Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Separate articles discussing musical structure[edit]

Why do some people make separate articles discussing musical structure? To me this seems very wrong. - kosboot (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I organised in subsections below. Where there's no discussion on the concerned article talk pages yet, maybe best to start posting notifications on these talk pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • This is getting ridiculously complex, the answer, Kosboot is quite simple: Articles that get too long and complex need to have some sections "spun off" into new articles. For a featured article on a complex topic, it's even more critical this be done. That's a clear demand of the MOS. Take, for example, Richard Nixon, which has multiple spinoffs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talkcontribs)
So it seems that it's preferable to leave all the information in a single article, the exceptions being those articles which are excessively long, usually occuring because the works involved are similarly long or freighted with a lot of history. One work I would think would fit into this category is Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) - but all the information is in a single article and it looks fine (perhaps could be expanded a bit). I was concerned that this forking was going to become a guideline but I'm glad to see that it's only in the cases of exceptions. - kosboot (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I know only four exceptions: Messiah, Bach's two great Passions and the Mass in B minor. As said below, we work toward one article for The Creation. - Messiah - repeating: it was not my idea to split, but I wanted more music, and was told by the main editors of the FA-to-be (at the time) to take it elsewhere, which I did for that and the other articles with 20+ movements. The Ninth Symphony has only 4 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Structure of Handel's Messiah[edit]

Answer above: Messiah got too long. The others followed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the difference is that for Messiah the content of the main article got too large (it is a composition with a very broad history section, a history that is larger than e.g. what is known on the early history of all of Bach's passions taken together). So definitely this should be treated on a by article basis, not assume that while it works splendidly for one article → otherstuffexist → let's do this everywhere.
That being said, for the time being I doubt the long-term viability of Structure of Handel's Messiah, imho:
  • Their is no detail about individual movements in "structure", - I mean in what was structure before you moved it again to not an article but in the middle of one, where the reader doesn't even see a header, and nothing is explained but you find a list of titles only. I don't edit war. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The Creation structure[edit]

Following up on Kosboot: I would note that The Creation structure is, seemingly, a flat-out alternative article to The Creation (Haydn). The latter article already had quite a bit of discussion of structure, and was not excessively long when The Creation structure was installed.
I wouldn't want to deny the possibility that some editors would think that running paired articles on the same subject is ok. Perhaps a Wikipedia that offers two (three? ten?) separate articles on every subject would be a richer and more informative one. On the other hand, when we run just one article on a topic, it's liable to be checked more often by other editors, which I think is a good thing. For example, I feel that The Creation (Haydn) (which I've worked on before) could use some improvement. I'm really too busy to edit its doppelgänger article as well. Opus33 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you think of moving the table in the other article? I thought (see Messiah, third time) it would be too much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
If the suggestion is, move the table into The Creation (Haydn) and turn The Creation structure into a redirect, I'm all for it. Opus33 (talk)
Moving would just create duplication with The Creation (Haydn)#Musical numbers, which has commentary not in the structure article. It would involve merging, which seems a sensible thing to do as there is content forking (e.g. regarding the libretto) and the main article is only 88kb. --Stfg (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I tentatively inserted the three tables for the three parts. Please look if you like it. Before making the other a redirect, let's see if we like it and what else perhaps to take over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this course of action. Many times, including only earlier this week, I've looked to follow the Wikipedia article(s) while listening to die Schöpfung, and it has been strange to have two articles going through the structure. Also, it is the overall article - not the specific structure one - that does the better job of outlining the structure, so we shouldn't carry the tables over. Syek88 (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Usually this means that the material in the "main" article needs to be moved to the "fork" and then a link back provided. Far better way, thus allowing the more technical subject to be discussed in detail. Montanabw(talk) 19:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The structure of a piece is the most important thing we can put on the piece's Wikipedia page. We should not "fork" the most important content. Syek88 (talk) 03:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
That's what I tried to do in the combined version. Comments welcome. I will try to beautify the tables. but not today, very limited time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Work is in progress, further comments on the article talk please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass in B minor music[edit]

Mass in B minor structure was moved without a discussion to Description of the Mass in B minor. How would that be found by someone typing "Mass in B minor" in the search function? Brainstorming for a better name, please, a name which could be piped to "music of the Mass in B minor". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The move happened without leaving a redirect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I reverted that because it distorts article history, beginning on my user page to DYK and Peer review, keep "to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Worth: the article history is now broken, because some functions don't work with a redirect, Wikipedia:Peer review/Description of the Mass in B minor/archive1 does not take to Wikipedia:Peer review/Mass in B minor structure/archive1. Easiest solution would be to revert the move. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I wrote an article Mass in B minor structure. Even if that name is not the best of names, it has a history, up to a peer review for FA. User:Francis Schonken made it a redirect to a section in Mass in B minor, breaking links, and reverted my correction. I don't edit war. Do I have to seek help, or is describing the problem here enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see this, started the same discussion at Talk:Mass in B minor structure#Article history. I think a bot will restore the links to the archives (after a few hours or so). Whether GA people are automatically notified so that the GA qualification stays with the page I don't know, best to contact them. Again, like I said elsewhere, starting parallel articles has a much higher risk of treading on feet than the usual "add content until it gets too bulky → split" MO of Wikipedia. I'm sorry it's your feet this time, I don't wish that for you but it happened as predicted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Your move without discussion was a bold edit, consider to revert it and start a normal move request, per WP:BRD. Your new article name is not even a good name. No bot will pick up anything because you didn't leave a redirect. I don't want to make fuss on the article talk. I will ask one admin now to look into this. If things have not moved to at least a redirect by tomorrow I will have to go to a noticeboard, - something I have not done ever and don't want to do. Pinging Tim riley and Brianboulton, the authors of Messiah who encouraged me to handle the details about the music separately. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I moved it back. Francis Schonken, I don't care about anyone's feet, and I thought it could be safely assumed that you would a. think and b. discuss these things beforehand. Not leaving a redirect...for someone who's been here for so long, that's pretty...unexpected. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

St Matthew Passion structure[edit]

Discussed at Talk:St Matthew Passion#Merge proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Francis, for improving the main article. At present, with two ugly tags, I believe in modesty that the readers should be happier than ever if they'd arrive at St Matthew Passion structure instead, which you generously decleared EGG. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

General thoughts[edit]

Normally, the structure of a work is a valid part of the article, for example BWV 243a. When an artivcle has many movements and/or much related content such as composition history, performance history and reception, it can make sense to split content. For Messiah, it was decided (not by me) to not have details on music in the FA. I was the one to organize it and felt that it was too much to handle even that in one article. I wrote what I would like to read. For The Creation, I felt that the details I would want to read ere too much for the main article, therefore started the other. We can now look at the alternatives:

  1. article without table of structure
  2. additional table of structure
  3. a combination of the two in one

and to decide if we want one article or two, to better serve different types of readers. If we want a combination we should find a way to improve the referencing.

Rapid page moves don't help a discussion, and older links should still work, even if a name seems not the best.

For Bach's St Matthew Passion and Mass in B minor, I lean toward no merge because of even greater complexity, but will not resist it if a majority is for it, - actually it's nice to feel upgraded from modest side dish to main course, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Redirecting articles with similar titles to a "main" article instead of the relevant spinoff article is ill-advised; WP:SPINOUT is clear: Spinoff articles can be very appropriate, particularly for large, extensive works. Merging can sometimes create a long, unwieldy article that is not readable.

100 kB Almost certainly should be divided; > 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)

Montanabw(talk) 19:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Sheer size should not be relevant. The works are complex and should stay one article, not divided. Part I of the Passion will not be performed separately, while Part I alone of Messiah is a Christmastide staple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I've refactored to clarify that the blockquote from WP:SPINOUT is part of Montanabw's posting, not Gerda's. Please note that those figures refer to "readable prose size", not file size nor any of the other sizes you get using Dr pda's prosesize tool, nor the Page length (in bytes) you get using the standard page information tool. The current figure for Messiah (Handel) is 44kB, and for The Creation (Haydn) it's 21kB. --Stfg (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


  • What do you think of finding a better name for the articles now called "structure"? "List of movements of ...", "Table of movements of ..."? "Music of ..."? A name with the name of the work in the beginning would be preferable, because readers searching for the piece would find it more easily.
  • Once a name is found, what do you think of a hat note at the top of all related articles. Some readers may be more interested in such a thing, others not at all. (As some readers prefer to read a lead, others an infobox.) I would call it a different approach to a piece, not a content fork, not an Easter Egg. I am proud of Mass in B minor structure, and believe that a reader arriving there will not be disappointed.
  • Needless to say: even when a better name is found, the old one needs to be kept as redirect, otherwise the many previous links to it are broken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
The term easter egg refers to an inappropriately piped link, not to an article title itself. An different article giving a "different approach to a piece" is a content fork. That's the definition of content fork by definition. And Gerda, if I may say so, please stop banging on about infoboxes. It really sours the atmosphere here. --Stfg (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
We talk about St Matthew Passion and Mass in B minor where I don't see a desire to merge because of the complexity of the topics (while we are in the process of merging The Creation). The I understand that a major free source for music also links to the structure article. - I am sorry that my comparison, intended to show that different readers have different interests, soured you, while you just proved my point: different readers have different interests. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Cape (Town) Philharmonic Orchestra[edit]

Does anyone know if the Cape Philharmonic Orchestra has changed its name to the Cape Town Philharmonic Orchestra, and if so, when and why? Please comment at Talk:Cape Philharmonic Orchestra#Requested move 3 July 2015. --Deskford (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Glazunov[edit]

Alexander Glazunov will be 150 soon. Any plans? Not even all symphonies have an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I just added small stubs on symphonies #2, #6, and #8 (which didn't yet have articles). Double sharp (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)