested in a challenge.) three more obscure targets.

Is the Lansamer Satz incomplete? I actually thought he conceived it as a single-movement piece. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• String Quartet Movement in B flat major (Griffes, 1903) - What appears to be his earliest composition for quartet.
• String Quartet Movement in A minor (Griffes, 1917)
• String Quartet Movement in C minor (Joachim) - Found out about this one while researching the Schubert Quartettsatz, only one recording to my knowledge and the CD liner notes are not available online.

Currently, though I think I'll tackle one piece other of unfinished business, the Second Grieg string quartet (Two movements this time). Graham1973 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes in composition articles

Hi all, it would be great to hear a few opinions on the recent additions of infoboxes to classical composition articles (see {{Infobox musical composition}} and Mass No. 5 (Schubert) for a usage example).

I personally think it's not /hugely/ necessary. It contains the sort of metadata that should be in the introduction (eg composition date, key, instrumentation) or at the very least within the article somewhere. I see the necessity of {{infobox song}} in non-classical song articles, where record label etc information might not be repeated within the article - but the musical composition parameters cover the sort of information that are inherent in any discussion of the composition and any prose about the composition.

That said, I can see that it is useful for a certain kind of reader, and when used properly it can give a good overview of the composition. So, I'm torn.

The infobox is currently being added piecemeal to various compositions, which doesn't help to achieve cohesiveness in terms of look or application of the template. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn’t know {{Infobox musical composition}} existed. It seems to have been recently developed by Pigsonthewing [11] and Gerda Arendt [12] apparently without notifying the project.

The box has too many fields. Help:Infoboxes and MOS:INFOBOX explain how infoboxes are supposed to work. Essentially they are there to summarise the main facts from the article. They should not be there to accumulate trivia. The contents of boxes should be balanced and proportionate per WP:UNDUE, a policy that applies to boxes, and other ancillary material, as well as article text. Kleinzach 14:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned the infobox in the development of {{infobox opera}}. It exists since 2008, well before I even started at Wikipedia, so I took for granted that it is known. I added only a few fields such as catalogue number which I find essential. Not all fields will be used. - The template appears in Messiah structure, that article had more than 2000 views in the last 30 days, I noticed no complaints ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

[ec] A cursory examination of the infoboxes history will show that it has existed since 2008. It contains no trivia; and does not have "too many fields". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Such metadata in the lede is not machine-readable. Once in an infobox, it is; and can thus be queried programatically. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)