Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music: Difference between revisions

Mass
Mass
in G major
by W. A. Mozart
Catalogue	K. 49/47d;
Form	Missa brevis
Composed	1768: Vienna
Movements	6
Vocal	SATB choir and soloists
Instrumental	2 violins, viola and continuo;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:55, 9 October 2014

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed

Just as a heads up, somebody has taken it upon himself, as far as I know with no notice to or discussion with this project, to rename all the Schubert piano sonata articles. For example, the former "Piano Sonata in C major, D. 840 (Schubert)" is now titled "Piano sonata in C major "Reliquie" (D. 840)," with no mention of the composer's name. This approach puts the titles for these articles at odds with those for corresponding works by all the other classical composers, or at least all of which I'm aware, and conflicts with the consensus reached here after discussion of the very issue whether to include composer names in titles. (That admittedly was far enough back that finding it will take some digging.) I thought it best to raise the issue here rather than taking reversions into my own hands, although I'll go on record right now as strongly opposing these changes. Drhoehl (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert. Write something on the user's talk page thanking them for their edits, but that they should know such actions should be discussed here first to reach a consensus. -- kosboot (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No harm redirecting from those names and referring to them in the article texts, but making them the main title needs discussion. I think the names aren't widely used in English. --Stfg (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Including a moniker in the article name is a terrible idea. But dropping the disambiguator "(Schubert)" in articles named "Piano sonata in C-sharp minor (D. 655)" (formerly Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor, D. 655 (Schubert)) & similar seems reasonable, although I'm not sure about upper/lower case letters. Then again, the use of an mdash with an additional D number in Piano sonata in F minor (D. 625 — 505) is typographically wrong and confusing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"such actions should be discussed here first to reach a consensus" I'd be grateful for some evidence to support this assertion, since it's my understanding that such a claim is contrary to standing policy on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See prior discussion at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Improvement suggestions for the table, among others (quoting from that discussion):

follow 4th method of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Disambiguation: this would give page names like Piano sonata in F-sharp minor (D. 571 — 604 — 570); (Schubert) no longer needed as disambiguator.

(& subsequent sections on that talk page) --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being aware of this discussion page, I did however post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force#Scores template --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Francis. There are so many talk pages relevant to music, and few of us would watch all of them. Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert isn't the best place, because it risks making a local consensus that's incompatible with non-Schubert article titles -- which is what has happened. I do think this needs to be reverted and the issues hammered out here. I disagree that (Schubert) is no longer needed as a disambiguator. Sure, the D number makes it unambiguous, but far more people don't know this than do, whereas anyone who would look at a piano sonata article will have heard of Schubert. I share Michael's dislike of the mdash notation, which I find ugly, and imo the subsidiary D numbers and the nicknames are distracting and unnecessary in the titles. --Stfg (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the consensus, the applicable guideline (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music)) should be clear about it. That's of course the first place where one would look, and that's what I did. Note that the names I moved away from were not conforming to that guideline.

Here's what I'd propose:

Have the discussion here what we'd really like to do with the article titles of Schubert's piano sonatas. If someone could find a link to the last discussion on the topic that would be great.
Whatever the outcome of that discussion, it would need to be conforming to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), which means that an update of that guideline would be needed when the outcome of the discussion leads to something different than what is covered by the guideline currently.
Move the pages of the individual sonatas (when different from current naming).

Starting the discussion (step 1), see e.g. the title of this dissertation A Comparative Study on the Published Completions of the Unfinished Movements in Franz Schubert’s Sonata in C Major, D. 840 (“Reliquie”) - meaning: while D. numbers may have recognisability issues and numbering systems for the sonatas are widely divergent, nicknames (for those sonatas that have a well estabilshed nickname) are part of the common name of these sonatas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] The relevant policy would seem to be Wikipedia:Article titles. Which part of that mandates the inclusion of composer names, in this case? BTW, is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force still needed, if it's not adequately watched? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Andy, Wikipedia:Article titles is the overarching policy, but for specifics it links to the topic-specific conventions. For the present case, that is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), where the position on disambiguation by composer and on the use of nicknames is laid out clearly. --Stfg (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(continuing step 1) Looking for prior discussion I couldn't find anything of much consequence in the archives:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 7#Schubert's piano sonatas links to Template talk:Schubert piano sonatas, without much about article titling there.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 51#Schubert list links to Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert, yeah that's where the title changes were discussed at the time... (leading to the page moves I performed).
The last (general) consensus-approved formulation for composition series article titles would be Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)/Archive 1#Revised proposal, without clear-cut solution for the Schubert piano sonatas.

Am I missing something here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that's "missing" is the context. One can't talk only about Schubert. Over the years this group has had a number of discussions/controversies concerning naming of groups of works. One big flare up was when someone decided to rename Beethoven's Op. 14, no. 2 "Moonlight" without telling anyone and without considering how other Beethoven sonatas are named. Sure, one can "be bold" and do what one wants, but one has to recognize that there will be a host of other people who will want to do what they want and the only way to agree on something is to discuss it and achieve consensus. -- kosboot (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Op. 27, No. 2 --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

argh - yes - apologies. -- kosboot (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In amongst all this, @ Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Inconsistency in title formatting I raised a question (see: (d) "Now read on") about why the Handel violin sonatas are out of kilter. It would be easy to overlook this, so I just mention it here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other Schubert sonatas (and fantasies)

This is the list of Schubert sonatas not affected by the recent page moves:

Schubert's last sonatas (three sonatas for piano two hands)
Grand Duo (Schubert) (piano four hands)
Arpeggione Sonata (arpeggione + piano, now mostly performed as a cello sonata)
Violin Sonata in A (Schubert) (violin + piano, also sometimes nicknamed "Grand Duo", ~~maybe even~~ without doubt the primary topic for "Grand Duo (Schubert)": ""grand duo" "574"" yields about ten times as many Google finds than ""grand duo" "812"")

Fantasies not affected by the recent page moves (note that also the piano sonata D. 894 was originally published as a Fantasy):

Wanderer Fantasy (piano two hands - formally more a sonata than most of Schubert's early piano sonatas)
Fantasia in F minor (Schubert) (piano four hands)

Among the titles of these six articles I see:

One descriptive title (sonatas #1)
Two named by moniker/nickname (sonatas #2 and fantasies #1) — I suppose many would also perceive "Arpeggione" as some sort of moniker/nickname, but in fact it isn't.
Three using (Schubert) as parenthical disambiguator (sonatas #2 and #4, fantasies #2), "Schubert" also named in the descriptive title of sonatas #1
Two naming the key, one shortened ("in A" instead of "in A major" for sonatas #4 - note that Schubert also wrote a violin sonata in A minor (D. 385)) and one regular (fantasies #2)
Two different translations of "Fantasie": "Fantasy" (fantasies #1) and "Fantasia" (fantasies #2)
Also, surprisingly, none that refer to a D number.

In my eyes improvements to the article title would be called for, at least for sonatas #2 and #4, maybe also fantasies #2. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A conflict in guidelines

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Title recommends a standardized naming convention for articles about classical compositions that has been universally followed by the handful of editors that actively write articles on this subject. This standard is not contradictory to the guideline in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music), but it does have different emphasis. It has been discussed frequently, both on the talk pages of articles and at the Compositions forum (which, incidentally, while not superactive is a vital place for discussion of issues like this). The difference in emphasis is this: the project standard (as opposed to the guideline) urges discussion on the talk page before deciding between a standardized name (like String Quartet No. 14 (Schubert)) and a commonly used name (like Death and the Maiden Quartet.

The wisdom of discussing a title on the talk page before making such a decision is palpable. In many cases, names commonly used for pieces were not chosen, and were even opposed by, the composers themselves. Haydn, for example, never gave names to his quartets, even though many of them have descriptive common names. Beethoven would most likely have despised the name Moonlight Sonata, which is the subject of much derision by many critics (the name, not the piece). So, regardless of how common a name, prudence need be exercised before using it as the title of an article.

As for including the composer's name in the title, this too was discussed pretty thoroughly (though for the life of me I can't find the discussion). It was felt that including the composer's name made it easier for readers to find the article. A savvy reader is more likely to look for "Haydn Op. 20" than for "Op. 20", hoping for the best. It wasn't just an issue of disambiguation.

All of this suggests that we should probably make an effort to update Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music) to bring it more in line with the thinking of the project standard. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should consider series of compositions differently from single works. That alone made Moonlight Sonata impossible, - so I thought ;) - For Bach's cantatas, we use (after discussion) the catalogue number alone as a hint to the composer (example BWV 172), to keep the long titles as simple as possible. We might do something similar for Schubert, using the D numbers which - to my understanding - are unique, but of course add plenty of redirects for the number alone, the key etc., to help readers find what they search for. (I confess that I rarely look at guidelines and naming conventions but learn by trial and error.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A.k.a the 4th method of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Disambiguation as mentioned above. That's indeed what I did, after discussion at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert, following the format of the Sonatas by George Frideric Handel example quoted in the guideline, to the best of my abilities. Using the 23 Sonatas numbering system these are the page moves I performed:

Piano Sonata in E major, D. 157 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in E major (D. 154 — 157)

Piano Sonata in C major, D. 279 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in C major (D. 279 — 346)

Piano Sonata in E major, D. 459 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in E major (D. 459) (a.k.a. Fünf Klavierstucke)

Piano Sonata in E minor, D. 769a (Schubert) → Piano sonata in E minor (D. 769a)

Piano Sonata in A minor, D. 537 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in A minor (D. 537)

Piano Sonata in A-flat major, D. 557 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in A-flat major (D. 557)

Piano Sonata in E minor, D. 566 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in E minor (D. 566 — 506)

Piano Sonata in E-flat major, D. 568 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in D-flat major / E-flat major (D. 568)

... Piano sonata in D-flat major / E-flat major (D. 568) (Op. posth. 122, same Wikipedia article as previous)

Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor, D. 571 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in F-sharp minor (D. 571 — 604 — 570)

Piano Sonata in B major, D. 575 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in B major (D. 575)

Piano Sonata in C major, D. 613 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in C major (D. 613 — 612)

Piano Sonata in F minor, D. 625 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in F minor (D. 625 — 505)

Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor, D. 655 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in C-sharp minor (D. 655)

Piano Sonata in A major, D. 664 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in A major (D. 664)

Piano Sonata in A minor, D. 784 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in A minor (D. 784)

Piano Sonata in C major, D. 840 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in C major "Reliquie" (D. 840)

Piano Sonata in A minor, D. 845 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in A minor (D. 845)

Piano Sonata in D major, D. 850 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in D major "Gasteiner" (D. 850)

Piano Sonata in G major, D. 894 (Schubert) → Piano sonata in G major "Fantasy" (D. 894)

(unchanged) Schubert's last sonatas

(unchanged) Schubert's last sonatas

(unchanged) Schubert's last sonatas

This leaves unsolved:

Whether or not to capitalise sonata/Sonata
Whether or not to include customary monikers/nicknames
How to handle "multiple D." sonatas (" — " as separator meets disapproval I see above)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I the simplifying radical mode, following the Bach example, it would be just

Piano Sonata in C major, D. 613 (Schubert) → Piano Sonata, D. 613

with a capital Sonata, following the Beethoven works, and only one number, making redirects for all, nicknames etc only as a redirect, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the comma between the name of the work and the catalogue number. The current guideline contains (in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Articles in series) Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51. There's however no comma between title and BWV in Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172. I don't see the need for a comma (which would call for exceptions depending on how the actual title ends). Further, not all publishers use the comma either, e.g. Henle Wiener Urtext, and for Wikipedia article titles all excess, above what is strictly needed for recognisability and disambiguation in article titles is discouraged.

On the other hand, for Schubert's piano sonatas the key is usually given. Which is only logical, while not all publications (both recordings and scores), as surprising as that may seem, give D. numbers, e.g. [1]. Key is about all that is left then for recognisability (... or the odd moniker).

Regarding multiple D.'s: I'd keep D.'s usually associated in a single sonata in the page name. As I argued before at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Improvement suggestions for the table:

Re. naming all involved D. numbers in page names, e.g. Piano sonata in E major (D. 154 - 157): it's not that we're going to have a separate Wikipedia article on D. 154 anywhere soon. D. 154 is discussed in that article, that's why I'd be clear about that in the page title.

Note that a page title should cover what is described on the page. A slash might be used as separator instead of a dash (see e.g. Henle)

I could agree with Piano Sonata in C major D. 613/612, with both D. 613 and D. 612 redirecting to that page.

(this would however need an update of the guideline)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a D number that may be covered later has to appear in an article title. (That would have given us very long article names for Bach - 3 numbers, 2 titles for example for BWV 120 and its a/b - until each cantata got a separate article.) - Do you think the readers unfamiliar with D numbers would be fluent in keys? I confess that I find the navbox, sorted by key, rather confusing, and prefer the {{Beethoven piano sonatas}} arrangement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. navbox:

This is Schubert's "solo piano sonatas" navbox: {{Schubert piano sonatas}}

This is the new one I made (including the other piano compositions): {{Schubert piano compositions}}

(sonatas ordered according to the 23 Sonatas numbering system, without however giving too much attention to these numbers; also opus numbers quoted where available for recognisability) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think these moves might have been a step to far in boldness.

I am very dubious about sonata as opposed to Sonata: Beethoven, Mozart and others have capital S. I am sure this change should be reverted. Cf: Violin concerto - the generic article Violin concerto has a lower case c, but individual concerti e.g. Violin Concerto (Adams) use capital C.
" — " as separator is horrible - what's wrong with a simple '/' - thus 'D. 571/604/570' ?
I am entirely against Gerda's proposal of dropping 'Schubert' in favour of Deutsch number - the vast majority of WP readers will not know about D. numbers. As far as I see, BWV numbers (without Bach's name) are used for cantata titles etc. but this is not, and should not, be the case for Sonatas, concertos, etc. where the use of a catalogue number only would lead to great confusion.--Smerus (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize very much with Gerda's proposal, but I recognize the truth of Smerus words: that people don't go around citing Deutsch numbers (they way they do with Köchel numbers--although I'd argue that if we did it on WP, everyone else would eventually follow). As far as titles, I think "sonata" and "concerto" are all genre designations and less titles and should be lower case (though to me this is a very minor point). -- kosboot (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before going for the slash '/', please note the discussion at #Haydn keyboard sonatas numbering above. Otherwise, I agree with Smerus. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents worth:

Referring to a point I have tried to make earlier, three major editions of Schubert's piano works: the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe, G. Henle Verlag and the Wiener Urtext editions all list Deutsch numbers without a dot following the "D" I would also point out the reference made by Michael Bednarek in regards to the fact that this issue has been previously discussed and the consensus was to list Deutsch numbers without the dot. Also, any letter following a number (Ex. D 769A, should be capitalized- this is the way it appears in the Deutsch catalogue)
Both the G. Henle Verlag and the Wiener Urtext editions include all of the independent movements. Henle Verlag lists (for example) D 571 as D 571/604/570 while the Wiener Urtext just lists it as D 571. I personally would support a listing that encourages the inclusion of the independent movements as forming part of the sonatas, but I think it is important to remember that this not official (Neue Schubert-Ausgabe, a.k.a. authorities in Tübingen do not recognize the independent movements as part of incomplete or unfinished sonatas). So including them in the title might make it look more official... just something to think about... in any case, the G. Henle verlag edition could be cited as a reference if the decision is made to implement a slash (not a dash, please!) in the title. That being said, I do think that we should be consistent. Additional Deutsch numbers in the title indicate that a Sonata is formed by two or more movements with separate Deustch numbers that are put together. This is not the case of D 154, which is not a part of the structure of D 157, it is simply an early fragmented version of the first movement. As such, it is not consistent or appropriate to include D 154 in the title of D 157.
I really do not understand why the guidelines state that the word "sonata" should not be capitalized in this case. I know we should follow the guidelines, but what is the reasoning for this? Is it possible that the guidelines are wrong? I feel like most people posting here are on board with this idea. I would support all titles reading as "Piano Sonata in x major/minor, D XXX (Schubert)" with the possibility of added Deutsch numbers in between a slash if consensus is reached in that regard. Solti79 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And my two cents: I'm really fine with any of the various choices mentioned above; however, I do think that any title format should include Schubert's name. It just seems reader-unfriendly to do otherwise. Opus33 (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the guidelines need to be changed to recommend uppercase usage for "... Sonata ..." etc. For works which are distinguished by a specific catalogue number other than opus, the composer's name is not necessary in article titles. In the case of Schubert works consisting of several catalogue numbers, only the primary number should be used; others are to be explained in the article and should be mentioned in lists. Whether there's a full stop after "D" seems to be unsettled and I don't think matters. Omitting "major" seems unhelpful and inconsistent. The comma separating the work and its catlogue number seems widely used and should be here, too. Thus: Piano Sonata in E major, D. 154. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support Michael Bednarek (talk) except that my preferred format would be. e.g. Piano Sonata in C major, D. 613/612 (Schubert) - so should this nowall be raised at WP:NCM?--Smerus (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also like Michael's version, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think any of these will do. WP:NCM#Disambiguation already points out that catalogue numbers are "unfamiliar to most people". We can include them, but it's a bad idea to have them as the sole disambiguator. The problem of undesired side-effects of slashes because the wiki thinks they mean subpages (see the Haydn discussion above) appears to have been overlooked. --Stfg (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I therefore suggest as a compromise the format Piano Sonata in B major, D. 575 (Schubert) or Piano Sonata in C major, D. 613 and 612 (Schubert), or Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D. 571, 604 and 570 (Schubert), to go for discussion and hopefully approval to WP:NCM#Disambiguation?--Smerus (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "and" or a slash, I would find multiple catalogue numbers in the article name confusing: it looks as if the one sonata had more than one number (which is true for some catalogues, to make confusion worse). We could have Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D. 571, with D. 604 and the other one redirecting, or - probably better - we could have stubs for the missing ones. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's best. A stub for the secondary numbers would be an opportunity to include a short description the relationship to the primary one. Redirecting also fine. --Stfg (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am happy with this. Does it now need to go to discussion or can we be bold?--Smerus (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking: we are going to keep the (Schubert) disambiguator, aren't we? If so, happy to be bold. If not, I think the problems with omitting it haven't been adequately addressed. --Stfg (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the formatting of Deutsch numbers does matter in terms of achieving uniformity within different articles in the site. Independently of our personal opinion, if the authorities in Tübingen have determined there is no dot after the "D", why should this be controversial or unsettled? Is there a more authoritative view or source from which to guide ourselves in this regard?
IMHO, the word "and" after a number in the title looks just as weird as the dash, plus I wouldn't think there is a credited source that lists the sonatas in that fashion... and based on the problems mentioned above, it seems the best solution would be to not include additional Deutsch numbers in the title. In any case, as I mentioned earlier, this would be the more "official" stand anyways. Yes, let's be bold! Solti79 (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to be about the title of an article about a single piece that has two opus numbers. Isn't that a really, really, really, rare thing? I can' think of a single instance, aside from the Schubert 612/13 sonata.

In the case where a single article covers several works with different opus numbers, the practice has been to give the article a descriptive name, without opus numbers, as Schubert's last sonatas or Late string quartets (Beethoven). --Ravpapa (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "...a really, really, really, rare thing...":

Piano sonata in E major (D. 154 — 157)

Piano sonata in C major (D. 279 — 346) (treated in the same article: D. 277A, D. 309A)

Piano sonata in E major (D. 459) (a.k.a. Fünf Klavierstucke, currently D. 459 + 459A)

...

...

...

Piano sonata in E minor (D. 566 — 506)

Piano sonata in D-flat major / E-flat major (D. 568): two sonatas on one page: the former was previously D. 567, now both are 568

...

Piano sonata in F-sharp minor (D. 571 — 604 — 570)

...

Piano sonata in C major (D. 613 — 612)

Piano sonata in F minor (D. 625 — 505)

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

(See also above) — So about one in three of Schubert's sonatas has some sort of "multiple D." issue, for various reasons. For No. 3 an (often used and correct) descriptive title would be Fünf Klavierstucke. For the others above I see no descriptive title with a basic recognisability.

I could recommend to read the wikipedia article Piano sonata in C major (D. 279 — 346), after reading that article suggest a title that actually covers the content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that shows you how much I know! Does this problem exist with works other than Schubert sonatas? --Ravpapa (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather specific for Schubert sonatas, while the numbering systems (there are at least three, the second with two variations, see this "legend to the table") are diverse and not universally used, so D would be the most obious next step, as HWV for Handel's sonata's (see links to guideline and examples above). But no, Handel doesn't have a similar "multiple HWV" issue, however there are descriptive titles like XV Handel solo sonatas (Chrysander), Handel solo sonatas (Walsh) and Fitzwilliam Sonatas. For J. S. Bach, there is the somewhat comparable descriptive title Sonatas and partitas for solo violin (Bach), grouping six BWV numbers (which would be comparable in nature to Schubert's last sonatas).

The eight groupings of Schubert sonata D. numbers listed above are, by comparison, of (a) completely different nature(s). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis: We don't need "a title that actually covers the content". From the article you mention (my italics): "D. 346, an unfinished Allegretto in C major, has been suggested as its final movement" is just the sort of speculation we definitely shouldn't reflect in the title. --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having just paraded my ignorance before the whole project, I hesitate to chime in once again. Nonetheless, I have to agree with Stfg. I the article devoted a substantial portion to discussion of the possibly suggested movement, I would say there was some justification for including it in the title. But when it is just mentioned, it seems hardly appropriate. A redirect would be sufficient. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New section for convenience

I think Francis is definitely wrong here. I have read the article Piano sonata in C major (D. 279 — 346). It is clear to me that the article should be titled Piano Sonata in C major D. 279, (Schubert). The suggestion exists that D. 346 belogns to the other three movements, but this is no more than a suggestion, and WP has no justification in giving it an imprimatur. The article mentions D. 346 as a possible component, and there is no reason why D. 346 cannot be stubbed as Allegretto for piano D. 346, (Schubert) and be given a redirect to the sonata. D. 309A and D. 277A can be treated similarly, if anyone really wants to do so. I gently suggest that while Francis clearly has great knowledge of Schubert sonatas and their byways, this speical knowledge is in fact at odds with what WP is supposed to achieve. The general principle at WP:MOS is that "A title should be recognizable (as a name for or description of the topic), natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles. If these criteria are in conflict, they should be balanced against one another". I submit that Francis's desire to be utterly specific is not consistent with this guideline, and moreover, as in the case I mention in the first sentences here) could be actually misleading. In the areas where I think I have particular knowledge - e.g. Wagner - I am often also tempted to go over the top in WP, but I recall the Epigraph to Verdi's String quartet - 'Deny thyself, thou must deny thyself'. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Sonata in C major D. 279, (Schubert) and Allegretto for piano D. 346, (Schubert) now done as examples.--Smerus (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Smerus's main point. If (as the article indicates) the possibility that D. 346 was intended as the finale is only a conjecture, that should not be the basis for picking a title.

To add a quibble: odd to have a comma after "D. 279" when there are already parentheses around "Schubert". Opus33 (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me culpa, per e.g. Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven). I will correct. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And have now done the same for D. 154 / D. 157, where D. 154 is an early version of the first movement of D. 157 , not a part of the finished whole.--Smerus (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And D. 506/ D. 566.--Smerus (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And have corrected titles to D. 571 and D. 613. In all these, and the above, the association of 'loose' D. numbers with the sonata is conjectural, according to the texts of the articles.--Smerus (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK I have now dealt with all the sonatas (I think) for consistency, except for one or two where there are issues to consider. This includes creating redirects for each of the last three sonatas, which for some reason are presnetly grouped in a single article Schubert's last sonatas. They surely deserve an article each, but that will have to wait for another time.--Smerus (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Smerus. Thank you. --Stfg (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! What about the navboxes now? Should solo piano perhaps not contain the sonatas which have an extra one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: - I will leave the navboxes to you as you are so keen :-} --Smerus (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am only the working person, not the one to make the decision ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of current state of the matter:

Piano sonata in E major (D. 154 — 157) → moved to Piano Sonata in E major D. 157 (Schubert)
split off: Allegro for piano D. 154 (Schubert)

Piano sonata in C major (D. 279 — 346) → moved to Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 (Schubert)
split off: Allegretto for piano D. 346 (Schubert)

Piano sonata in E major (D. 459) → moved to Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 (Schubert)

→ moved to Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert)

→ moved to Piano Sonata in A minor D. 537 (Schubert)

→ moved to Piano Sonata in A-flat major D. 557 (Schubert)

Piano sonata in E minor (D. 566 — 506) → moved to Piano Sonata in E minor D. 566 (Schubert)
split off: Rondo for piano D. 506 (Schubert)

(see #9.1)

Piano sonata in D-flat major / E-flat major (D. 568) → moved to Piano Sonata in E-flat major D. 568 (Schubert)
redirect: Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 567 (Schubert)

created other redirect: Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) (actual D. number since 1978)

Piano sonata in F-sharp minor (D. 571 — 604 — 570) → moved to Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D. 571 (Schubert)

→ moved to Piano Sonata in B major D. 575 (Schubert)

Piano sonata in C major (D. 613 — 612) → moved to Piano Sonata in C major D. 613 (Schubert)

Piano sonata in F minor (D. 625 — 505) → moved to Piano Sonata in F minor D. 625 (Schubert)
split off: Adagio for piano D. 505 (Schubert)

→ moved to Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor D. 655 (Schubert)

→ moved to Piano Sonata in A major D. 664 (Schubert)

→ moved to Piano Sonata in A minor D. 784 (Schubert)

→ moved to Piano Sonata in C major D. 840 (Schubert)

→ moved to Piano Sonata in A minor D. 845 (Schubert)

→ moved to Piano Sonata in D major D. 850 (Schubert)

→ moved to Piano Sonata in G major D. 894 (Schubert)

...

...

...

For obvious reasons (stubs that connot reasonably develop into a full article) I made 1.1, 2.1, 7.1 and 13.1 redirect to 1, 2, 7 and 13 respectively.

Furthermore, I would urge to keep *strictly* to this scheme I proposed above:

Have the discussion here what we'd really like to do with the article titles of Schubert's piano sonatas. If someone could find a link to the last discussion on the topic that would be great.
Whatever the outcome of that discussion, it would need to be conforming to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), which means that an update of that guideline would be needed when the outcome of the discussion leads to something different than what is covered by the guideline currently.
Move the pages of the individual sonatas (when different from current naming).

There's no consensus yet w.r.t. the first of these proposed steps; then someone jumped to the third step, without bothering about current guidance, and moved 19 pages away from a version that conforms to the guidelines, to a version that does not conform to the guidelines, which is a bit of a disruption, and contrary to a consensus-seeking process.

The minimum step (if too impatient to find consensus here, or wait for an appropriate update of the guideline) would have been going to WP:RM The person to perform these 19 page moves was well aware such move would be contentious, so just moving with one or two persons approving is really not how things are done here, and is without doubt some sort of disruptive editing.

So I propose to make a choice: either discuss here till consensus can be found, and if necessary the relevant guideline is updated, or take it to WP:RM. Could the others who are interested in these page names inform their fellow-editors what seems best route at this point?

That being said, of course I have ideas, remarks, things I would think a good idea, and other things I wouldn't think a good idea in the last contributions to this discussion (and other changes made to the concerned articles, like changing the sort order in the piano sonatas category), but first I'd like to know whether to make them here or in a WP:RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Piano Sonata in E-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) - that there is a D-flat major version of this sonata (under its old D. number 567, or its current 568) doesn't show up in categories, with a page name that only refers to E-flat major. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the now adopted naming scheme for the Schubert sonatas differs a bit from what I proposed, I'm not opposed. The wording and examples at WP:NCM ought to be changed regarding the use of uppercase "Sonata". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For interest

I found this on my user page -

Warning: don't start moving pages in the midst of a discussion

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#New section for convenience. I suppose you weren't aware of prior discussion (starting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed), which would show there was no consensus yet for the 19 page moves you performed on Schubert sonatas. As you were a party in the discussion you could have gone to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for uninvolved closure. As the whole page move operation was kind of disruptive (not even giving others involved in that discussion time to respond, moving to article titles not conforming to current guidance (not even to WP:PRECISE)), consider this warning as kind of formal, I'd like not to see this happen again.

That being said, I hope you keep contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed, I'd like to see the thing solved, and there are some questions I left there and on which I'd like to see your input. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I point out btw that the editor who left this kind message initiated the situation by moving titles himself without discussion, including creating titles which, as indicated in the discussion above, were misleading. I'd like not to see this type of message again, either on my page or anyone else's - and that wish is kind of formal. --Smerus (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now I have found this:

Smerus, please stop the abuse. Above, I pointed you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed specifically, where you can read "... That's (...) what I did, after discussion at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert, ..." (bolding added). So, no, please remove your false accusations from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#For interest. It's the behavioural issue I take issue with. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

--Smerus (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict): I learned that if a bold edit is contested, it should be reverted and first discussed (WP:BRD). (I should have known that when Beethoven's Sonata No. 14 was moved to Moonlight, would have saved weeks of trouble.) By this logic, the Schubert works could be moved back to before this whole discussion started. I think it makes more sense to take things from the present state which I think found a lot of support (add mine), and be open for necessary changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda. I point out that whilst 185 people watch this WP page, the number watching Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert is under 30. It is appropriate that far-reaching changes relating to classical music pages should be brought, or at least notfied, on this page. The consensus here was clearly not in favour of that which obtained in the lesser-read page.--Smerus (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which I didn't know (there wasn't even a template linking to this project on that talk page), so the fact that the discussion took place on that talk page (with BTW a link from this talk page to that discussion on that talk page) doesn't make the page moves as listed above in #A conflict in guidelines "bold" page moves, all the more while they were consistent with existing specific guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, now I have this on my user page:

Please quote correctly, above I typed

...after discussion at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert, ..." (bolding added)

Which you quoted as

...after discussion at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert, ..." (bolding added)

Which looks kinda silly (and other editorial changes).

Again, please remove all false accusations.

If this can't be settled via user talk pages, I propose to take to ANI. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I of course apologize for not transcribing bolding appropriately.--Smerus (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now this:

Please remove all false accusations from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, neither do I want to see these repeated on any other talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am honestly not aware of any 'abuse' or 'false accusations'. Is it this which Mr. Schonken objects to? - "initiated the situation by moving titles himself without discussion, including creating titles which, as indicated in the discussion above, were misleading". The 'wthout discussion' is I concede perhaps over the top - the discussion, on a topic with wide repercussions, was carried out on a page with very limited watchers (<30, as opposed to 185 on this page). See the very first comments on this thread, from User:DrHoehl, User:Kosboot, User:Stfg and User:Michael Bednarek. I am therefore happy to amend this to 'The situation was initiated by moving titles without appropriate outreach and discussion' . That a number of the titles that were consequently created were misleading I maintain. Indeed, by leaving out the name of the composer, I beleive all of them were misleading, or at least inappropriate for Wikipedia.--Smerus (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is generating much heat and no light. I agree with Gerda: keep the titles as they are now, and continue the discussion. --Stfg (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerus' amendment is largely insufficient, as I wrote on his talk page, but yes,... moving on ...

D-flat major sonata is now D. 568

See Talk:Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert). Note that both Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) and Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 567 (Schubert) are currently included in the same categories (+ stub category for the page at the former D. number). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overview:

Piano Sonata in E major D. 157 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in A minor D. 537 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in A-flat major D. 557 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in E minor D. 566 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 567 (Schubert) → content should be moved to the current D. number of the D-flat major sonata, which is 568 (not 567) → Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) (this last one is currently redirecting to #9 but should not redirect to the E-flat major version of this sonata)

Piano Sonata in E-flat major D. 568 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D. 571 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in B major D. 575 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in C major D. 613 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in F minor D. 625 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor D. 655 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in A major D. 664 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in A minor D. 784 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in C major D. 840 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in A minor D. 845 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in D major D. 850 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in G major D. 894 (Schubert)

Schubert's last sonatas

Schubert's last sonatas

Schubert's last sonatas

I'll address other issues later. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The D567/568 situation seems unclear. Although the Schubert Datenbank mentions the D flat version as '1. Fassung in Des früher D 567', it still lists the D flat version as D 567.. It is therefore not at all clear to me that the D. 567 numbering for the D flat version has been in any way dropped or cancelled. Might 'früher' here mean 'earlier given the number of' (i.e. and still has it), rather than 'formerly given the number of' (and doesn't have it any more)? As the Datebank is equivocal on this, it is not for us to make any preferred conclusions. They after all two different pieces of music (although one is only an updating and transposition of the other), D. 568 revised some eight or nine years after D. 567. For this reason I am opposing the proposal to merge the articles on these two pieces which Mr. Schonken has initiated.--Smerus (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) I also gave this link [2] specifically to address this issue — as you can see the D-flat major sonata is given the 568 number *exclusively* without any mention of its former 567 number ("D 568 Sonate in Des/Es (1. Fassung in Des)" translates as "D. 568 Sonata in D-flat major / E-flat major (1st version in D-flat major)")

Re. "früher": in the context it can only mean "before", as in: its earlier, currently obsolete, number. My German isn't perfect, but that much I understand.

Re. "still lists the D flat version as D 567.": the last line (commentary) reads "siehe D 568" i.e. "see D 568".

Apart from the article titling issue, of course also the content of the article on the D-flat major sonata would need to make mention of the double D. number issue for this sonata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "D. 568 revised some eight or nine years after D. 567" — POV: both those that believe the E-flat major version was made shortly after the D-flat major version as those that believe some years lay between both versions have convincing arguments. See W. Litschauer in her introduction to NSE VII,2/1 (published 2000) - also here Wikipedia's NPOV policy obliges to give both views (and their major arguments) in the relevant article(s).

Re. "Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert) should in fact be deleted as there appears to be no citable authority for such a title": there is a citable source for the D. 568 number for the D-flat major version: Walburga Litschauer (ed.) Franz Schubert: Neue Ausgabe sämtlicher Werke Series VII: Piano Music, Part 2: Works for Piano Two Hands — Volume 1: Klaviersonaten I. Kassel, Bärenreiter (2000). ISMN 9790006497119 (via the external link in that citation the table of contents of that publication can be opened, 7a is the D-flat major version given under D. 568). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, content moved as proposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article title options

(see explanation below)

Piano Sonata in E major D. 157 (Schubert)
Piano Sonata No. 1 of 23 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in E major D. 157

Piano Sonata in E major D. 157, and D. 154

Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 (Schubert)
Piano Sonata No. 2 of 23 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in C major D. 279

Piano Sonata in C major D. 279, and D. 277A, 309A and 346

Piano Sonata in C major D. 279, and D. 277A - 309A - 346

Piano Sonata in C major D. 279, and D. 277A — 309A — 346

Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 (Schubert)
Piano Sonata No. 3 of 23 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in E major D. 459

Piano Sonata in E major D. 459, and D. 459A

(ibid.)

(ibid.)

Piano Sonata in E major D. 459, and Piano Pieces D. 459A

Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert)
Piano Sonata No. 4 of 23 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769A

etc...

Alternative 1: serialization on sonata sequence, "of 23" because of the other numbering systems.
Alternative 2: Disambiguation by D. number, without "(Schubert)" as second and redundant disambiguator, per WP:AT (e.g. WP:CONCISE), and WP:NCM (all examples in WP:NCM#Disambiguation and WP:NCM#Articles in series show that the composer's name is omitted once the disambiguation/serialization is done by catalogue number)
Alternative 3, 4, 5: adding other compositions discussed in the same article in a manner that avoids the suggestion that they are necessarily part of the sonata as such. Reasons:
- For these sonatas serialization is not a straightforward story
- WP:PRECISE (section of WP:AT policy). Exceptions to WP:PRECISE are possible, my preference is not to divert from this principle when possible.

when there are multiple added compositions, alternatives 3, 4 and 5 show alternative possibilities of how to list these

Alternative 6: naming the added compositions discussed in the sonata article (which I would only do for No. 3, Fünf Klavierstücke)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imho the titles we now have are good. Alternative 1: no, because of the existence of the other numbering scemes. Alternative 2: you are using the term "redundant" in the very narrow sense of logically redundant, but the "(Schubert)" serves an important purpose in that not everyone who might be interested in Schubert's sonatas would know that they have D numbers of those that do know this, not every knows that Schubert is the only composer to have D numbers. So, while the extra "(Schubert)" might not be needed for an omniscient computer, I reckon it's definitely needed for human use, therefore not redundant. Later options: details that need to be in the article but don't need to be in the title -- same status as things like date of composition, dedicatee, ... --Stfg (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. you are using the term "redundant" in the very narrow sense of logically redundant,... — in fact, no, I wasn't using the term "redundant" in that sense: I was using it in the sense of WP:PRECISE (copying from that part of the AT policy): "The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area." (bolding added). For the same reasons we don't add "(Schubert)" to Arpeggione Sonata or Wanderer Fantasy. For someone familiar with the subject area of Schubert compositions it is clear that they can only indicate a composition by Franz Peter Schubert, and the same can be said about Piano Sonata in E major D. 157, etc.

I acknowledge there is a recognisability deficit for readers outside the group of those familiar with the subject area, but there is no greater or smaller recognisability deficit as with Arpeggione Sonata or Wanderer Fantasy. Also, similar, that Schubert's last sonatas is about three compositions ending the series of sonatas for piano solo of that composer would be clear immediately to those familiar with the subject area, not to those outside that group. Generally speaking it is not the task op article titles to add that sort of information to article titles (if for the rest conforming to WP:AT and subsidiary guidelines).

Similar, the topic of The Kreutzer Sonata can only be surmized from the title by those familiar with a subject area way outside classical music compositions, yet we don't add the "redundant" disambiguator "(Tolstoy)", or whatever other addition clarifying the subject area. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We probably should, seeing that the disambiguation page identifies the Beethoven sonata as the primary topic. Unless we expect readers to know when we do and when we don't use the definite article in article titles and italics. I don't assume that. WP:PRECISE gives examples and reasoning for going beyond the minimal "no more precise than that". It's a matter of judgement, of course, but do we think the subject area that people should be familiar with to understand what the title refers to is Schubert's piano sonatas, Schubert's music, all piano sonatas, all Western classical music, all Western culture, all world culture, or any of those? I take the broader view, because this is an encyclopedia, not a textbook. --Stfg (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "We probably should", don't see that happening anywhere soon: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) specifically advises against any sort of addition to page titles on books (like subtitles, or parenthical qualifiers), unless strictly needed in a disambiguation logic.

The general idea you're referring to is recognisability. I'm all for maximum recognisability. The thing is that parenthical additions to the end of a page title are not very suited for that, because in Wikipedia article titling logic parenthical additions indicate disambiguation, see WP:AT#Disambiguation --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be only one editor dissatisfied with the present titles of the sonatas. This means there exists a consensus with the exception of that editor. Unless another appears, the titles should be left exactly as they are, and this discussion should be closed.--Smerus (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we discussed the matter so carefully but like Smerus I would also like to be done with this topic. Opus33 (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that--regardless of the topic--the vocal desire for the "thread to be done" is one of the expressions of dominance--a way to exert control over a dialogue by cutting it off. (I learned about this from one of the Wikimedia board members who is very concerned with uncivil ways in which users can treat each other.) With all the problems that Wikipedia has, I think it behooves all users to be sensitive to the way they handle dialogues with other users. -- kosboot (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is fascinating. Does this mean no-one can ever venture on Wikipedia the opinion that enough is enough without being accused of 'dominating'? Wouldn't - to take a purely hypothetical example - an editor who bangs on about the same issues again and again, and at great length - also be considered as seeking to dominate? If - to take another hypothetical example - half a dozen editors are satisified with a state of affairs, but one editor is not, is any attempt by one of the half-dozen to suggest closure to be regarded as 'dominating'? Would not, then, a taboo of 'dominating' put at risk the whole concept of numerical consensus - on which Wikipedia to a large extent depends? I read with interest the article commended by kosboot - I suppose the intervention by Opus33 doesn't fall under 'Gender differences' or 'non-Verbal Indicators' - the varieties of 'verbal dominance' listed in the article, apart from inter-sexual examples, are given as 'Vocal control, loudness, and pitch'. But I am still not quite sure by which of these Opus33 might be considered to have transgressed. I venture to suggest therefore - without of course seeking to dominate - that rather than seeking to hand out implicit censures, we might consider being civil to Opus33, as well, of course, to all other editors. And then we could devote ourselves to considering the matter actually at hand. --Smerus (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to Kosboot and Francis Schonken. I didn't mean to be rude. Opus33 (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Closure: I think I pointed out before that listing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure would be a more uninvolved way to get to that point. WP:AN/RFC volunteers would usually recommend to keep the discussion open for somewhat between a week (minimum for WP:RM's - what was the topic of this thread in the first place) and 30 days (for more widereaching discussions, which is the case now while the current choices seem to direct toward a guideline rewrite).

Regarding updates needed to WP:NCM (when there is a consensus on:

Piano Sonata in E major D. 157 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in A minor D. 537 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in A-flat major D. 557 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in E minor D. 566 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in D-flat major D. 568 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in E-flat major D. 568 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in F-sharp minor D. 571 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in B major D. 575 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in C major D. 613 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in F minor D. 625 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in C-sharp minor D. 655 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in A major D. 664 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in A minor D. 784 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in C major D. 840 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in A minor D. 845 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in D major D. 850 (Schubert)

Piano Sonata in G major D. 894 (Schubert)

Schubert's last sonatas

Schubert's last sonatas

Schubert's last sonatas

):

Capitalisation of sonata/Sonata: to be decided on a case by case basis - or is there some sort of rule of thumb I don't see? Or do we want to move all Handel sonatas to pages with "Sonata" capitalised?
- See [3] for my stab at this. Revert or improve as deemed necessary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a catalogue indicator suffises as disambiguator: to be decided on a case by case basis - or is there some rule of thumb like when the catalogue indicator contains less than three letters it is deemed inherently ambiguous? Note that parenthical additions to the end of an article title would be perceived as a disambiguator (see WP:AT#Disambiguation). An exception to that would best be recorded in the WP:NCM guideline.

Also per WP:AT#Disambiguation I'd try to avoid articles in the format "[someting], [something else] (something3)" while both comma and parenthical additions would be perceived as indicating a disambiguator. So I also amend my proposal above: alternative #3: Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 and D. 459A; alternative #4: Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 and D. 277A - 309A - 346; alternative #5: Piano Sonata in C major D. 279 and D. 277A — 309A — 346; alternative #6: Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 and Piano Pieces D. 459A.

Exception to WP:NCM#Articles in series: the title format for a series of compositions by the same composer can be interrupted by a differently formatted descriptive article title when such article groups more than one of the compositions in the series (in order to account for Schubert's last sonatas).
WP:NCM#Articles in series would need to be clearer that uniformity of the article titles in a series often supersedes common name, e.g. no mention of Moonlight in the article title of Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven). However, Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51, not Cantata BWV 51. (personally, I'd prefer not to move away from the common name principle too much - numbered series can be in navboxes for clarity but should not supersede the common name, nor prevent the addition of the most recognisable feature of an article topic to the name).

Other than that, I'd like to return to the editing of the content of the articles on Schubert's compositions. Last time I looked, most of the piano sonatas were still no more than stubs. When improving, sourcing and expanding the content of these articles leads to new insights for article titling we can take up the discussion of article titling issues again. E.g. changing Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 to Piano Sonata in E major D. 459 and Piano Pieces D. 459A would not be possible before de-stubbing the article I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm back, having been dealing with real life for a bit. My vote is for titles of the form "Sonata in [Key], D. [number] (Schubert)," the current standard. Without wading in detail through the foregoing, I still find it counterintuitive to head articles about musical compositions with titles that don't refer to the composer. Yeah, I know, "D." is supposed to be a signal. "K." is a signal for Mozart. It's also a signal for Scarlatti. Fix that with Kk for Scarlatti? Then you run the risk of confusion with KK for Chopin--who also, by the way, also can have D. numbers (for certain works as assigned by Józef Michał Chomiński). These are just ones that crop up under the Opus number article here in Wikipedia, and who's to say that some scholar won't pop up tomorrow with a new scheme that creates ambiguity, say a comprehensive catalogue of Joseph Lanner headed BWV (for Boring Waltz Volume)? Ahem. In any event, the parenthetical ensures no confusion is possible and hence strikes me as logical, not redundant. Drhoehl (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to accomodate for eventualities in the future. If something changes, the pages can be moved in a swiff.

"D. + number" is unambiguous for the Deutsch catalogue, no confusion with Chopin. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or doesn't exit yet: neither are of any concern here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further updates to the NC guideline

I placed my proposal for further updates to the naming conventions guideline on music at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we have your attention... "D" or "D."?

Above Solti79 wrote:

Referring to a point I have tried to make earlier, three major editions of Schubert's piano works: the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe, G. Henle Verlag and the Wiener Urtext editions all list Deutsch numbers without a dot following the "D" I would also point out the reference made by Michael Bednarek in regards to the fact that this issue has been previously discussed and the consensus was to list Deutsch numbers without the dot. Also, any letter following a number (Ex. D 769A, should be capitalized- this is the way it appears in the Deutsch catalogue)

...What are the views on this?

I'd stick to "D" for now. As I suggested at Talk:List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Completion of the article: does anyone have access to Otto Erich Deutsch, The Schubert Thematic Catalogue. New York: Dover Publications, 1995. ISBN 0486286851 – ISBN 9780486286853 (AFAIK the last version in English of the entire catalogue)? If yes, how do they abbreviate Deutsch in that version of the catalogue? Also, does anyone have a link to a prior discussion on this (as suggested above)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for capitalizing "A" in 769A I agree with Solti. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer D, but don't get excited about D. (as I prefer an infobox, but don't get excited if an article is left without one). How about K vs. K.? No dot after BWV, HWV, SVW etc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

adding: List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre has no dot but a space, also de:Fraz Schubert, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Francis Schonken for bringing up this topic. I understand this seems not to interest other editors as much as the title of the Schubert Sonatas articles, but I do find it necessary to discuss for the following reasons: As it turns out, there appear to be four different ways to list Deutsch numbers that I have come across with (will use the number of the first Piano Sonata as an example): "D 157", "D157", "D. 157", and "D.157" This probably stems from the fact that the Deutsch catalogue itself (at least in the German version), does not add the prefix "D" or "D." before the numerical entries, which in a way leaves this open to interpretation. Because many different sources in both German and English are not consistent among the four different formats used above, I felt it was necessary to establish an authoritative, primary source to use as the basis for the format used here in Wikipedia. I determined that the Neue Schubert-Ausgabe edition was that source, given that the authorities in Tübingen/Vienna have been in charge for the past fifty years or so, of organizing and editing the entire Schubert output. As such, the articles I have been working on use the format as given in the NSA edition ("D 157"). While I obviously would appreciate support in this regard, I think that even more important than our personal views on the matter, is the fact that we should have all articles in Wiki that mention Deutsch numbers formatted in the same fashion, whatever that ends up being. Consistency/uniformity should be a priority in this regard. Any input that allows us to reach consensus here would be greatly appreciated. Carlos Solti79 (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The form "D 157" (space, no dot) seems reasonable to me and in line with some previous thinking here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massive page moves...

Lieder:
- Wiegenlied, D. 498 (Schubert) → Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert)
Piano sonatas:

Quartettsatzen:
- Quartettsatz, D. 103 (Schubert) → Quartettsatz, D 103 (Schubert)
- Quartettsatz, D. 703 (Schubert) → Quartettsatz, D 703 (Schubert)
Symphonies:

Whoever thinks this is worth it, I'd suggest to take this to WP:RM, alternatively perform the page moves, if deemed uncontroversial. But maybe we'd have to look at the no-comma (piano sonatas) vs. comma (al others) issue again before moving all these pages. So I'd suggest

Either

Lieder:
- Wiegenlied, D. 498 (Schubert) → Wiegenlied D 498 (Schubert)
Piano sonatas:

Quartettsatzen:
- Quartettsatz, D. 103 (Schubert) → Quartettsatz D 103 (Schubert)
- Quartettsatz, D. 703 (Schubert) → Quartettsatz D 703 (Schubert)
Symphonies:

Or

Lieder:
- Wiegenlied, D. 498 (Schubert) → Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert)
Piano sonatas:

Quartettsatzen:
- Quartettsatz, D. 103 (Schubert) → Quartettsatz, D 103 (Schubert)
- Quartettsatz, D. 703 (Schubert) → Quartettsatz, D 703 (Schubert)
Symphonies:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens, if any page moves get done, can we please have the comma back in between the name of the piece and the letter D: e.g. Piano Sonata in A minor, D. 845 (Schubert), etc. The full stop after the D is optional, being a matter of style, and hence subject to consensus; but the comma is surely mandatory. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe best to state your preference without illusive distinctions between "optional, being a matter of style, and hence subject to consensus" vs. "surely mandatory" (which rather weakens than strenghtens an argument):
1. If the comma is "surely mandatory", then we'd record it in a "manual of style" dependent guideline, thus definitely a style matter
2. Regarding the comma, I found both "styles":
  - EMI:
    - (Zacharias) (back) Sonate en si bémol majeur, D.960
    - (Kovacevich) (front) Klaviersonate D.960; (back) Klaviersonate B-dur D 960; (booklet) Piano Sonata, D.960
  - Deutsche Grammophon:
    - (Kempff) (back) Piano Sonata in B flat major, D 960; (disc) Piano Sonata D 960
  - Harmonia Mundi
    - (Planès) (front) Sonate D. 960; (back) Sonate n°21 [23] op. post. D.960; (booklet) Sonata D 960
  - Brilliant Classics
    - (all on the back, different discs from the same series) SONATENZATZ, D28; QUARTETTSATZ in C minor D703
  - RCA
    - (back) Sonata in A Minor, D.821; (disc) Sonata in A Minor D. 821

... scholarly writings, score headers, etc. would probably show as much diversity... in sum... there's no "surely mandatory" for this, except for an optional and chosen directive, subject to consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those of you who have voiced an opinion on this matter. I agree with Francis Schonken that you can probably can find numerous sources that both list the comma or not. Out of the two options listed, I prefer the second one, the one that does have the comma. I am not sure if it is necessary or not, but the title definitely looks better organized (IMHO) when it does have it. I also understand that moving all the pages listed will require some work. Since I was the one to bring up this issue, I would gladly volunteer to do this once we consider that consensus on this topic has been reached. Carlos Solti79 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait till the pages are moved, but modifying the {{D.}} template so that it displays D instead of D. will update at once all instances that use that template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't move these pages yet. I've made it an official WP:RM. See Talk:Wiegenlied, D. 498 (Schubert)#Requested moves --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that sources differ in the outside world, I would prefer D with a period, which is consistent with usage for K. (Mozart) and K. and L. (Scarlatti), at the least, as they appear in Wikipedia, and comports with the usual expectation in English that an abbreviation is followed by a period--or, at least, what I was taught as the usual expectation; seems as if every time I turn around, another such rule has changed without notice to yours truly. If the period does go, then I am strongly in favor of the comma as requested above and would hesitantly raise the issue of whether we need to do the same regarding periods for all the other composers having like catalogue listings. If the period stays, I would prefer that our comma usage conform with what is done with other composers. Drhoehl (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"D." template updated to no-period preference

Without a parameter, the template inserts a link to the Deutsch catalogue article (a.k.a. Schubert Thematic Catalogue by Otto Erich Deutsch) for compositions by Franz Schubert numbered according to that catalogue.

First parameter ("1") unnamed, omits the link whatever value is given to the parameter (only removes the period/full stop).

"number" parameter, when defined, makes the returned result of the template wikilink to the shortcut redirect to the article on the work (e.g. D. 157), while displaying the link without the period.

For the shortcuts: avoid creation of shortcuts without the period while some of the numbers in that format are ambiguous, e.g. D 506 needs to disambiguate from Rule D 506

So, this is how it works:

 Lorem {{D.}} 506 ipsum

→ Lorem D 506 ipsum

 Lorem {{D.|u}} 506 ipsum

→ Lorem D 506 ipsum

 Lorem {{D.|number=506}} ipsum

→ Lorem D 506 ipsum

 Lorem {{D.|u|number=506}} ipsum

→ Lorem D 506 ipsum

Some clarification on the advantages of the unlinked template:

Why would one use the unlinked template, when the same effect can be achieved with a single keystroke? The advantage is that the layout of all D numbers using the template can be updated simultaneously whatever the current preference on its display → Wikipedia-wide consistency.

Another advantage is that the template inserts an non-breaking space between the D and the number value, even in the unlinked version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't understand why the link goes to Deutsch catalogue, while the article name is Schubert Thematic Catalogue. Should that be moved? We don't say Mozart Thematic Catalogue. Why capital Thematic and Catalogue anyway? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

→ page name according to WP:NCB. No, everything is in order, nothing needs to be changed for the page name. (Köchel catalogue is different: its first edition was not in English) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, helped. I didn't realise the "book" aspect. - Now for practical changes:

D seemes preferable to a simple D, right?
How should a real redirect look like, Mass No. 6 (Schubert) for example, D 950, D. 950 or what? - With added (Schubert) in case of dab?
I prefer commas around the catalogue number in the lead, because brackets are often needed for a translation, and two brackets in a row look strange (to me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re.

yes, that's what the template proposes (no guideline however... just an aid for the D. → D conversions we're about to perform now, as a consequence of the change in preference w.r.t. the page names)
See above, 4th paragraph: "For the shortcuts: avoid creation of shortcuts without the period while some of the numbers in that format are ambiguous, e.g. D 506 needs to disambiguate from Rule D 506"
Not a page naming/template issue. No problem, depends on circumstances I suppose. Don't think we need a guideline about that. If so → Wikipedia:Lead section#Format of the first sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re.

Who is we? You and I and others, or a bot?
I read that but it didn't tell me if we should go for D. 950 (which would be kind of strange while moving to no dot) or D 950 which is unique or D 950 (Schubert) or something else.
I take that as I can use commas without breaking something, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re.

No Wikipedia:Bot requests have been filed, and I wasn't planning on one...
- Bot people might not be intersested in such job
- Might be very error-prone to have such task performed by a bot
Feel free to list a bot request nonetheless. Otherwise, yes: "You and I and others"
What we "should" do is open for discussion. D. 950 is the format I propose even when "strange while moving to no dot" (the visual aspect, not showing the dot, is handled when using the {{D.}} template though, another advantage of using the template), to avoid the other issues, while still relatively shure that when a D-number is used for a wikilink it is red when the article doesn't exist yet, and it is blue when it links to the article on the composition, not to some disambiguation page or other article. Example: I can type [[D. 506|the fourth movement of Schubert's E minor sonata]] (the fourth movement of Schubert's E minor sonata) or [[D 506|the fourth movement of Schubert's E minor sonata]] (the fourth movement of Schubert's E minor sonata) — now click both links and you'll see what I mean.
(Note: for Mozart we'd have the same problem when at some point it would be decided the period after the K. should be omitted, compare K. 13 and K 13)
Sure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will change appearance of Schubert's church music later today, without doing redirects for D numbers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TX! For creating the shortcuts I'd start from the list pages List of compositions by Franz Schubert (D 1–D 500) and List of compositions by Franz Schubert (D 501–D 998), for example:

First do this (inserting the template)
Then, if the composition page(s) exist(s), click the redlink(s) you've created, and create the redirect

--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, section I (church music) done, also II (stage works), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tx again. Caution for D.'s in wikilinks: in that case ONLY the unlinked template can be used ({{D.|u}}), otherwise the link where you're changing the text doesn't work any more ([4]). As said this is somewhat error-prone for automatization. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture sections in guideline

User:SurreyJohn has raised the issue of "In Popular Culture" as they are treated in our guidelines. He raised the issue on the Guidelines subpage of he project talkpage, a subpage which has very few watchers. So I am copying the comments here for further discussion:

Why should "such edits should be discouraged"? I and I am sure others would be interested in what movie or film a piece has been used in. Very often it is what makes a piece popular to the masses. E.g. Barber's Adagio in the Elephant Man, Platoon and several other films. The actual article does have this information, so it is just this guideline that is at fault. Please do not judge who should be interested in what!

I suggest this section is removed (or reworded to include popular culture). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 11:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SurreyJohn, pages like this get very few watchers. I suggest you raise the issue at the project's main talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This section is simply a adaptation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. If the use of a composition is notable, i.e. the use has been discussed in reliable sources, it will usually be included in the composition's article. For mere occurrences, the special page "WhatLinksHere" is a rich source of information, e.g. Special:WhatLinksHere/Adagio for Strings. For other works, the use in popular culture is of such volume that a special article has been created: Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture, Category:Music in popular culture. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(MB)

This has no connection with the Trivia guideline. Why should music being used in films, adverts, etc be discouraged or treated as trivia? This section is misleading. Another example is Bach’s Air on the G String. This text suggests one should write an article on Hamlet Cigars and add the reference to the music there, which is nonsense! At least in practice, it seems that popular culture (and other) sections do include the use of music in film and TV (so this section of the guidance is being ignored). Air on a G string has a large section on popular culture, and rightly so, and likewise O Fortuna. I can detect the bread in Dvorak’s New World too! Again I say such subject matter should be encouraged, not discouraged. SurreyJohn (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I agree with SurreyJohn. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've often felt that WP's guideline against "popular culture" (a phrase I dislike) must be a hold-over from academic papers (which discourage such things). The question of whether to include them is subjective, and that contradicts much of what WP is about. That some music is used "in popular culture" is a fact; people should not be the ones to decide whether it's "worthy", just to document it. -- kosboot (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles would get very long if all appearances in "popular culture" would be mentioned, thinking of BWV 147 with its famous chorale. An extra article, that might help at times, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... which massively raises WP:UNDUE. As for "just documenting it": therein lies the rub – ordinarily, no citation showing the significance of a composition's popular use is provided, not even a source for its use; see WP:BURDEN. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like both Gerda's and Michael's points - that is, when possible or practical, I favor a separate article documenting "popular" uses, rather than incorporating it into the work's main article. (I'm sure uses of "O Fortuna" would overwhelm everything ever written on Carmina Burana - and in fact, a lot of film music studies discuss the use of "O Fortuna" in films.) Maybe such things should be made into lists rather than articles (just a thought). -- kosboot (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with putting pop culture items into separate linked articles, for the reasons Gerda, Michael, and Kosboot give. I also like Michael's implicit suggestion of accepting such additions only if they have a cited reference source; I suspect many such contributions are based only on the unreliable memories of the contributors.

It might be worthwhile to mention events here on WP from about 2007. At the time, we had a nice system going in which many articles (not just classical music) had their satellite articles of the form "X in popular culture". This let the pop culture enthusiasts contribute all that they felt like, while still respecting WP:UNDUE within the main articles. Sadly, a misguided group of editors went on a warpath, using the AfD process to remove essentially every "X in popular culture" article from WP. I hope this doesn't happen again. Opus33 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SurreyJohn too. How music was and is used, when and by whom, is a significant aspect of music history (see Taruskin's History of Western Music for lots of exploration of this). Whether to split out something like Jesu Joy or to keep it with the containing work is a less important matter, depending mostly on whether there's enough to sustain the separate article. --Stfg (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would a citation from IMDB (in their "soundtracks" section) be a minimally acceptable source citation documenting uses in popular culture? This discussion is almost asking for developing some acceptable-use guidelines. -- kosboot (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mere presence of a composition in a film is not the issue; whether it's important enough to be discussed in reliable sources is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, there's the rub. Off the top of my head, I'd say such uses in popular culture are rarely important enough to be discussed in reliable sources (Unless you consider IMDB a reliable source). At least from my point of view, I recognize that people who edit Wikipedia have a very strong desire to create such lists. To my thinking it is more productive (from WP's and the users' point of view) to steer them into a constructive direction, rather than forbidding such lists. In such cases, if one thinks of the citation to a reliable source not as a prerequisite, but as something to eventually capture, then the existence of "in popular culture lists" is not such a problem and can satisfy the many who want to create such things. -- kosboot (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening here now? There seems to be good agreement that change are needed as the guideline does not match common practice and popular culture is part of the music's history. I would agree any content should be notable and referable (as according to WP guidelines), and not simply a long list of minor appearances in films. Size doesn't matter (e.g Beethoven's 5th), but as the title Uses in popular culture implies (see link), any inclusions should be of popular (i.e. significant) uses of the music. This is not simply about films. It will includes TV commercials, wedding and funeral marches, songs, and other uses where classical pieces have been reused. Therefore I do not see this guideline being applicable to genre of soundtracks, and videogames which are compositions in their own right.
Shall I go ahead and propose some changes, or is is better one of the project team does it? It appears to have been stuck on the end of the page (after References) as an afterthought, so perhaps the whole section should be simply deleted, or otherwise placed in a better order and position. SurreyJohn (Talk) 10:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is really an encyclopedia, and not a dump for data and facts, then any 'trivia' would be integrated as prose within an article, not a miscellaneous list towards the end. Although the 'trivia/references to' situation is quite bad with some articles; it is only restraint that prevents it overwhelming articles. It's worth thinking what a reputable print encyclopedia might have done. Unless (say) there is a reference to Bolero being used notably in a film/computer game/literature etc in a reliable source article/book about Ravel then it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia Bolero page, although it could of course be mentioned on the page about the film/computer game etc. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: WP is better than a print encyclopedia, so inevitably it does have a lot more data and facts. Anyway, I would like to get the guideline changed as modern use of music is not trivia, should no be called such, and should not be removed. Also, we should be working to WP guidelines and not inventing our own. Sources should not restricted to composer textbooks, and WP:NPOV states that you should not try to exclude sources because they do not conform to your point of view. The "modern use" content is largely already in articles, so I just want to see the guideline updated to align with common practice. SurreyJohn (Talk) 16:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on all points. On your earlier question, SurreyJohn, imo it would be great if you were to go ahead and propose some changes. --Stfg (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Stfg. I will put a draft here by end of week. SurreyJohn (Talk) 21:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; here's the proposal (original and revised versions): I've tried to take all points on board. However, I've deliberately omitted guidance on style (such as splitting a large list into a separate article) or restating guidance notes, as this is general guidance applicable to any article or section.

Uses in popular culture (original)

Often articles about works of classical music are sometimes edited along the following lines:
Work X was used in [movie/TV show/electronic game] Y.
Such edits should be discouraged, they are usually of little interest to readers who want to know about the musical work, and would be of greater interest to readers who want to know about the movie, TV show, or electronic game. For instance, viewers of these items often would like to know what music they are hearing. Except in extraordinary circumstances, contributions of this sort should be politely reverted. It may be useful to encourage the contributor to include the item in the article about the movie, TV show, or electronic game, if this has not already been done. See also: Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections.

Uses in popular culture (revised)

Classical music often gets reused in popular culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This can often make a hitherto unknown work more popular. Therefore, where the music being described has had significant prominence in a film, TV commercial, song, etc., then its use should be described. This could be under a "Uses in Popular Culture" header, or something more specific such as "Use in Films". Try to include the part of the music used, where or how it was used, and which year.
The use should have significant prominence such as an introduction, reoccurring theme or background music to a popular film, the music to a pop song, or used in a long-running TV commercial. Where an article about the subject (e.g. film) already exists, a link should be made to the article, and that article should also include a link back to the music's article (i.e. both articles are cross-referenced).
A long list of trivial uses should be avoided. However, a balance must be sought between rejecting trivial uses whilst keeping a neutral point of view: If the music is mentioned in an article being references, or it is well sourced, then it should be kept, whereas if the use is poorly referenced and the subject (e.g. film) has no atricle is will likely be removed.
Discographies, staged performances, TV productions and other adaptations should be described under other headers.

Hopefully, the revised section can be accepted, but if not then the offending section should simply be removed. SurreyJohn (Talk) 09:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Catherine Hewgill

Dear classical music experts: Here's another old AfC submission about a classical musician. Is this a notable player, and should the draft be kept and improved instead of being deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[5] is "significant coverage". [6] and [7] probably so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andy Mabbett. I have postponed its deletion for six months in case someone wants to work on it. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne Delong: @Pigsonthewing: I beg to differ. The "toughest workout yet" article is not significant coverage -- it does not "address the topic directly and in detail". She slipped in a car park and broke her wrist, threatening her career. Worth including in an article about her if she's notable, but scarcely relevant to establishing notability. Andy's second link is an interview, therefore primary source, therefore inadmissible to establish notability. Andy's third airs her opinions about a new competition at which she will be a judge. It isn't even slightly substantial about her. (Andy's link is only to a summary, but the full article is properly linked from the AFC). The draft tries to make the subject look important by naming a couple of conductors she has played under, and Edna Everage. But WP:NOTINHERITED -- the triangle player of any professional orchestra could claim as much. This is nowhere near GNG or MUSICBIO. It's another of those LinkedIn-like things that waste so much time here. --Stfg (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any policies supporting your assertions that either an article about an injury impacting a career, or an interview, do not stablish notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I also agree with Stfg. I see no evidence in any of the sources that Ms. Hewgill is a notable musician in any way. That is not to say she is not a good musician, or even an admirable one, technically. But there are plenty of cellists who happen to sit at the lead desks of orchestras. The notability criteria which are, or might be, relevant to Ms. Hewgill are as follows (Wikipedia:Notability_(music)):

'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.'
'Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.'
'Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
'Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.'
'Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.'
'Has won or placed in a major music competition.'
'Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network'

None of these seem to apply to Ms. Hewgill as far as I can see. That she injured herself is for WP purposes trivial, in that it does not make her notable as a musician. Being a judge in a (minor) competition is not a criterion for notability. I myself have played under one or two conductors who have been (deservedly) awarded WP articles; but that doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination, make me a notable musician (as my wife and friends would testify). And so on. To clarify the comments of Mr. Mabbett, notability for WP is not a matter of determining whether certain facts are (or are not) compatible with notability, but whether there are facts which establish notability according to the accepted guidelines. Here, there aren't. So this seems a clear candidate for deletion. --Smerus (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Smerus. I was just typing a reply to Andy when you came in and said it very much better than I would have. May I just add that GNG requires notability-establishing sources to be "independent of the subject", which an interview with the subject certainly is not, and states '"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.' Any claim that an interview with the subject is a secondary source is roundly refuted by footnote 3 in Wikipedia:No original research, which is a policy.

The real issue here, I suggest, is whether being a section principal in a professional orchestra is sufficient to establish notability. I see nothing in WP:NMUSIC to suggest that it comes anywhere near. --Stfg (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research is not concerned with notability; and in any case caveats the footnote to which you refer with "depending on context". An interview which is conducted by an independent journalist and published after an editorial review is independent of the source. It may be a dubious citation for a claim made by the interviewee, but it does contribute to the establishment of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous! Of course it isn't independent of the source. It reports what the source said! The relevance of Wikipedia:No original research is that WP:GNG calls for secondary sources, and links to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources to define that. The mention of "context" is unexplained in the footnote, but is explained in the main section in the paragraph on secondary sources. Editorial review has nothing at all to do with it. If the information is first-hand, it's a primary source, even if there has been scholarly peer review. And newspaper editorial review falls very far short of that standard. --Stfg (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not something "reports what the source said" is immaterial to whether that source is notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said "reports what the subject said", of course. And that is relevant to whether the subject is notable, because WP:GNG requires that, to establish notability, sources should be "independent of the subject", as I pointed out earlier. --Stfg (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An interview which is conducted by an independent journalist and published after an editorial review is independent of the source (or subject). As I pointed out earlier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. The notability criteria which apply to Ms. Hewgill, and all potential Wikipedia subjects, are WP:GNG. Wikipedia:Notability (music) may provide a shortcut to GNG criteria, but do not trump them. Your personal example is a straw man; no one is claiming notability based on work with conductors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. As pointed out by Stfg, ' The draft tries to make the subject look important by naming a couple of conductors she has played under' - let me explain to Mr. Mabbett that the content of the article is what editors peruse to determine whether or not it meets notability standards. It is the creator of the article who has erected a straw man by inserting material which is, (in its effect), WP:WEASEL. The fact that people have been in the same room, concert hall, or whatever with others does not make them notable. By the way, WP:BIO specifically says 'See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.' There is no issue of 'trumping' here. It is simply that the sources do not stand up to WP requirements.--Smerus (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More straw men; and so far as the reference which Smerus (hey, third-person is fun!) gives to WP:Bio, it sits within the section Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. ~~You~~ He should read its opening paragraphs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I interrupt here :). The current article is poor with poorly chosen references. It can be improved and different references used to ensure that it would most likely survive an AfD. That's all Anne was basically asking here and why she quite rightly postponed deletion of the draft. Anne, I'll work on it over the next few days. In my view, she passes Criteria #5 of WP:MUSICBIO with two recordings for ABC Classics as a member of the Australian Piano Trio. They have been broadcast numerous times on ABC Classic FM. She is also the principal cello of a notable symphony orchestra, and a founding member of the Novalis String Quartet which has an entry in The Oxford Companion to Australian Music (thus arguably passing criteria #6). Finally, the article in the Sydney Morning Herald was not simply a report of her having broken her wrist. It was written in 2006, 5 years after the accident, and was actually a lengthy profile in the lead up to her performing the Haydn Cello concerto in D major at the Sydney Opera House. I have also found a two page article devoted to her in the August 2013 print issue of Fine Music Magazine (published by Fine Music 102.5) which I'll be adding to the draft. Voceditenore (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Voceditenore. That's all good stuff. However, regardless of the specifics of this case, misrepresentations of policy such as those I challenged above, need to be highlighted, lest other people believe them, and try to apply them elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I went sailing for one day and all this happened. My take on the sources mentioned in Andy's original reply: (1) the article about the wrist does count towards WP:GNG, since its not just an accident report but the article was written about it because she had a career to be threatened. I am a violinist and I also broke my wrist - but sadly no reporters thought it an interesting topic for a news report. (2) an interview can count toward notability a little bit if the interview is published in reliable source - not everyone is interviewed. If the interviewer takes the time to write substantial information to accompany the interviewee's words, it's an article as well as an interview. I avoid using interview refs which include just stock questions and no research by the interviewer. (3) The article about the contest could acount slightly toward notability if it is a notable contest, but not much because the article says very little about her and is mostly about the contest, and her own words can't be used to establish notability. Anyway, I just postponed it rather than accepting because I thought the draft wasn't obviously acceptable as it was, but both Andy and I thought it was worth improving, and the classical music experts here would more easily find better refs or judge the notability of the ones included. I'll be interested to see what Voceditenore comes up with. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of prolonging an already (overly) long discussion, I'll just note, Andy, Smerus, et al., that notability guidelines, are just that. They are not policy and the finer points of interpretation usually have to get thrashed out at AfDs where the results are not always consistent. In fact they can be a complete lottery depending on who participates. Nor are the guidelines themselves consistent. Take the football players' guidelines for example. All someone has to do is step out onto the pitch (even as a substitute) in a professional league game one time and they qualify for an article. Meanwhile the principals and soloists of major symphony orchestras have to jump through multiple hoops and are judged by guidelines which were clearly written for pop musicians and bands. Just sayin'. Voceditenore (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Voceditenore. That about footballers is rather OTHERSTUFF, but your sources are enough for me. The two albums would already be enough, and I think that being a member of a recorded professional trio and section principal of a professional orchestra are sufficient for "musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles" in MUSICBIO #6. --Stfg (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found a concert review, a recording review and a couple of other things, so I have moved the article to mainspace now. Thanks to all who participate in the discussion and thanks to Voceditenore for the improvements. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead for Mozart masses

After the move, I think we can't leave the lead sections of Mozart's masses the same without risking to be confusing. A extra problem is to bold all redirects and to avoid links from those bold redirects.

Example: The Missa brevis No. 1 in G major, K. 49/47d, is a mass composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in Vienna in the autumn of 1768.

"Mass" appears nowhere bold, we can't expect people to know that Missa is Latin for Mass, "No. 1" is unexplained.

The Mass in G major, K. 49, is a mass in G major by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He wrote the missa brevis in Vienna in the autumn of 1768. It is also known as his Missa brevis No. 1 and was formerly assigned K. 47d in the Köchel catalogue.

I adjusted my infobox suggestion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's confusing -- it doesn't need to be in boldface to be informative. There's too much tautology in "The Mass in G major, K. 49, is a mass in G major ...". Better to leave as is, imo. --Stfg (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find the "No. 1" confusing, but may be the only one. I also don't expect the general reader to be familiar with "Missa brevis". It needs some kind of link, but not from a bold section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mass in G major, K. 49, is the first missa brevis by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He wrote it in Vienna in the autumn of 1768. It was formerly assigned K. 47d in the Köchel catalogue.

(or:) The Mass in G major, K. 49, is the first ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks good. (I prefer the first version. If we really must wikilink keys, then we can do it later.) --Stfg (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same for me, except: ~~It was formerly assigned K. 47d in the Köchel catalogue~~ → It was later re-assigned K. 47d in the Köchel catalogue (see also my latest update to WP:NCM, to which this article title conforms). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mass in G major, K. 49, is the first missa brevis by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He ~~wrote~~ composed it in Vienna in the autumn of 1768. It was later re-assigned K. 47d in the Köchel catalogue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still prefer full name bolded on first appearance, without link to the key signature. Also this suggestion: ~~He wrote it in Vienna in...~~ → He composed it in Vienna in... --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"composed" is fine and following Bach examples ;) - Two comments regarding the bolding: I like about not bold that the key is more clearly not part of the name, and where would you want the link to the key without being repetitive? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(link for easy access to the page: K. 49)

First reiteration of the key (in third paragraph) works fine for me:

The mass is divided into six movements.
"Kyrie" Adagio, G major, common time
"Kyrie eleison..." Andante, G major, 3/4

"Gloria" Allegro, G major, common time

"Credo" Allegro, G major, 3/4
"Et incarnatus est..." Poco Adagio, C major, cut common time

"Et resurrexit..." Allegro, G major, cut common time

"Et in Spiritum Sanctum..." Andante, C major, 3/4; bass solo

"Et in unam sanctam..." Allegro, G major, cut common time

"Sanctus" Andante, G major, 3/4
"Pleni sunt coeli et terra..." Allegro, G major, 3/4

"Hosanna in excelsis..." Allegro, G major, 4/2

"Benedictus" Andante, C major, 3/4; soloist quartet
"Hosanna in excelsis..." Allegro, G major, 4/2

"Agnus Dei" Adagio, G major, cut common time
"Dona nobis pacem..." Allegro, G major, 3/8

Re. "key ... not part of the name" — opinions differ. WP:NCM#Definitions - italics (first table, second example) clearly defines it as part of the generic name, neither more nor less part of the generic name as "Mass". --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The key signature of a composition is only added to the article title when it is part of the common name of the composition

(bolding added) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. infobox example: this is not a discussion of what it would preferably look like in the infobox, this is a discussion of the lede, per WP:BOLDTITLE (no mention of infoboxes in that part of the guideline). FWIW, I'd discuss the infoboxes later on. Most of the articles of this series would probably benefit from some updating/expansion before we can (re)consider introducing infoboxes I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would work for me too:

The Mass in G major, K. 49 (K⁶ 47d) is the first mass composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. It is a missa brevis that originated in Vienna in the autumn of 1768. ...

... and then link the first G major in the third paragraph as proposed above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"key part of the name", - I think not opinions differ but first cases differ. Mozart's mass has no ~~true~~ name at all, we name it, the key is given as a disambiguation because we don't have a better one, so is the catalogue number. Mass in G major is not a common name, I would think. In other cases, such as K.427, I believe that the key became part of the name, and would say Great Mass in C minor. But here opinions will differ. There is no infobox guideline for compositions, and it has already been missed (by Finnusertop) ;) - I put one here (and only one) to show how much easier certain things can be shown at a glance than in prose, - in my opinion ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"... in G Major, K. 49" (copied from the listing of disk 111 here), definitely part of the common name. I use the expression "common name" as on the policy page WP:COMMONNAME, not as a sort of synonym to generic or non-generic name, which is something else. Generic vs. non-generic names for compositions are defined at WP:NCM#Definitions - italics. For some compositions the common name (in this sense) happens to be a generic name, in other cases it is a non-generic name. Sometimes the common name (both for the generic as the non-generic types) includes the key signature, often it doesn't.

Re. Great Mass in C minor:

non-generic for the "Great" (translation of Große), does not indicate a "type" of composition (as the additions "brevis", "longa", "solemnis" and "brevis et solemnis" do when added to "missa"), thus the name of that composition is italicized.
includes the key signature in the common name, as much as generic composition names can include the key signature in the common name, as for K. 49.

I've no problem discussing infoboxes. But again, other things probably need to be done first. One that keeps popping up is apparently encouraging editors in this field to familiarize themselves with WP:NCM#Compositions (classical music), its guidance, its examples. As long as the understanding of that guideline (and of WP:COMMONNAME) is mushy, it is kinda useless to take the next step in the discussion as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(NB: "true name" is a virtually useless concept when discussing this. We already discussed the problematic nature of "actual name" somewhere else on this page: "true name" is worse, even more confusing, unneeded, and not used in the guideline) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer:

The Mass in G major, K. 49, is the first mass by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He composed the missa brevis in Vienna in the autumn of 1768. ...

(no confusion by the other K number in the beginning - I would find it double confusing to not link K on the first number but link for the second, - active voice "he composed". ) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer

The Mass in G major, K. 49 (K⁶ 47d) is the first mass by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He composed the missa brevis in Vienna in the autumn of 1768. ...

to:

The Mass in G major, K. 49, is the first mass by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He composed the missa brevis in Vienna in the autumn of 1768. It was later re-assigned K. 47d in the Köchel catalogue. ...

imho 47d is a minor naming issue, says little or nothing about the composition as such, so it should be dealt with as close to the bolded name repeat as possible, without needing a full separate sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor numbering issue, - that's exactly why I don't want to distract a reader by two links (to the catalogue and the explanation) before he even knows that it is a piece by Mozart. If we had an infobox, I would suggest to drop "47d" from the lead and mention it only there, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, keep the disambiguation/naming info with the bolded name, before the remainder of the sentence that contains the short definition. That's how its usually done in Wikipedia, compare for instance the start of the Leoš Janáček article:

Leoš Janáček (Czech pronunciation: [ˈlɛoʃ ˈjanaːt͡ʃɛk] ^ⓘ, baptised Leo Eugen Janáček; 3 July 1854 – 12 August 1928) was a Czech composer, musical theorist, folklorist, publicist and teacher.

This is all the "crap" between the name and where the definition starts:

(Czech pronunciation: [ˈlɛoʃ ˈjanaːt͡ʃɛk] ^ⓘ, baptised Leo Eugen Janáček; 3 July 1854 – 12 August 1928)

...once all that is over the article can start, not needing to return to that info that has no real bearing on why the person is notable. I'd take a similar slant on whatever other article, including those on compositions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compare WP:LEADCLUTTER where this example is given of a first sentence from which all clutter is removed:

Genghis Khan (/ˈɡɛŋɡɪs ˈkɑːn/ or /ˈdʒɛŋɡɪs ˈkɑːn/,^[1]^[2] Mongolian pronunciation: [tʃiŋɡɪs xaːŋ] ^ⓘ; Chingis/Chinghis Khan; 1162? – August 1227), born Temujin, was the founder and Great Khan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his demise.

By comparison the insertion

(K⁶ 47d)

appears neither invasive nor distracting to me.--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I better don't say what I think of these examples ;) - You know my solution, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mass in G major (K. 49/47d) is the first mass by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He composed the missa brevis in Vienna in the autumn of 1768. ...

works for me too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor change: bold the K number, but not the link, as a compromise:

The Mass in G major (K. 49/47d) is the first mass by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He composed the missa brevis in Vienna in the autumn of 1768. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, more distracting, breaks the flow of the sentence more than either "The Mass in G major, K. 49 (K⁶ 47d) is ..." or "The Mass in G major (K. 49/47d) is ...". imho, that is. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd prefer the second: we can do the same everywhere, whether or not there's a different K⁶ number, whether or not the K. number is in the article title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we do that, then? Any objecions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence looks good to me. (About it being the name: it's what would appear in a concert programme, isn't it?, so I think this is the right way to do it.) The second sentence is a jolt -- mass // missa brevis -- a reader who didn't know otherwise could think that you're speaking of a different work. A way to avoid this would be: "It is a missa brevis, composed in Vienna in the autumn of 1768." (This also avoids the slight tautology of saying in one sentence that it's by Mozart and in the next that he composed it

) --Stfg (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tautology for you who you know already that a mass may be a composition, and that Mozart was a composer. I believe that we should inform also people who don't know that, without making them click on Mozart's name. - I simplified the infobox, following a comment. I have no intention to "discuss" infobox here, just to show that some aspects can be seen more easily with parameters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment again, Gerda. I said nothing about the infobox, and the matter of the slight "tautology" was a parenthesis. The main point is the issue of saying "the missa brevis", and leaving the unaware reader wondering what missa brevis. (But everyone who would be capable of reading this article at all would know that Mozart was a composer, and the first sentence already says that this work is by him.) --Stfg (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have added the second comment, completely unrelated to your remark, just in the same context. Imagining that everyone reading this article knows that Mozart is a composer ignores that the English Wikipedia is a reference for people around the globe who don't know it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I had already rewritten the intro of the article a few days ago, along with some other updates [8]

If I jumped the gun, please improve. But indeed, when updating I chose a flow of sentences that sounded natural to me, and so I think I avoided the issue Stfg remarks upon. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for

The Mass in G major (K. 49/47d) is the first mass Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed. It is a missa brevis scored for SATB soloists, SATB choir, violin I and II, viola, and basso continuo. The mass was composed in Vienna in the autumn of 1768.

as an example. The idea of "concert program" (above) seems strange for a work meant to be performed in church services ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's much better. Two little things we could do: insert "that" to separate two blue links, and change the second "composed" to "written" to avoid the repetition. We'd then have:

The Mass in G major (K. 49/47d) is the first mass that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart composed. It is a missa brevis scored for SATB soloists, SATB choir, violin I and II, viola, and basso continuo. The mass was written in Vienna in the autumn of 1768.

Gerda, these masses are now performed both in concerts and in church services. --Stfg (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, - I am a church choir singer, and all six groups with whom I have performed have sung masses in concert (one of them strictly only the two overlong ones, the Great Mass and the B minor, a year and a day ago and still present). However, I see no reason not to stress somewhere that the composer would have been surprised by hearing them in a concert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[9]

The Mass in G major (K. 49/47d) is the first full mass composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. It is a missa brevis scored for SATB soloists, SATB choir, violin I and II, viola, and basso continuo.

Mozart wrote the mass in Vienna in the autumn of 1768.^[1] It was however neither his first setting of a part of the mass ordinary — two years earlier he had already composed a Kyrie (K33) —, nor was it his largest composition with a religious theme up to date: his sacred musical play Die Schuldigkeit des ersten Gebots had been premiered in the previous year.

Better? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

→ I continued to redistribute some of the content somewhat more over the paragraphs and sections [10] --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superb, Francis! --Stfg (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Einstein, Alfred (1945). Mozart: His Character, His Work. p. 326.

Chamber Music Project

As I've mentioned in earlier messages I'm currently working on cleaning up some of the "lacunae" in the chamber music section. To date I have completed the following articles to what I'd term "preliminary" status.

Piano Quartet (Carmichael)
Rondino for Piano Quintet (Czerny)
Violin Sonata in D major, K. Deest (Attributed to Mozart)
Piano Quartet in E major (Saint-Saëns)
Barcarolle in F major (Saint-Saëns)
Serenade in E-flat major (Saint-Saëns)
Rondo in A major for Violin and Strings, D 438 (Schubert) (Technically scored for violin & string orchestra, but scoring is for Violin/String Quartet and I have found one live recording in this form on youtube.)
Adagio and Rondo concertante in F major, D 487 (Schubert)

I've left notes on the talk pages of some of these outlining points that need clearing up or expanding upon.

As soon as I have the information I will be working on the Lalo Piano Quintet.

My next planned project is the Saint-Saens Piano Quartet in B-flat major, Op. 41. The planned title will be "Piano Quartet in B-flat major (Saint-Saëns)" rather than "Piano Quartet No. 2 (Saint-Saëns)" because up until 1992 (At least as far as I can tell), the earlier E major Piano Quartet was unknown, therefore using Piano Quartet No.1/No.2 would be anacronistic.

I would like to know everyones thoughts on the above before I proceed though.

Graham1973 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work; I suggest a passing admin give you WP:Autopatrolled status. I you're comfortable doing so, please also create a Wikidata entry for each new article. Let me know if you'd like me to show you how. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to search up some additional sources for the String Quartet No. 1 (Dvořák) article, when I do this I plan to change the referencing format to match the articles I've created so far. Does anyone have any objections?Graham1973 (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance wanted with Violin Sonata in D major, K. Deest (Attributed to Mozart)

This article has been completed, but I've had to leave the linkage to the score/critical report in the NMA because I don't understand exactly how to sort out the links, if anyone reads this and understands how to do so could they please add the links to the article. Graham1973 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Michael Bednarek for sorting that one out. Graham1973 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Research Help wanted - Planned article on the Lalo Piano Quintet

I'm planning to tackle the Lalo A flat major "Fantaisie-quintette" composed around 1862 as my next chamber music article. From an intial websearch I've found that the work was in manuscript up until very recently and in fact the first recording was only released this year. Thankfully the label in question, Continuo Classics does make their liner notes available, so I should be able to write a basic article. But I would like to ask if anyone has access to biographical information/scholarly articles or even knowledge of online theses in English discussing the work to let me know where I can find them. I want to make the article as comprehensive as I can. Graham1973 (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Research Help wanted - Flute Sonata in B-flat major (Attributed to Beethoven)

I am currently accumulating information on this work, but my usual sources, dissertations and liner notes seem to be scarce on this piece. All I've so far been able to find out is that it was allegedly found amongst Beethovens papers after his death, was dated to the 1790s but was not published until 1906, but many of the intervening steps are missing. Can anyone point me to something online that I could use.

Planning to move on the Flute Sonata next, if anyone can find more details feel free to add them to the stub article when it is up.Graham1973 (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dinorah Varsi

Dear classical music experts: This old AfC submission is about a pianist. There is an article in the Spanish Wikipedia, but I can't tell if the references are good. Is this a notable musician, and should the article be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She won the Clara Haskil International Piano Competition in 1967. a previous AfC was refused on the grounds that "She looks to be notable enough for inclusion, but although you have now added references, these are incomplete" while noting "there is an El Pais obituary [in Spanish] published online". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vejvančický and I have added references from 2 very reliable sources. Plus, she'd pass WP:MUSICBIO on her multiple recordings for major record labels alone (See reviews available). I've also added the Authority control. Anne, I suggest moving this to article space and tag for remaining clean-up issues rather than letting it languish in AfC. It stands a much quicker chance of clean-up and improvement in article space. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Delong, at the precocious age of ten years, learned keyboarding on the then prestigious IBM Selectric Typewriter. She later gained renown for her skilful operation of the PET 32 computer. In her most recent triumph, she demonstrated her remarkable mastery of the DELETE key as she removed large amounts of puffery from this article before accepting it into mainspace and installing it at Dinorah Varsi. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Handel's Te Deums

Don't very well know what to make of this lot name- & italics-wise, so I'm jumping straight to some proposals:

? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the quotation marks better than the italics. Why not Dettingen Te Deum (on the occasion of the peace treaty at Dettingen), like War Requiem. We would not say Requiem "War".

ps: I don't like a plural of both Requiem and Te Deum, understanding the meaning of the words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is about two compositions:

Dettingen Te Deum → Dettingen Te Deum
Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate → Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate
Te Deum in D major,"Queen Caroline" → Queen Caroline Te Deum

? --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dettingen is fine. Utrecht: yes it's on two compositions, but Utrecht belongs to both, my understanding is that the common name is the combination including the "and", - as it is, that is. For the queen: perhaps ask the author? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dettingen Te Deum → Dettingen Te Deum (italicise)
Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate (no changes)
Te Deum in D major, "Queen Caroline" → Queen Caroline Te Deum (notified: Talk:Te Deum in D major, "Queen Caroline"#Renaming proposed)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incipit italics

See discussion here: WT:AT#Italicization of Latin incipits --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solfeggietto and Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach

Okay, a little late on this, but on 14 September I proposed Solfeggietto be merged into Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach. I put notices on the pages and even notified the creator of the former, but forgot to notify Wikiprojects! Anyway, feedback welcome. Eman235/talk 23:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Category: Compositions Attributed to Mozart

After adding my article on the Violin Sonata in D major, K. Deest it occured to me that when/if I complete articles on Violin Sonatas attributed to Mozart, it might be worthwhile creating a category to link them with other articles on the forum covering works that have also been attributed to Mozart such as the Adélaïde Concerto or Symphony No. 3 in E-flat major, K. 18, but I would not like to do so without obtaining a consensus first. Opinions please?

Graham1973 (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with this. Opus33 (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support, here's another one: Mozart's Twelfth Mass, K. Anh. 232 --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Compositions attributed to Mozart capitalization-wise? Maybe better Category:Compositions spuriously attributed to Mozart (is that OK? or would that rather be "doubtfully attributed to..."?) Anyway, the over 500 he actually composed are also "attributed to Mozart", which would not be the objective of such category. Other idea for the naming: Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works or Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution to Mozart (we could have a similar for Bach I suppose, see below)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Spuriously attributed compositions (or would that be: "Wrongly attributed..."? "Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution"?) as a supercategory for that (which could e.g. also contain Adagio in G minor, Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53), and place that category in Category:Compositions by composer (where there is already Category:Anonymous musical compositions, but nothing for these "spurious" works that aren't always "anonymous" once the real composer has been more or less identified)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are several compositions wrongly (but is it spuriously?) attributed to Bach, some in different colour here, and there's a mass by father Mozart for a while attributed to the son (well, our conductor says that several of the early ones rely heavily on fatherly advice), K 115 [11], --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... Toy symphony, another injustice to Mozart senior.

For the naming I'd rely on the native English speakers I suppose. Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution to Mozart and Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution seem correct to me, though somewhat long for a category name. Is there a more suitable alternative? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea for a category. I prefer "doubtfully" over "wrongly" or "spuriously", since it's difficult to be definitive about these things in many cases. --Stfg (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are the doubtful works (not ultimately proven they're not by the composer) and there are the spurious or wrongly attributed works. Composition catalogues can make such distinction, e.g. the original Köchel catalogue Anh. 185-231 = "Zweifelhafte" (doubtful), Anh. 232-294 = "Unterschobene" (spurious). For example, the Adélaïde Concerto is not "doubtful", it is "spurious". While indeed for some of these there is some discussion whether they are really "spurious" or only "doubtful" I'd like a category name that doesn't lead to taking sides (downside: longer category name, however unavoidable when we want to do this the NPOV way). I think even the Köchel successors ultimately opted for this approach, this is what I read in the Adélaïde Concerto article: "in the sixth edition of the Köchel catalogue, ... Anhang C designated for spurious or doubtful works" (bolding added). While one can't say "spurious or doubtful works by Mozart" (contradictio in terminis isn't it?), I think this might work: Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works if we want a shorter title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about a mother category with all these (doubtful, wrongly, spuriously), but having the "children" relatively simple, such as Category:Compositions attributed to W. A. Mozart. We need to distinguish the Mozarts and the Bachs. Some are not doubtful at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the over 500 compositions Mozart wrote are all "attributed" to Mozart, rightly attributed as it happens. So "attributed" without a qualifier misses the point (at least lacking WP:PRECISION). I'd go for Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works, as explained above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood (sorry about lack of language, I would not have thought that "attributed" would ever be used for compositions he composed), - but how about the ones that are neither spurious or doubtful? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Spurious" and "wrongly attributed" are synonyms afaik.

"the others"? We have "composed by" (=category:Compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart nothing needs to change there), "not composed by" (=spurious) and "not sure whether composed by" (=doubtful)

Here are all the chapters of the original Köchel anhang:

I. Lost works ("Verloren gegangene"): or, belonging in "Composed by" category (although maybe not so probable we'd ever have separate articles about these, but compare e.g. Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius), no problem to have that article in Category:Symphonies by Jean Sibelius, there's no problem with the attribution)

II. Incomplete works ("Unvollständige") Similar, e.g. Piano Sonata in E minor D. 769a (Schubert) → Category:Piano sonatas by Franz Schubert. Although Schubert with his Unfinished Symphony, and many other unfinished works, might merit a category:Unfinished compositions by Franz Schubert subcat. For Mozart I don't know whether there would be much more than K. 427, K. 626 (note: neither of these in this Anhang!) and K. Anh. 104

III. Reassigned compositions ("Uebertragene"): First thought to be an independent composition, but e.g. a "concert aria" that appears to be just an aria of one of his early operas, so gets assigned the K. number of the opera (nothing category-wise there I suppose, just things that sometimes might need some explanation in the article)

IV. Zweifelhafte and V. Unterschobene, as explained above, I'd have these in Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works

Other thing, I'd definitely avoid "W. A." in a category name either "Mozart" or with given names unabbreviated. I'd prefer the former, not like there's any confusion with F. X. W. when we only use the last name is there? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for more diligence. I thought not of F. X. but Leopold, mentioned above ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True (to some extent: there aren't that much with a wrong or doubtful attribution to Leopold afaik), but it's rather about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, like Bach's church music in Latin, which is not about C. P. E., W. F., P. D. Q. (etc.) while J. S. is the primary topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree on this:

Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution (placed in Category:Compositions by composer)
- Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works (placed also in Category:Compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart)

? Or are there still other names for such categories in the running? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to these names, but would not know if a work should go in that without doubt is not by the one, but was attributed in history, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Francis's proposed terms are helpful, and support. Don't get Gerda's point - could she rephrase it?--Smerus (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: examples BWV 53, K 115: a work was attributed to a composer (Bach, Mozart), then firmly and without doubt, but now we know without doubt that someone else composed it (possibly Hoffmann, Leopold Mozart). Does such a work fit the category, or should it stay out? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such issues can be tackled by the category definition, a bit thinking aloud (open for all suggestions) something like this?:

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's spurious and doubtful works are the works indicated as such in the latest version of the Köchel catalogue, or in any previous version (unless when moved to the main catalogue in more recent versions of the catalogue). Also works for which there has been a persistent attribution to Mozart, traceable in other reliable sources, without any mention in any version of the Köchel catalogue can be included in this category. Also compositions not removed from the main catalogue in its latest version, but with reliable sources doubting or disproving the attribution to Mozart, can be included in this category.

E.g. The London Sketchbook, K. 15a–ss, once "Anhang", now main catalogue should not be included in the category.

Does that cover this issue sufficiently? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine by me.--Smerus (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded a bit to include K. 115 (see table at List of masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart for those not knowing what this K. 115 is about). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, started

Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution
- Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works
- Category:Bach: spurious and doubtful works

(see also category definitions included there, improve if necessary)

→ some hands to get these properly filled? Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like to help, but today is national holiday and concert day. I just fixed Bach's Magnificat a bit, for the comparison to make sense. Please feel free to improve, it's just a draft. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the symphonies from the list of Mozart symphonies of spurious or doubtful authenticity have been added to the category.Graham1973 (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renamings

Bolding what I just added to WP:NCM#Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title:

...use the numbers as in the original 1862 version of the Köchel catalogue in article titles as they appear the most recognisable, unless for numbers that moved from the Anhang (Anh.) to the actual catalogue (use oldest version where the number appears in the main section of the catalogue in that case). This does however not apply to compositions in Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works: these are preferably disambiguated by nickname, Anhang number or (attributed to Mozart), not by ", K. Deest". In this case the (Mozart) disambiguator is only possible for series integrity.:

Adélaïde Concerto (nickname, OK)
Mozart's Twelfth Mass, K. Anh. 232 (nickname and Anhang number, OK)
Symphony No. 11 (Mozart) (series integrity, OK)
Symphony No. 2 (Mozart) (series integrity, OK)
Symphony No. 3 (Mozart) (series integrity, OK)
Symphony, K. 16a (Mozart) → Symphony in A minor, K. Anh. 220
Symphony, K. 45b (Mozart) → Symphony in B-flat major, K. Anh. 214
Symphony, K. 74g (Mozart) → Symphony in B-flat major, K. Anh. 216
Symphony, K. 75 (Mozart) → Symphony in F major, K. 75
Symphony, K. 76 (Mozart) → Symphony in F major, K. 76
Symphony, K. 81 (Mozart) → Symphony in D major, K. 81
Symphony, K. 95 (Mozart) → Symphony in D major, K. 95
Symphony, K. 96 (Mozart) → Symphony in C major, K. 96
Symphony, K. 97 (Mozart) → Symphony in D major, K. 97
Symphony, K. 98 (Mozart) → Symphony in F major, K. Anh. C11.04
Violin Concerto No. 6 (Mozart) (series integrity, OK)
Violin Concerto No. 7 (Mozart) (series integrity, OK)
Violin Sonata in D major, K. Deest (Attributed to Mozart) → Violin Sonata in D major (attributed to Mozart) (Deest redundant; "attributed" not capitalized)
Piano Sonata in B-flat major, K. 498a (Mozart) → Piano Sonata in B-flat major, K. Anh. 136
Piano Sonata in F major, K. 547a (Mozart) → Piano Sonata in F major, K. Anh. 135
Coronation Mass in C major (attributed to Mozart) → Così fan tutte pasticcio Coronation Mass

(note that category sorting still needs to be looked at, but that's the next step) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renamings for Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution:

-- Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to understand why F but G major. I would understand in F and in G major, if part of a name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, nice catch, amended --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beethovens renamed, Mozart list updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Francis Duroy

Hello again! According to the bio, this musician has been there done that, but I can't find much about him.. Are there perhaps references in French? He has a page at the French Wikipedia which is pretty well unsourced. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like self-advertising - and is also written oartly in French (Japon, septembre)......--Smerus (talk) 06:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne. It reads like an advert because it's virtually verbatim from his website. Ditto the French WP article. I've stubbed the draft to remove the infringement and left a note to that effect at the top. The French WP can sort out their own mess. A cursory search shows no indication that he passes either WP:ANYBIO or WP:MUSICBIO at this point. Meanwhile, the same COI editor who created the draft also created an ~~advertorial~~ article for his music festival/school, Musicalta, which had somehow slipped under the radar. I've just tagged it for lack of notability, lack of references, and written like an advert. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Smerus and Voceditenore. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart's Twelfth Mass, K. Anh. 232 - Expanding the article.

I've started searching for sources to be used to expand this article. To date I've found several primary sources (newspaper articles) from Australia and New Zealand from the 1890's which I've linked to the talk page for the article.

I've not been so successful in turning up scholarly works. It seems that Everist's book dominates the search engines at the moment. If anyone can turn up good sources, especially as it relates to the attribution issue I would be very appreciative. Graham1973 (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grove 1907 (linked from the sources section) gives a status questionis over a century ago. The Pajot article names a few sources, but haven't looked yet whether they would be easily accessible. See also User talk:Graham1973#Twelfth Mass. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General question: Mozart Forum / Pajot: do they count as WP:RS? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit difficult. Den(n)is Pajot is certainly widely cited on Wikipedia (>100 times), not only here but also on CA, DE, ES, FR, GL, HE, HU, IT, JA, SV – probably mostly copied from articles here, but still... He's also cited by Naxos, the Mutopia Project, and many classical music sites. So, yes. — OTOH, I've never seen anything published by Pajot outside the Mozart Forum, so no (although I now find an article by him in The Double Reed, vol 30 (2007), on "Two Mozart Vocal Movements Rearranged by Johann Adam Hiller".) Judging by the quality of his writing, I think there's much to be gained from his articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resource on 20th Century Violin Concertante works

I was alerted to this free ebook by Musicweb International. The author (Tobias Broeker) claims to have compiled a fairly comprehensive listing of 20th C works for Violin and Orchestra. All the usual warnings and disclaimers apply. This could prove to be a useful resource for expanding coverage.

The link is [12]

Graham1973 (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Einstein-1] Einstein, Alfred (1945). Mozart: His Character, His Work. p. 326.

[1]

@@ Line 1,037: / Line 1,037: @@
 General question: Mozart Forum / Pajot: do they count as [[WP:RS]]? --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 05:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
+:That's a bit difficult. Den(n)is Pajot is certainly widely cited on Wikipedia (>100 times), not only here but also on CA, DE, ES, FR, GL, HE, HU, IT, JA, SV – probably mostly copied from articles here, but still... He's also cited by Naxos, the Mutopia Project, and many classical music sites. So, yes. — OTOH, I've never seen anything published by Pajot outside the Mozart Forum, so no (although I now find an article by him in ''[[The Double Reed]]'', vol 30 (2007), on "Two Mozart Vocal Movements Rearranged by Johann Adam Hiller".) Judging by the quality of his writing, I think there's much to be gained from his articles. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 11:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 == Resource on 20th Century Violin Concertante works ==