Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

Please arbitrate

As several other users of the WikiProject Classical Music, e.g., Kleinzach, Gerda Arendt, Montanabw and LazyStarryNights, know, I have update during the previous years update nearly all pages dedicated to Anton Bruckner's works, created several new ones: Mass No. 1, Psalms 22, 146, 112 and 114, Germanenzug, etc., and I was one of authors of the new List of compositions by Anton Bruckner - a page, which I am updating every time new info is available. I am also in close contact with Hans Roelofs and John Berky, who, via a broad network of contacts, are updating their website on Bruckner's discography on a regular basis. I have a large discography of Bruckner's works, including all versions of the symphonies and other instrumental works, and all vocal works for which at least one commercial or (known) private recording is available. About my contribution to their website see, e.g., "Informanten"[1] and "Links" on Hans' website, and "First known recording of Pange Lingua (1836)"[2] on John's website.

I would be you very grateful if you could arbitrate in the following dragging issue: another user is currently and systematically holding/removing my input and updates on several pages in the Anton Bruckner's project.

Hans Roelofs, who is responsible for the discography of Bruckner's non-orchestral works, has in the meantime had an independent look on the concerned pages String Quartet (Bruckner), Rondo in C minor (Bruckner), String Quintet (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner). He thereafter e-mailed the following reaction to me: "Wanneer iemand zoals jij, die je sporen al bij Wikipedia heeft verdiend, dan een lemma schrijft over een onderwerp dat relevant is en binnen het Wikipedia-Bruckner-concept past, heeft dan iemand anders het recht dat tegen te houden? Wordt die betreffende user door de redactie gewaarschuwd?" (English translation: "When someone like you, who has already won his spurs by Wikipedia, writes a lemma which is relevant and suits the Wikipedia-Bruckner-concept, has someone else the right to hold it? Has the concerned user got a warning from the Wikipedia redaction?").

Thank you in advance for your help. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia overall concept user (editor) equals "redactie", which by the way translates (also) as "editor(s)" ("redaction" is a word most English speakers would not recognise). I get the concern H. Roelofs is expressing, but the "Wikipedia-concept" would need to be explained to him.
Other than that, Wikipedia:Verifiability is key. Some really recent research would not be published in Wikipedia, unless it can be estabilshed its source is reliable enough to back up content for the encyclopedia. I don't doubt Roelof's, and the other named scholars', authority in the matter, nonentheless it would be of primary concern to familiarize yourself with WP:SPS to know how the "redactie" of English Wikipedia assesses under what conditions self-published sources can be taken into account for content of the encyclopedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
(BTW, Wikipedia:Arbitration refers to a particular procedure at English Wikipedia, but I don't think that's what you were referring to. FYI, arbitration in Wikipedia sense never arbitrates on content of the encyclopedia, only, and on condition the case is accepted, on behaviour of editors.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please mediate

Dear Francis,

I am afraid you do not see the problem(s) yet. I will be more explicit. I do not want an arbitration, but a kind of mediation. The sources which the other user systematically removed were not self-published, but highly reliable as e.g., Cornelis van Zwol, Anton Bruckner – Leven en Werken, Thot, Bussum (Netherlands), 2012. ISBN 90-686-8590-2 - a recent anthology of 782 pages, which supersedes earlier, less detailed works on Bruckner's life and compositions. Van Zwol devoted 20 years of his life to it, having access to Bruckner's original manuscripts and letters, and was during these years regularly in touch with Leopold Nowak and other scholars (editors of Bruckner's works on the Bruckner Gesamtausgabe). I do not understand why data coming from that reference concerning e.g., the retrieval of the original manuscripts and their editions were removed. Moreover, Nikkimaria removed repeatedly infoboxes and text I had substantiated by reliable references, replacing it by texts she found on AllMusic and leaflets of CDs she found on Internet - the reliability of which I consider less reliable.

Please advise, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Re. Mediation: see Wikipedia:Mediation, a request for mediation can be filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. That might indeed be a route that can be explored.
A tangential issue might be that your fellow-editors don't have ready access to the Dutch-language source you mention. As I mentioned above, Wikipedia:Verifiability is key, see e.g. its section on non-English sources.
Even if the new anthology "supersedes" quite a lot of previous scholarship on Bruckner, that doesn't mean that previous views have to be replaced by the new views. Try to look at it from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view approach. One scholar says this, another says that. When both scholars are reliable enough to be counted among what Wikipedia calls reliable sources, both views can be recorded in Wikipedia, without competition about who is "right". Recent scholarship is recent sholarship and can be indicated as such, which doesn't mean recent scholarship never makes errors, nor that an analysis can, to some extent, be inspired by a personal view. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Another place that might help in sorting out the reliability of sources might be Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me phrase it more precisely: Additional editors with a classical music background are needed to review and edit (not really a "mediation" - more like assistance with analysis and establishing consensus)) because Meneerke's solid material has been deleted and is being edit-warred over by another user, with less background, who is replacing Meneerke's sources with simplistic web-based ones. I'm not solid enough on this topic to assess the issue (plus I don't speak German), and given the personalities involved, I think more neutral eyes are needed. Montanabw(talk) 15:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
There are probably not so many Wikipedia-specialists with a with a music background of Anton Bruckner. is one for sure: Artiumbremen alias Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
In the meantime I have, as advised by Francis, a request for mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner)‎. Can I do anything more? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
PS: When the WikiProject Classical music decided to set up the List of compositions by Anton Bruckner I was asked to participate as Bruckner-specialist. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm neither very knowledgeable nor interested in Bruckner. I read German, and of course Dutch. Lacking the interest, for which I'm sorry, I referred to the tools mentioned at WP:NOENG. I also referred to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for help on source assessment. I also recommended mediation. I'm not sure the mediation request has been properly filed, I could help with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Re-filed Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner)‎ with proper template etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Serenade for Strings (Kalinnikov) - Now open for editing

I have just created a stub page based off the IMSLP score for the G minor Serenade for Strings by Vasily Kalinnikov. I am inviting anyone with more information and better sources to take a look at the article and expand it. This and some future addtions I have planned is inspired by the fact that the WA Symphony Orchestra has included the composers first Symphony in their 2015 program.

Graham1973 (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The article on Kallinikov himself seems very basic and could also do with beefing-up.--Smerus (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with that, most of the references appear to be either Russian websites, liner notes from recordings (Not all appear to be identified.) and one 'New Grove' article. Worse from my point of view is the citation style used by the original author(?) which does not "pop out" to the reader.Graham1973 (talk) 12:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

George Onslow (composer)

I've sought to rewrite this article; all constructive edits, comments, etc. gratefully received.--Smerus (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Generic title

I am sometimes not sure. I understand that Missa brevis is a generic title. How about Missa Brevis as the title of a specific composition, such as Missa Brevis (Britten)? Cello suite is generic, why do we have Cello Suites (Bach), even as an example in the guidelines, while we have Orchestral suites (Bach) and Cello suites (Britten)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Re. Britten's Missa Brevis italicization:

In some exceptional cases what in the wording looks like a generic name is treated as a non-generic name (this can only be done for primary topics that would need no further disambiguation):

(quoted from the guideline update, bolding added) Does that help?
Otherwise, see:
versus
(both examples from the Boosey and Hawkes website) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Re. suite capitalization:

Whether or not a title is descriptive often needs editor discretion: it depends on whether the title is perceived as a standardized descriptive title (in which case the capitalization rules for generic names of individual compositions are followed), so:

but:

(quoted from the guideline update, bolding added) So yes there is uncertainty (I'd be happy if someone feels certain about this :), so editor discretion is needed on a case by case basis. If there is a consensus to have either both Cello Suites (Bach) and Cello Suites (Britten), or alternatively Cello suites (Bach) and Cello suites (Britten), the guideline instruction could be considerably simplified and less ambiguous. Which would you prefer? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer Cello suites (Bach), - I think they were just overlooked when the orchestral suites were moved. It's the short version of a translation of a title, - not really a title. - Publishers don't get the last word here, compare A Boy was Born, - a comparison of The Groves would be more convincing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
So would I. He didn't write a work and give it the title Cello Suites, did he. I think that a plural form would usually indicate a generic title, absent special considerations. --Stfg (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Right (see article), the manuscript of six pieces says "Suites a Violoncello solo senza Basso", given in English as "Six suites for unaccompanied cello" (with an unexpected appearance of a capitilized "Six", commonly shortened to "Cello suites". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
traduttore traditore? Wikipedia's unreferenced translations seem of little consequence to me in this discussion, see e.g. User:Francis Schonken/Don't use internal sources for verification. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
(e.c.) Generic titles usually have capitalization, also when plurals are involved, e.g. Twenty Variations in G major (Haydn), Twelve Violin Sonatas, Op. 2 (Vivaldi), 12 Fantasias for Solo Violin (Telemann).
Think also String Quartets, Op. 76 (Haydn): six of them composed in a set (six or twelve of them was the usual number of items in a standard set in those days), as for Bach's Cello Suites BWV 1007-1012. The title for such a set is generic by all accounts, which points towards capitalisation. Arguably neither Bach's orchestral suites (four, never thought of as one set), nor Britten's cello suites (three, with non-consecutive opus numbers) make such standardized set. Thus far my "editor discretion" in these matters.
AFAICS it are only the descriptive non-generic titles that are not the actual name of a (set of) composition(s) that make the lower case exception, e.g. Schubert's last sonatas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
My use of "generic" was probably misguided, then, but I think your rule is over-specified: "descriptive" and "non-generic" are both unnecessary. We would write of Beethoven's symphonies rather than of Beethoven's Symphonies, wouldn't we, and the WP:TITLEFORMAT rule is "Use lowercase, except for proper names". String Quartets, Op. 76 (Haydn) can be seen as the proper name of a work, but String Quartets (Schoenberg) definitely isn't. (I'm less certain about the Bach cello suites now.) --Stfg (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Possibly we don't use "generic" in the same sense so far. It was introduced above as something general, example violin concerto, I understood: also cello suite, while Cello Suite would be one specific composition, and Cello Suites a set of them that the composer named like that. Is that right? (- Bach did not name his set like that, therefore I would see no reason to have it capital.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Cello Suite is as generic as cello suite. "Generic" derives from "genus": a generic name is a name that in and by itself indicates the nature (the "genus") of the thing. Brandenburg Concerto is not a generic name, while "Brandenburg" is not a qualifier that indicates a type of composition. An Alpine Symphony is not a generic name while Alp, like Brandenburg, does not indicate a "genus", a type of composition. Further, for the Alpine Symphony example, the part of the name that is generic (Symphony) doesn't really indicate the genus of the thing while it is arguably a tone poem, not a symphony.
Well, as always, we can discuss endlessly about these matters if the concepts are only vaguely understood. That's why I wrote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Definitions - italics with a lot of (non-redundant!) examples, and explanations as concise as possible.
Beethoven's symphonies is as descriptive as Schubert's last sonatas (exept that the first is not a wikipedia article title)
Re. "Use lowercase, except for proper names" per WP:TITLEFORMAT - of course, that's what the whole thing is about: but without the differentiation the general rule doesn't explain a thing why String Quartets would be a proper name in one case, while string quartets would not be a proper name in another context (also knowing that it is not possible to give much context in an article title per WP:CONCISE).
Re. Redundancy of "descriptive" and "non-generic" in what I said above:
So I maintain that both "descriptive" and "non-generic" were part & parcel of what I wrote above about when lower case can be applied. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I hope I got that, but perhaps still don't know exactly what "actual name" means, nor why something would be capital that is not the actual name. Am I right that Cello suites is not the actual name of Bach's six suites? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
"Actual name": if the intention is to exclude subtitles and alternative names, I don't think it's relevant. Both Francis's latest examples are proper names, whether "actual" or not, and for me that's the one and only reason to capitalize them. Ditto translated names (including those created by treacherous translators): not given by the composer, but still proper names. Ditto nicknames. --Stfg (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Again, "without the differentiation the general rule doesn't explain a thing why String Quartets would be a proper name in one case, while string quartets would not be a proper name in another context" as I wrote above.
Also (as I wrote below, answering Gerda): "If (the actual name language) rather confuses than clarifies: better forget about it, the wording of the guideline on capitalization doesn't depend on it, nor even uses any wording in that sense on this issue" --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
(@ Gerda, e.c.) "Actual name" is a bit murky, agreed, and I would gladly do without it if the concepts could be explained without it. Currently it is only in

Also a descriptive name can be a non-generic name that is not italicized (e.g. Music for the Royal Fireworks), unless it is the actual name of the work (e.g. The Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra, Trois mouvements de Petrouchka). Most generic names are however nothing else than standardized descriptive names.

(bolding added) Some more examples:
Re. Bach's suites for violoncello solo: "Suites a Violoncello solo senza Basso" is an actual name for the set of six. Translated, and shortened, Cello Suites is still an actual name. As is cello suites. But we don't need reference to "actual name" under any format for this set of suites: "is perceived as a standardized descriptive title" (or not) per editor discretion (as it is now in the guideline update) suffises. Even when perceived as a standardized descriptive title we can decide not to capitalize under the Usually... / However, not always... rule further down (which are "the capitalization rules for generic names of individual compositions")
The combination of three conditions as I listed above (1/ descriptive, 2/ non-generic, 3/ not the actual name of a (set of) composition(s)) might give some insight in why this is so, but it is not in the guideline in the section on capitalization. If it rather confuses than clarifies: better forget about it, the wording of the guideline on capitalization doesn't depend on it, nor even uses any wording in that sense on this issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Mozart Masses

There's some perplexity over numbering and page names at Talk:List of masses by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Sparafucil (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#Bach cantatas and comma — Mozart's masses - but I merged that discussion to the List of masses talk page (and would have the discussion there). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Justin E. A. Busch

Dear classical music experts: This old AfC submission would be a lot of work to fix up, so I'd rather not start unless this person is definitely a notable musician. Any opinions? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Not completely sure, but I doubt it. By the way, the two book reviews you added as references are substantial, but the first bulleted link is a three-line sneak preview in an advertisement, and the second is merely an mention, adding no information. --Stfg (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, since I have more pages on my list than I have time to work on. maybe I'll let this one go. Thanks, Stfg. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Setting - not the same as arrangement?

At present, Musical setting redirects to Arrangement, which seems to me to be not the same thing. Unless I'm wrong, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself could disentangle the two? Thanks in advance... Alansplodge (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

An arrangement is always a setting
A setting is not always an arrangement: an arrangement supposes a previous composition with similar musical material (melody etc..), a setting does not, e.g.:
--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I would say that a setting is an original musical composition for a text. An arrangement is a reworking of an existing musical composition for a different musical context. For example, the Schubert lied "Der Tod und das Mädchen" is a setting of the poem by Matthias Claudius; the second movement of the Death and the Maiden quartet is an arrangement of the lied.
I would call Delsart's cello version of the Franck sonata an arrangement, not a setting. Respectfully, --Ravpapa (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
These words aren't as precise and restricted as that. Their usage is much as Francis described. There would be no harm changing Musical setting into a disambiguation page to explain the two meanings, if anyone wanted to. --Stfg (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I would just like to add that (Choral) settings are a subset of arrangements, so have different meanings: Just look at the dictionary (two examples):
Oxford: A piece of vocal or choral music composed for particular words (e.g. a setting of Yevtushenko’s bleak poem)
Cambridge: Music written or provided for a poem or other words so that they can be sung (e.g. He sang Schubert's setting of a Goethe poem)
 SurreyJohn   (Talk) 11:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I was editing Coronation of the British monarch#Music and wrote the sentence: "In the coronations following the Reformation, court musicians, often the Master of the King's Music, were commissioned to compose new settings for the traditional texts." In the case of Zadok the priest, it was a new composition by Handel, but a setting of an existing text. The wikilink for setting takes you to a disambiguation page, of which, Musical setting is the closest match, but that takes you to Arrangement. Zadok is not an arrangement but an original work, so the link is inappropriate. Do you see the conundrum? Alansplodge (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The redirect is nonsense. Someone could write a short article instead, with the above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Good point. One question: do you consider that there's more to say about settings in that sense than merely a definition? If that's all there is to it, it may not need a wikilink at all. (Curiously, the wiktionary entry for setting overlooks this meaning.) --Stfg (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Piano Trio in A major (Brahms) - Request for assessment

I've just finished overhauling this article and I'd like to ask for someone to go over it to see if it merits removing from stub status. Also I'd reached the end of what I could do with the limited sources I was able to locate online, so if anyone has more information to add (Recording/Performance history, etc) feel free to do so. Graham1973 (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it can be right to title this article "Piano Trio in A major (Brahms)". The ascription seems to be dubious to say the least. Maybe "Piano Trio in A major (attributed to Brahms)"? Are there any parallels in Wikipedia which could give us a lead here?--Smerus (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Carl Czerny - Article cleanup/overhaul

I've just given this article a quick lookover and it may need a cleanup/overhaul. There are a lot of direct links to outside documents/interviews embedded in the text of the article, that should probably be converted into references. Also I'm not sure if this was written by an native English speaker or simply translated from another language.

The layout also needs revising. There is a comment to that effect on the articles talk page dating from 2013, but nothing appears to have been done.

I am currently engaged in overhauling another article at the moment, so may not be able to give proper attention to this.Graham1973 (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right, this article is a complete mess. Actually needs a thorough rewrite from scratch, if anyone can be bothered.--Smerus (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's going to need a team rather than any one person. I'm currently tied up in adding to the chamber music articles. Graham1973 (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I've done an initial tidy up and put it it into English.--Smerus (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I've just looked over the updated page. Thanks for doing that. Looks like the "List of Compositions" page may also need a cleanup.Graham1973 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorting of Category:All music pupils by teacher

Any good reason why Category:All music pupils by teacher is sorted by strict alpha order?

Because given names usually precede surnames, this results in all the Edwards together, all the Charles together etc etc, but the Smiths spread all over the shop etc etc. Completely the reverse of how every other category and list on Wikipedia is sorted. Basically, who would ever think of looking for Brahms under J for Johannes? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a result of the incredibly convoluted way these categories were created by applying the template {{Music pupils by teacher}} to each category instead of simply adding Category:Music pupils by teacher|lastname, firstname to each. The template adds a text box and the necessary parent categories to each category. Adding categories via templates is hardly ever a good idea, and in this case, it didn't deal with sort keys at all. The template, and thus the Category:All music pupils by teacher, should be removed in all instances and the Category:Music pupils by teacher should be added instead, with a proper sort key. The adding part has happened already for some, e.g. Category:Pupils of Antonín Dvořák, but the removing part hasn't. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, Michael.
I cannot tell you much I HATE templates that add categories. They may be less labour-intensive, although that's debatable - but they certainly reduce flexibility, usability, usefulness, etc; and they certainly impose very undesirable arbitrary things on otherwise good material. As with so many other things, there is no "one size fits all". Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree; with a few exceptions (stubs; tracking categories) they should not to so. It may be possible to get someone with a bot to manually apply the category to all pages using the template, from which it may then be removed. Such action may be requested at WP:BOTREQ. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Magnificat and other Bach-related compositions

In the light of the naming discussions above, I propose to move Magnificat (Bach) to Magnificat, BWV 243. The article, saying it's a motet (I didn't read further ...), would deserve some care, moved or not. Reason: I plan to write on the composition by his son eventually, should that be Magnificat (CPE Bach), Magnificat (C.P.E. Bach) or what? (I ask here because it's about more than one article, and I think more people watch here than Bach's piece.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

In sum, I'd propose Magnificat (C. P. E. Bach) for the proposed article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. C.P.E. taken. BWV 243a will stay a redirect, as BWV 120a/b were redirects to BWV 120 until separate articles were written. In the case of the Magnificat I doubt that it is necessary, - I will see, planned date for Bach Magnificat expansion 24 September, funeral of Erhard Egidi. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I hope you mean C. P. E. (spaced, like W. F. in the existing example), not C.P.E. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean it, but see what you mean. We say J.S. though, and W.A., or not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Generally, no, but the habits are changing, see lengthy discussion at WT:NCP#Why are there spaces between initials? which led to the current version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Initials. I never got around to initiating the WP:RM's on J. K. Rowling → J.K. Rowling and O. J. Simpson → O.J. Simpson.
Anyways, updated Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title by adding an entry on this subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Specifically, {{infobox Bach composition}} has no space, not my idea, I took it (13 December 2013) from this sandbox as the common thing to do, seeing it often. It could easily be changed if wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Quickly solved [3] [4] --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Less easily solved: "J.S. Bach" found 448 times, for example Works for keyboard by J.S. Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
[5] [6] This one didn't need moving Harpsichord concertos (J. S. Bach) (not that I think it an optimal page name - probably would need some discussion before we start moving), for the page names I suppose that was all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Moving is easy. Did you consider to clean up afterwards? What's the point of moving an article if what you don't like is still shown on pages in the old link? If you move an article which appears in a navigation template, the minimum cleanup is changing the template. I cleaned up after these two moves, but - being not even a project member - will not do it again. Proceed carefully, everybody, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Redirect adjustment is bot-operated now. I am no project member either. Making page names conform to current standards (that were apparently followed for some page names, not for others) is no crime. Afaics that were uncontroversial page moves. If you're not bothered by inconsistency, then no problem, leave as is. I was only bothered by the page name inconsistency, and the infobox headers you pointed me to. I'm bossing nobody around to do other stuff, so I'm in peace with myself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
We speak of different things. If a page is moved, and has a redirect, that redirect will be changed by a bot to the new destination, that's all, to my knowledge. A template with a redirected name doesn't show in bold on which page you are. "J.S." stays on pages until someone changes it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We speak exactly about the same thing. I was not bothered by the format of the "see also" link on the English Suites page. When someone is, he or she can change, no need to complain or take a guilt trip on a fellow editor. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if I misunderstood your concern, - I understood that "J.S." bothered you, anywhere. - Do we agree that if an article is moved it should be changed in any template which navigates to it, because otherwise the function to bold the article in the template doesn't work? - I didn't know that for a long time. Example: in {{Richard Wagner}}, if you click on Der fliegende Holländer you get to an article which shows the title bolded in the navbox, but only because that has a piped link; you would not get the bolding with the redirect.
It is preferable, but takes someone bothered enough to change it. I didn't change such piped links on {{Schubert piano compositions}} yet. Maybe someday I will. Besides, the bolding effect doesn't work when one comes in by redirect, which will usually happen a lot anyways just after the page is moved, so I don't feel too pressed about this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Please don't feel pressed, ever, that was not intended. - The bolding depends only on the article name in the template NOT being a redirect. If you enter an article via redirect, it will still appear bold in the template. Try BWV 12. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
But true, page moves require diligent care, that's why I proposed following steps above:
  1. Have the discussion here what we'd really like to do with the article titles of [a set of compositions]. ...
  2. ... update guidelines when needed
  3. Move the pages ...
    ...to which I should add...
  4. Update wikilinks
--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
To be added: change articles. If you rename something that was Missa brevis to Mass you have to change at least the lead, mentioning both, and possibly more in that article and those linking to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
... and change lists, such as compositions by ..., list of works by ... - two Mozart lists are now not matching the article titles, Köchel catalogue and List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Today, I created Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, moved the later (and so far only) one to Magnificat in D major, BWV 243, adjusted the template and the redirect pages and hope for help in articles. In many cases it will not matter, as there are only minor deviations in key and scoring. There are also musical changes, but so far not mentioned in both. They will be mentioned in the E-flat, a work in progress. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposed renaming for Harpsichord concertos (J. S. Bach)

Coming back to "Harpsichord concertos (J. S. Bach) (not that I think it an optimal page name - probably would need some discussion before we start moving)":

→ Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach

Thoughts? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)

Incipit italics

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

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)

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)

The second one is about two compositions:

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

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)

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

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)

[7] is "significant coverage". [8] and [9] probably so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_52&oldid=1137389590"