Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 70

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65 ← Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 → Archive 75

Leichte Musik

How do I translate the general genre Leichte Musik which obviously is not Light music. It summarizes the lighter sides of classical music, such as operettas, dance music etc. Another German term is U-Musik, Unterhaltungsmusik, which would be entertaining music. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... we're talking Vienna, New Year's Day, clink of champagne glasses, right? There are American orchestras with similar repertoire, such as the Boston Pops and the Cincinnati Pops,. Probably no translation exists but perhaps "light classics" is term occasionally used.
I'm also not sure why Light music isn't close enough -- I looked at this article and it sounds like the Anglo-Saxon counterpart of the German/Austrian tradition, insofar as I have any knowledge of either type. Opus33 (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
"Light music" seems fairly OK (here is how the Light Music Society (LMS) defines it), but I agree there wouldn't be a one-on-one translation: too context-dependent. Leonard Bernstein#Influence and characteristics as a composer avoids the terminology, writing "Some of his works, especially his score for West Side Story, helped bridge the gap between classical and popular music" (emphasis added) – well, according to the LMS "Light Music bridges the gap between classical and popular music" (emphasis added). Other sources are more direct in saying that Bernstein composed "... in lighter genres ..." ([1]). The concept has somewhat vague boundaries (see LMS definition), and so should be used sparingly in the context of encyclopedic articles (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions that lack precision).
@Gerda Arendt: could you provide the context where you need the translation? E.g. I can imagine contexts where Leichte Musik would rather be translated by, for instance, easy listening or another closely related concept. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
It's for a broadcaster's department (Abteilung), distinguishing serious vs. light, or E/U (Ernst/Unterhaltung). Light music seems a good translation, but our article of that name describes something very British. Could we perhaps broaden the scope of that article? - Thank you for all responses. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Which broadcaster? What is the German name of the department? The E/U distinction is very contentious (see e.g. de:E- und U-Musik#Klassifikationsprobleme und Verteilungskonflikte). The distinctions made in English terminology are anyway different, and probably no less contentious. So if you are translating an article on a German broadcaster to English I'd rather list the genres mostly programmed than trying to translate a German umbrella term with vague boundaries to an English umbrella term which has different, no less vague, boundaries.
As for the light music article: surely in need of some updating (has a British POV to start with, afaics, which could be remedied or at least tagged until resolved), see e.g. the external sources given in the LMS definition page which I linked to above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
We are talking about a German broadcaster (now under a different name, the History of Südwestrundfunk#Süddeutscher Rundfunk) who had an Abteilung Leichte Musik in the 1950s, adding the additional problem of historic context. It would not be called that way today, but it's history that back then, and in Germany, they tried to categorize E and U. The person who lead the department was also influential in jazz which makes me think that would have been counted in there as well (see de: "wo er als Leiter der Abteilung Unterhaltungsmusik die „Tage der Leichten Musik“ initiierte und für „Treffpunkt Jazz“ zuständig war"), the very sentence I'd like to translate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The sentence is translated in en.Wikipedia's Wolfram Röhrig article. Don't think it was too difficult to mention that. For History of Südwestrundfunk, I'd propose to merge that into the History section of Südwestrundfunk. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that is not relevant for the question that it was for Röhrig, which I translated. Once he is mentioned, could anybody find a source for the 20 July 2044 1944 story on de. I skipped it altogether, with no source. One of the reasons why I didn't want to mention the article prematurely. - Where is the merge discussion precisely. One of the article talks sent me here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
That would be 20 July 1944 I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
No clue what problem you're trying to address, but surely has no longer anything to do with "Leichte Musik" and its English-language counterpart(s). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Archiving delay time for this page

I've put the archiving delay time for this page again to one month. I could live with a shorter archiving delay time too (e.g. two weeks, as it used to be for a long time). Other ideas? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  • 30 days is way too short of an archiving time for an important project; some editors don't even log onto Wikipedia for 30 days or more, and so threads should not be removed until interested parties have seen them. It should be at least 60 days if not more; even under a 60-day archiving it only has 19 threads and only 40,000 bytes. Softlavender (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Re. "some editors don't even log onto Wikipedia for 30 days or more", well then you'll miss out on much more important active discussions (e.g. WP:ANI, User talk:Jimbo Wales, WP:VPP, ...) which have an archiving delay time of 30 days or less. We have archive pages for those who have higher priorities than Wikipedia for a period of more than a month.
    Re. "19 threads and only 40,000 bytes": more than half of it stale discussion which would be better archived. Not archiving in short delay times has an effect of stalling, e.g. above #Sketch (music): further discussion for developing this article would probably, by now, better move to Talk:Sketch (music), with a link to "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive XX#Sketch (music)" on that talk page, so as to keep further discussion after the initial start-up phase of that article grouped in the most logical place (i.e. the place where one would start to look for such a discussion). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    Discussions that are truly resolved, or XfD notices that have expired, can either be (1) one-click archived, (2) purple-box closed with {{atop}} and {{abot}} codes and a closing summary, (3) marked {{resolved}}, or (4) manually archived. Softlavender (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    #Further opinions requested above is afaik truly resolved, and has been for several weeks now. Neither of the four techniques you propose would work for me while I was truly involved in resolving the matter (so I'm not the one who has to decide whether it is resolved or not). That's what we have archive bots for. Why would we have an archive bot if all topics above which have lingered here for a month after the last comment can be safely archived, but have to be done so manually? Can you name one of the sections above with a last comment over a month ago which could not be safely archived (and brought back if someone feels nonetheless they have something to add at a later date)? Probably less than 10% of timely archived items would need to be brought back, which would be less work anyhow than manually/semi-automatically closing/archiving all expired items. Also, archiving by a single user when they think "it is time" to do so is much less preferable (it might reflect their POV without voicing it explicitly). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I am in favour of restoring it to 60 days, as per Softlavender above. I venture to suggest that it is inappropriate for any one editor to change the archiving time without consulting other editors - perhaps Francis can revert to the previous setting while this discussion is continuing? Best, -- Smerus (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    • (ec) Re. "I venture to suggest that it is inappropriate for any one editor to change the archiving time without consulting other editors" – as here? And then again here? I've kindly reverted the oldest of these edits which was, afaik, the first one that changed the archiving time without consulting other editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • As anywhere. I've stated my opinion which I would have thought was perfectly clear. It's not conditional on who posted what when. --Smerus (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Re. "... stated ... perfectly clear" – no, as in: not at all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Francis, I had thought that my English style was of high quality, but clearly I am failing. Please state precisely what is unclear about "I venture to suggest that it is inappropriate for any one editor to change the archiving time without consulting other editors". Otherwise I will think that you are just trying to wind me up......Smerus (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I am in favour of 30 days, which is enough for regulars, and for those who log in only rarely it seems easy enough to find the most recent archive(s), and revive a thread if it really needed their response. I agree that the archive should better be not changed without a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLP

Just came across this unreferenced article on Enrico Elisi. He seems notable. I am not active very much anymore, otherwise I would assist.4meter4 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

How about this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Classical_music

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 14:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

"Rage" aria

I first encountered this rather new article when someone added '"Rage" aria' to the Glossary of musical terminology. The article is sourced to ("proper printed") books, yet reading paragraphs where every sentence is just sourced to the same book leaves me with a funny feeling of unease. I have never heard the term "'Rage' aria", which doesn't mean much, except that the quotation marks seem, um, wrong, basically, and what about '"Happiness" arias', or '"Indecision" arias'? Surely if I say "Letter arias irritate me somehow" this is perfectly clear without extra quotation marks, and does not really make a new piece of "musical terminology". So I suggest it would be a good idea for someone more acquainted than I am with operatic terminology to look at the article. The article begins with a completely vacuous sentence, and much of it feels like the writer trying to impress, rather than actually tell me anything. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The term is fairly widely used (and not only for the obvious one), both in the music press and in books, sometimes even with the quotation marks, although I think they should not be used in a Wikipedia article. I can also see some possibilities for Letter aria, but I agree that these are not part of a Glossary of musical terminology. The article itself is begging for improvement. Apparently its creation has something to do with Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Northern Colorado/Writing and Scholarship in the Visual and Performing Arts (Fall 2017) and has gestated in the user's sandbox since early November. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing against an article on Rage aria (no quotes). I agree however that the term is not appropriate for the glossary. Many the arias I would not personally qualify as 'rage arias' and the list at the bottom needs sourcing where the cites specifically describe the aria concerned a rage aria. The text seems basically random selections from Grout and Hunter, incoherent individually and collectively. The section on 'form' is particularly pointless since there is no evidence that rage arias have a from different from other arias. The references to Mattheson are jejune and not necessarily relevant to the topic. The whole thing needs slashing edits, which I might get round to when I've cleared my plate of the 7,254,659 other things waiting. I hope York9879 gets a fail. -- Smerus (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Navboxes for composers

We have navboxes which cover the complete works, such as {{Benjamin Britten}}, and others who are so productive that they need individual ones for genres, such as {{Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart}}. For Schubert, I don't know. I to avoid an extra template for his few and rarely performed operas, but for the time being will make one. What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Schubert operas

There's already {{Schubert operas}} (navbox in sidebar format): another navbox that covers the same would probably end up at WP:TfD in no time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
There were such side navboxes on operas by Bizet, Verdi, Puccini etc., it's no longer the style that project opera supports. We now try to get more informative, see examples Carmen, Falstaff (opera), Gianni Schicchi (featured articles, and not by me). My first attempt for a change to that standard was reverted, my second attempt was reverted. I ask what others think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
You could have started the conversation at Template talk:Schubert operas, where you could have seen that the template survived a TfD five years ago (which apparently had a broad consensus at the time). I don't say consensus can't change, but you'd need a broad consensus anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
But instead Gerda - quite reasonably - started a discussion here; the substance of which you have utterly ignored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
What about the substance of my comment? I.e., we shouldn't have two navboxes on the same, so keep to the current one (which was sanctioned by TfD proceedings) until a broad consensus develops to do something different. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Whataboutery. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Which still ignores the substance of my comment... --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Trying: it worked differently for Henze. For a while, a navbox coexisted with the sidebar, but after all sidebars were replaced by more specific information, the sidebar was deleted, after discussion. That is just one example of many possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Afaics, there's a reasonable chance things might work out differently here, so let's discuss. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, Template talk:Schubert operas has no link to the discussion here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not interested in that template, described as "archaic" below, and as "clunky" here. There's a link from project opera to this discussion, where more people are watching than the template. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
? Has nothing to do with notifications. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Position of navboxes

Navboxes belong at the bottom of the article, not at (nor near) the top. It's time these archaic templates were reconfigured to sit were people naturally expect to find them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Back to the first question

Remember, the question is how to incorparate individual compositions in navboxes when a composer is productive. I'd go for treating all kinds of compositions the same: if a separate navbox for symphonies, then also for operas in a similar style. Operas don't need any extra treatment, even if it has been done that way for a long time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose if the net is cast that wide. Wikipedia allows several grouping and navigation systems (see e.g. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates): excluding a sizeable amount of articles (i.e., all articles on individual compositions by productive composers) from any of these as a general rule is not the way to go. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    You oppose what exactly? What do you mean by excluding? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    "...I'd go for treating all kinds of compositions the same..." – we don't need such extra rule, it is counterproductive. General rules regarding sidebars are at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates: other than that we don't need general rules that would exclude certain groups of articles from that particular navigation system. Whether or not it is used should be discussed for concrete sets of articles, not generally. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    I am sorry, but didn't mean it as a rule, rather a goal. Let's look at Mozart. He also wrote symphonies and operas, we have {{Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart}} and {{Mozart operas (horizontal)}}. On a page like List of operas by Mozart, they appear nicely together. Why not at least offer the same possibility for Schubert? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
    Which brings us back to discussing individual cases (i.e. Schubert). The "rule" vs. "goal" distinction is just to-may-to/to-mah-to. So let's abandon this subsection about implicit/shady general rules/goals, and discuss the issue at hand. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
    Mozart is one of the many, look at {{Giuseppe Verdi}}, {{Richard Wagner}}, {{Giacomo Puccini}}, {{Franz Schreker}}, etc - Schubert is one of few which deviate, - why not open the same possibility as for the others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Re. "why not open the same possibility as for the others?" – the same could be said about {{Schubert operas}}. In fact, it was, leading to a broad consensus to keep this one in 2012. I see no convincing arguments to undo that consensus. I only see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS type of reasoning, rather unconvincing compared to the broad consensus that developed in the actual TfD that decided that {{Schubert operas}} should be kept. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be deleted, but I made an additional horizontal navbox which fits more modern concepts than 2012. I'd like to use it. The two Mozart templates co-exist peacefully, the horizontal created by Voceditenore in 2014. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
So we agree that {{Schubert operas}} can be kept, and should not be removed from articles that use it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
No there's no agreement about anything, Francis Schonken, and you have a real misunderstanding of what WikiProject Opera currently does with these templates. We have both types available for use. This practice was the outcome of lengthy discussions. Which template to use or the decision to use both is up to the consensus of editors at that article. The Opera project also has an {{Infobox opera}} which has increasingly replaced the old vertical navboxes in the upper right hand corner, but again, that is subject to consensus at the particular article. Even those editors who do not wish to use Infobox opera, use the horizontal navboxes because they free up the upper right-hand corner for an appropriate image, e.g. [2]. Others have no problem with having both. See, for example, Rodelinda. Furthermore {{Franz Schubert}} is somewhat of an anomaly in its generic, and frankly unhelpful construction. Compare to the templates for {{Benjamin Britten}}, {{George Frideric Handel}}, {{Giuseppe Verdi}}, {{Giacomo Puccini}}, to name a few. If it is undesirable to restructure {{Franz Schubert}}, then it would be helpful to additionally have Gerda's version of the template Schubert stage works. It's far more informative to the reader than the generic vertical navbox, {{Schubert operas}}. It also allows editors who wish to use the upper right-hand corner either for an image illustrative of the opera or for {{Infobox opera}}. It should not have been peremptorily redirected to {{Schubert operas}}, especially on the basis of this discussion, where there has been no support for that redirection whatsoever, apart from the one editor here who has edit-warred to redirect it [3], [4], [5]. Nor should it have been redirected on the basis that "same content as Template:Schubert operas, which was kept after a TfD five years ago". The content is not the same. It is a substantial improvement, and the fact that {{Schubert operas}} was kept 5 years ago, does not mean that its usage can never change. See this 2016 deletion discussion, for example. There are many more recent TfD's for these old vertical navboxes which have ended in delete. Voceditenore (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I have no clue why you start your reply with "no" (probably not directed at me while you confirm by and large what I've been saying all along). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The "no" is directed at you, Francis, and refers to your comment "So we agree that {{Schubert operas}} can be kept, and should not be removed from articles that use it?" There is no agreement here whatsoever that {{Schubert operas}} should not be removed from articles that use it, and no one here has proposed that it be deleted either. An additional, alternative horizontal navbar was proposed, and you have edit-warred to delete it via redirection. You are the only one advocating the deletion of a template. If you really think that what I've said above "confirms by and large what you've been saying all along", then you are completely wrong. It does no such thing and to argue otherwise is purely tendentious and obfuscating. Voceditenore (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, that was not a comment but a question directed at Gerda Arendt. Let's formulate the question somewhat more precisely: @Gerda Arendt: so we agree that {{Schubert operas}} can be kept, and should not be removed from articles that use it? – I was trying to find out whether there were some points of agreement between me and Gerda. I'd be happy if everyone spoke for themselves. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I asked a few times that I'd like to know what others think. We heard what you think, and let me see if I also understand it. We need to break up your question.
  • Do I agree that {{Schubert operas}} can be kept? Yes. We also have {{Mozart operas}}.
  • I do not understand exactly "should not be removed from articles that use it".
  • If you mean by "that use it" that the template is now present in the article, then no, if an editor thinks that {{Schubert stage works}} suits the desired article layout better.
  • If you mean by "that use it" that the stage work appears in the template, also no, because I know of no guideline enforcing that. Look how many Mozart operas have {{Mozart operas}}. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Re. "... from articles that use it" – I meant, articles that transclude the navbox, to which you answered above, tx. I suggest to take this article by article then, as a general agreement for the set seems not possible (yet, at this point). --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
First step: kindly revert the redirect to a working template then. I won't revert you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
See my #Suggestion below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@Voceditenore: question for you: above you wrote "... Others have no problem with having both. See, for example, Rodelinda. ..." – when I read it (before looking at the example) I thought you meant both a sidebar and a horizontal navbox with the "both" in the first of those two sentences. As that is obviously not the case in the quoted example (Rodelinda) I'm not sure what you tried to say? Could you clarify? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Rodelinda has both the (cumbersome) vertical navbox at the top and the horizontal {{George Frideric Handel}} at the bottom which, among other things, provides navigation to all of his operas, oratorios, cantatas, and odes and masques. Again, your claim that this is not true or that you cannot understand what I am saying is both tendentious and obfuscating. Re your previous comment, I am speaking for myself, and no one else. This is not your private discussion with one other editor, nor should it be. I support having an alternative horizontal navbar available. I also support the right of any editor to remove or replace any feature of an article if appropriate. If an editor thinks it is not appropriate they can seek consensus to revert the change on the talk of the individual article. Voceditenore (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, didn't look very well, my bad. Re. "If an editor thinks it is not appropriate they can seek consensus to revert the change on the talk of the individual article." – or (in the WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy logic), the one not agreeing can revert, after which a compromise is sought. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Re. "This is not your private discussion with one other editor, nor should it be" – nor did I imply that; I'd still be interested to see Gerda's answer, which might be a major step towards a sustainable compromise. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding Schubert

Everything Schubert wrote for voices and orchestra is included in those two series (as far as extant of course): so an idea might be to have one single horizontal navbox that groups all articles from those two series of the NSE, which would avoid the awkwardness of having to choose between a "church music" and a "stage works" navbox for Lazarus (or have it in both). In other words, let's expand & smarten up {{Schubert masses}} to {{church music and stage works by Franz Schubert}} or something in that vein. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd prefer to expand {{Franz Schubert}} by these pieces, - leaving just 700 songs and piano separate. Actually, that's what I tried first for the operas, but you reverted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
...because I didn't think it a good idea, and I still don't. Symphonies, chamber music, sonatas, lieder (etc) seem more central to the composer's legacy than his operas, so I don't see why the latter would be in the general template and not the former. Also the idea of having it all in one template (like Handel's) doesn't seem like a good idea to me, I'd rather go for something like Bach's: only pages about groups of compositions linked from the central template, and individual compositions linked from a few composition set templates. Could live with NSE Series I (Church Music) + II (Stage Works) + V (Orchestral Works), i.e. all music with orchestra, in one composition set template (this would also absorb {{Schubert symphonies}}) but fear it might grow unwieldy (like Handel's) if adding more. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Britten model for Schubert

Are you saying you could not live with a Schubert template similar to Britten's, mentioned further up? I like it, and if you see it on one of his church compositions, you get also the information that he composed chamber music, while in a Schubert mass, you see just the other masses. - Again: what do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Re. {{Benjamin Britten}}:
  • Over-all too large to my taste, well, more than taste alone of course: I know there is a tendency to split large templates (e.g. {{Compositions for Organ, Keyboard and Lute by Johann Sebastian Bach}} was subject to such split attempt not so long ago, although not half as large as Britten's)
  • Contains links such as Benjamin Britten (train): I'd avoid such "named after" topics without much biographical or musical relation to the composer
  • There are relatively few "overview" pages with sets of compositions by Britten (Cello suites (Britten) and List of compositions by Benjamin Britten are the only two I see linked from the template). Schubert has more than 10 of such pages
  • Contains somewhat over 70 compositions: Schubert has currently at least 120 separate articles on individual compositions
  • Does not contain "people" links: Schubert's has over 20 people links
  • Looking at items to be linked there would be at least 150 (none of which could be abbreviated to a mere number as in {{Bach cantatas}}), so the entire template would, for Schubert, be (order of magnitude) twice the size of Britten's, and wouldn't even fit a standard screen any more when expanded. Sort of cripples the navigation idea if you ask me. Selecting sets of compositions for individual inclusion (and others not) always distorts: seems to say these are more important than those that are not included (while these compositions are linked from dozens pages more than those that are only linked from "composition set" navboxes.
So, over-all: no, the Britten template does not make a good comparison here. The approach as in Bach's would work better imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Mendelssohn model for Schubert

Forget Britten then, how about Mendelssohn? {{Felix Mendelssohn}}

It's long, but normally collapsed. I like that a reader sees at a glance in which fields the composer was active when looking left, and I think the number of entries for a genre is not obverwhelming. - A peer review is open for the composer, btw, - a topic reaching for highest quality standards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Things I'd avoid anyhow:
These issues are not too difficult to resolve for the Mendelssohn one, and may result in a box with an acceptable size for that composer (didn't check whether it does or does not cover currently available articles on compositions very well or not; added note: apparently coverage is not OK, see Hebrides example below), but doesn't help a single bit for the Schubert one which would still have 150+ links to cope with if following the improved Mendelssohn model.
Re. "I like that a reader sees at a glance in which fields the composer was active when looking left": why should that necessarily be "when looking left"? In the Mendelssohn one 8 topics listed on the left indicate groups of compositions; two something completely different (neither do these two belong to a similar category like the eight first ones, all on compositions, do). Logical groups mentioned on the left is at least less confusing.
Also covering all groups of compositions for that composer seems preferable: I'd rather see "orchestral" as a group name (which would include the The Hebrides) than two categories ("symphonies" and "concertante") which exclude several significant works for the composer: that's another advantage of covering all genres systematically by linking to overviews, instead of to individual compositions grouped non-systematically. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
You changed this header, adding "model for Schubert", but it was not my intention, - I am looking at ideas for a good navbox in general. - You also changed it by the general groups, which is something I'd rather see discussed first. It was like this when we began discussing. If we have subgroups then please get the headers centered. How would you show that Lobgesang is vocal? Would a Lied be vocal? Should composition years be applied consistently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no "in general", see above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Brainstorming for Schubert

Really back to the first question: can we develop criteria and guidelines for composers' navboxes? They will be different depending on a person's output? Can we brainstorm and the decide on something for Schubert particularly? - I'd go for one navbox per composer IF at all feasable, such as Britten, because it gives an overview. I confess that I rarely navigate via navboxes (much more via search function), except Bach cantatas by number when I forgot the title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Score samples and transposing instruments

 – previous discussion at Talk:Clarinet Concerto (Mozart)#Key of the musical examples

Over at Clarinet Concerto (Mozart), I'm involved in a dispute over the samples given. I transcribed the first phrase of the solo part for each movement, and transcribed them as written for clarinet in A. Opus33 feels it should be either transposed to C, or that there should be a prominent notice that the clarinet is a transposing instrument. I feel that the part should be transcribed as written, and very few people who can recognize it as the "wrong key" will not also know why. I've brought it here because this could be relevant to other instruments (ETA: trumpets and saxophones leap to mind) and pieces. What is the project's feeling on this? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The infobox of the clarinet article gives the playing range of the common B♭ clarinet untransposed; same for the playing range of the clarinet in A in the table at Clarinet#Extended family of clarinets. There's a lot to do about the playing range of Mozart's clarinet concerto (especially the playing range difference with the first version of the concerto: I've seen a documentary entirely devoted to that topic, since the basset clarinet for which that version was intended was far from standardised at the time, and included a variety of instruments with different playing ranges with only indirect evidence which one may have been intended by Mozart). When absorbing that info a reader might go to the pages that display these playing ranges, i.e. untransposed. So basically I prefer the samples would be written down without transposition, in order to make such comparisons easier for the reader, assuming many more people are somewhat accustomed with reading a G-clef than with reading a transposed G-clef (does it transpose up or down? etc.). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I think part of the reason the range is given untransposed is that it ought to be the same for them all, except for basset-like extensions below the low E whose standardness and range varies between instruments. But here we are not presenting a generalisation across the clarinet family. I would like to echo Michael Bednarek's question at Talk:Clarinet Concerto (Mozart): "How is this treated in analytical sources that provide notation examples?" I don't have much of a preference myself, since I can read either pretty fluently, and both make sense. Double sharp (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Reopening discussion here, per request on my talk page, for discussing the general principle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Francis. That discussion at Talk:Clarinet Concerto (Mozart)#Key of the musical examples was very instructive. I don't agree with it, but am much less convinced of my position than I previously was. I strongly suggest everyone interested check there for examples of how professional catalogs do it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Navbox by genre

On hold until discussions at Template talk:Concertos#G...Graupner? and at Template talk:Sonatas#Purpose are concluded. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I notice today many edits such as this, adding a navbox {{Sonatas}} to a composition on top of the composer's navbox. I have reservations regarding the usefulness of the navbox that will be giant, raised on the template talk. But even if others agree that it is a good idea: I find the placement above the composer wrong. Reading an article about a composition, I'd rather look for other compositions by the same person than other works (often only in form of summary lists, Beethoven piano) of works of the genre by other other composers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The question where to put the template is different, and more general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
It got more general after {{Concertos}} was started and inserted in articles. Can we please discuss the usefulness of these templates? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

When I started the discussing for one template I had no idea how general this would become. This is the formal invitation then to add to a discussion for a template of this project, which falls in the responsibility of this project and should not be left to the few who my have the articles it now occupies on their watchlists. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Numbers in article title

Twelve Fantasias for Viola da Gamba solo was moved to 12 Fantasias for Viola da Gamba (Telemann). Don't we write numerals up to twelve? What about Six chansons pour piano, - shouldn't that be 6 Chansons pour piano, by the same logic? Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If both are possible, why move? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Please read, quoting what I just wrote above: "For comparable sets by Telemann, I suppose using the same format works best ("12 ...")". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
For clarity, the "comparable sets" of Telemann compositions are under "F" at Category:Compositions by Georg Philipp Telemann. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
And then, in the article about 12 flute sonatas, we suggest "thirty-six" in a red link for a comparable title? Can we perhaps think about rewording the guidelines. If we observe to spell out numerals up to twelve, why not prefer that also in titles? I chose the option also because it clarifies from the start that the title is in English. Or do we want to make clear that the number is not really part of the title, as IMSLP consistently does? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Having the option of spelling out or using a number is ambiguous and potentially the cause of arguments. In line with proper English, I think numeric titles should be spelled out (or course with redirects for the numbers). - kosboot (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The "red link" actually reads {{ill|36 Fantaisies pour le clavessin, TWV 33:1–36|scores|36 Fantaisies pour le clavessin, TWV 33:1-36 (Telemann, Georg Philipp)|lt=thirty-six fantasias for solo harpsichord}}, which means that the suggested article title is:
(36 Fantasias for Harpsichord (Telemann) would work too, probably – didn't check yet how many more Fantasias the composer wrote for that instrument). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Opera templates changed for footboxes

@Gerda Arendt: hi Gerda, I must have missed it, but presumably there was a decision sometime earlier this year to move from right hand top opera templates to footboxes? Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_22#Template:Nicolai_operas etc. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You can look for the word "navbox" on the present talk of project opera, and in the archives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
For a bit of history: {{Giuseppe Verdi}} was created in 2013, and the side navbox replaced by an infobox, for example Falstaff in 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
There has certainly not been a decision taken, or even any discussion of the matter that I am aware of, "to move from right hand top opera templates to footboxes". Gerda has simply taken it upon herself to create infoboxes for all the articles in the opera composer templates on that page you link to and now that the templates are empty, it is being recommended that they are thrown away. The composer navboxes, to me, are good because they provide an appropriate tribute to the composer at the top of the page with his picture, and useful because if the reader clicks on "show" they can easily navigate to the other operas by the composer, explore those and learn about them. So-called infoboxes,on the other hand, are completely useless, pointless and redundant as all they do is repeat information that is already in the lead and clutter up the top of the page. I put a lot of effort into creating and editing articles on Handel, Meyerbeer and Offenbach operas and other works by those composers because I really revere and admire them and I think it is important that the composer's picture is at the top of the page. I and several others have prevented the process starting of so-called infoboxes replacing the composer template on Handel works (that template even creates a "Wikipedia Book", an excellent and valuable educational tool) and Meyerbeer operas and I would also instantly revert any so-called infobox being added to any Offenbach stage work. But all these other opera articles were not on my watchlist, you can't fight about everything.Smeat75 (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Smeat75, if you want to pay tribute to the composer, there is no reason why the composer's image cannot be used in the infobox or simply as a stand-alone image at the top of the article with the navigation bar at the bottom—the widely accepted and expected place for them to be throughout Wikipedia. Similarly, there's no reason why the "Book" option cannot be added to the footer (horizontal) navbox. Having said that, the current usefulness of the "Book" option seems rather limited. Click on Book:Georg Friedrich Händel and read the notice at the top. In ictu oculi, the outcome of the lengthy discussions at WikiProject Opera on this issue and the development of {{Infobox opera}} was that the infobox is available as an option and only that. The situation has not changed. I personally use it in conjunction with the footer navbox in all the articles I create or significantly expand, as do several other editors. Others have very strong preferences for the old-style vertical navbox. As I have said each time this brouhaha erupts, the world is not going to end if an opera article has an infobox at the top. Nor is it going to end if it has the vertical navbox at the top. What counts is the content of the article, and dare I say it, getting along with one's colleagues. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure or not whether it's a good idea. I'd like a link to previous discussion. I see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_70#Schubert_operas where @Francis Schonken: makes some good points. I personally prefer the top rh box. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
In ictu oculi, This is the main discussion about adding {{Infobox opera}} as an option for articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Templates. It took place at WikiProject Opera in June 2013 and has links to previous discussions at the project. The discussion was open for two weeks, and I had personally contacted all WikiProject Opera members who had participated on the project's talk page during the previous 12 months notifying them of the discussion. It is now used in over 900 of the 2,700 articles on individual operas. Several active editors in the area are in favour of it, several are not, and several are neutral. If you are really that concerned about its very existence you can start a whole new discussion at WikiProject Opera (where it belongs, not here), monitor it, and facilitate it. In which case I suggest you read this discussion and this one first. Voceditenore (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
No I'm not particuarly fussed, I was used to the old way, but evidently didn't follow it closely. Just looking for the reason that's all. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

String Quartets, Op. 3 (attributed to Haydn) & Roman Hoffstetter

I've just finished an article on the 6 string quartets by Roman Hoffstetter that were published under Joseph Haydn's name in the 1770s and I would like someone to go over it, just to make sure I've done everything right, it is not that easy to find information on these things. I noticed on the Hoffstetter article that someone had included a line to the effect that proof positive has been found that Hoffstetter had composed at least two of the quartets, but the statement is uncited. I'd love to incorporate that information in my article on the Op. 3 Quartets but I've no idea where the information came from or where to start looking for the information in this case. Also does anyone know if these quartets are still in publication by anyone. Graham1973 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Charles Dutoit

The Charles Dutoit article is currently editprotected. For reasons see here. Don't know whether anyone following this noticeboard is able to help out a bit, for instance at Talk:Charles Dutoit? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't followed through all the gory details of the edit history. However, what I have seen on cursory inspection suggests that a WP:SILVERLOCK might be in order. For starters. Get that in place, and examine the contributions by named editors later. Narky Blert (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed for Missa brevis (Bach)

There are quite a few articles (possibly 25) with links to Missa brevis (Bach), when I assume quite a few of these should really link to the specific articles. The specialist knowledge is beyond my ability to do this accurately so could someone with this knowledge help? This list shows those currently pointing to the disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodw (talk • contribs) 08:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thnaks for doing that so quickly.— Rod talk 08:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Beethoven symphonies

Not all of Beethoven's symphonies are written in a classical style, as the current revisions in the Wikipedia articles would like to have us believe. I agree that the first two are, since they are obviously from Beethoven's early period. It is, however, debatable that the rest of the symphonies are. Beethoven's 3rd and onward sound more Romantic in style to me, and they clearly break the bounds of the classical styles, and it is a well-known fact that Beethoven's 3rd is considered the first Romantic symphony. My edits to the articles on Beethoven's symphonies were reverted on the basis that they were not backed by any sources, and may have possibly been due to a supposed bias from the other member. My edits to Beethoven's symphonies are based not merely on second-hand sources, but on common knowledge. Beethoven is widely acknowledged as having been a Romantic composer, and saying he was not to me is like saying that The Beatles were not a rock band, but simply a hard pop group. Classicalfan626 (talk) 14:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You'd still need a source saying the same. "sound more Romantic in style to me" is nothing on which Wikipedia can build, nor is "common knowledge". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The WP article Symphony (which in itself is pretty poor) doesn't distinguish between 'classical' symphonies and 'romantic' symphonies, and any clear definition of these is imo a matter of opinion. romantic music is also a poor article and doesn't help much. As it happens, I tend myself to think that Beethoven 3 could be regarded as an early piece of musical romanticism, but then nos. 4 and 8 seem to me to be 'classic'. In general unless we have a clear consensual definition of these terms on WP we should avoid them.--Smerus (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, I see what you mean about Symphony. To my eyes, that article contains a lot of WP:POV and WP:OR. Narky Blert (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The Beatles were never, ever, by any stretch of the imagination, a rock group. They were a beat group who developed into other genres. That illustrates the problem with genre labels.
Template:Infobox classical composer specifically excludes genres, and for good reason. Although that exclusion only applies to types of work and not to style, it is perhaps because the latter is too obvious to need saying. Genres are artificial constructions after the fact.
It could be argued that the Jupiter was the first Romantic symphony, by rebalancing the emphasis from the first movement onto the last. The Eroica did the same thing. On the other hand, Beethoven's Fifth is the first work I can think of which consciously relates a later movement to an earlier one (unless I've missed something by Haydn; i wouldn't be surprised if he had done so). The Eighth, despite its "classical" Haydnesque form, does so too. The Pastoral could be called a dance suite consisting of five tone poems. I'm not even going to attempt such a futile piece of WP:OR.
There's also the distinction between classical form (fast (sonata form) - slow - 3/4 time - very fast) and classical style (what your ears tell you).
In summary: labels like "classical" and "romantic" are often unhelpful or misleading, and should be used with great caution; not least, because Classical music is a subset of classical music. Narky Blert (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, Haydn did this first in his 46th symphony, in which the finale is also interrupted by the return of part of the minuet. The fourth movement of the Pastoral, nonetheless, is no more independent than the introduction to the finale of Mozart's G minor Quintet. Actually, if anything the last seven symphonies of Beethoven are closer to the classical style of Haydn and Mozart than the first two. And there is nothing in any of the 9 symphonies of Beethoven that is not clearly explainable in classical form: even the finale of the 9th is clearly a combined concerto sonata form (with double exposition) and set of variations, with a four-movement sonata structure superimposed over it. Double sharp (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I must have heard Haydn 46 before, but I didn't know it. I'm still chuckling over the multiple changes of time signature and the false endings in the 4th movement.
YouTube has recently been offering me obscure symphonies from as late as 1925. Romantic in style, heavily tonal; good workmanlike stuff, but no obviously overlooked masterpieces; all in the "classical" four movements. It's like Mahler had never been, and that Brahms was the final word (did anything new happen in music in the 1890s and 1900s? Obviously not).
I'm sure that we can all agree that the Baroque/Classical divide can be precisely dated to 1750 and the Classical/Romantic divide to 1830 (/sarcasm). Narky Blert (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that to the extent that periodisation is useful, it should reflect the musical language of the work, and that is the sense in which Beethoven is more usefully classified as Classical than Romantic. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that Beethoven is purely Classical: his emotional world is clearly not that of Haydn and Mozart. But so much of their thinking is reflected and heightened in his, and so much of their world is contained in his (just look at op. 130), that it is more illuminating and more generalisable to see Beethoven as an extension of the practice of Haydn and Mozart than as a precursor of Schumann, Chopin, and Liszt. The point is made in much better language in Charles Rosen's The Classical Style (of course), which I quoted lengthily on Classicalfan626's talk page the last time this issue came about (in a dispute about calling Schubert's Unfinished Symphony the first Romantic symphony, which incidentally is cited, because he once again considered Beethoven's Third through Ninth to be Romantic); we then discussed it there and at my talk page. And then we have to note that the hallmarks of each period do not suddenly burst forth together but first appear in isolation: you could with some justice consider D. Scarlatti and C. Ph. E. Bach proto-Classical, and Weber and Rossini proto-Romantic, although I am not sure if it makes sense to periodise Schubert at all. Furthermore a style still exists even after it is no longer the natural form of musical expression and can be used for pastiche or academicism (neither of which is necessarily a bad thing). All this wall of text is really getting at is that I think we would do a lot better periodising works instead of composers. Not that that is a cure-all, as can be seen from trying to periodise Mozart's C minor Mass, Schubert's Great C major Symphony, Mendelssohn's E minor Fugue from Op. 35, and Liszt's B minor Piano Sonata. Double sharp (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I've rarely heard anything by Antonio Soler (died 1783) which wasn't out-and-out Baroque. I may have heard Portuguese and/or Latin American Baroque works which were even later. New fashions travelled slowly.
Tongue in cheek, I could argue that Paganini was the first Romantic musician. Rock star lifestyle, and the first I know of who suffered from Composers' Disease.
"Transitional" composers like CPE, Beethoven and Schoenberg don't fit tidily into any category. That's why I dislike such categories. I and we are not alone: the editors who have worked on garage rock look as if they have recognised a similar problem. Musical styles develop.
I agree that it's preferable to classify pieces rather than composers by style (unless a composer unquestionably wrote in one style only); and I would always want at least one source for either assertion. Narky Blert (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've just seen this - Curse of the ninth - there's a hell of a lot of tidying up to do in WP symphonic articles.......--Smerus (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The curse of the 9th is an encyclopaedic topic. It's in popular culture, and readers might want to learn about it. I see that that article cites N*rm*n L*br*cht. He is a notable commentator, as he might be the first to tell you, but I have not known him ever to be right. IDK if he sets out to be a contraversialist, but his opinions are very often controversial. Narky Blert (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm amused by that article Curse of the ninth which has a single footnote (so much for sourcing). I question whether it truly is an encyclopedia topic, or whether it is an idea harbored by two composers (Bruckner and Mahler), embellished by a composer whose superstitions are well-known (Schoenberg), and has become blown up out of proportion by 20th century writers to serve as a promotional vehicle for their writing (no question that it's a good hook). It's a fun topic for those whose lack of knowledge prevents them from delving deeply into music, and have to rely on these kinds of extra-musical topics to feed their interests. I would think the topic would fall under the section of influences of Beethoven's 9th rather than a separate article. (But I'll let it be if everyone else objects.) - kosboot (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
If, rather than "9", it's "one short of 10"; then Shostakovich also counts - he wrote 0F symphonies. Narky Blert (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Split proposals regarding Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach

See Talk:Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach#Proposed splits. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Almost all the content was created by me, which can hardly have been a coincidence. Shuffling around well-written content to create list-like contentless sub-stubs doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. Mathsci (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
On March 2018 he was involved in similar edits where he made 3 consecutive edits in one 24 hour period. He has accused User:Softlavender and me of tag-teaming, but it appears that he has just been trying to circumvent consensus. Softlavender is an experienced editor who has quite a lot of experience with classical music. Francis Schonken has a history of editing in this way, i.e disruptive edits and and a pattern of targeting particular users. On many occasions Softlavender has explained to Francis Schonken how consensus works, but he has continually ignored that per WP:IDONTHEARTHAT.
In 2016 he was topic-banned for 6 months for edits on Orgelbüchlein.
Similarly in January 2017 there was a report at WP:ANI where large parts of article were moved around. All of those edits were reverted and changed to redirects by a large number of editors.
That conduct is continuing now. Mathsci (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
The same pattern can be seen on An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken). In that case a careful article on the Lutheran hymn has been written in the usual way with several users: An Wasserflüssen Babylon. user:Gerda Arendt had the main initiative in February 2018 and on my talk page asked me to help me write the article. During this period, however, Francis Schonken has created a fork article (on Reincken). The fork article started out as way to veto Gerda's DYK hook; it then developed into a merge/fork article. Edits to the forked article were mostly made by copy-pasting the main article using images and content mostly created by me. The forked content is up for WP:AfD. Francis Schonken then decided that he would try to produce a complete article. Much of what he has attempted to create is unusable, because it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The section on "music" is just something he invented himself out of thin air. Mathsci (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Francis Schonken has given no explanation at all of why he is making these kinds of edits. He has ignored User:Softlavender, just claiming that tag-teaming is going on. As has happened on other occasions, he has kept a low profile while WP:AN3 was under review. He then continued in exactly the same way. None of his edits conform with WP:consensus and he is quite aware of that. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

AfD proposal

There is an AfD proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Czaplowski which members of this project may wish to comment on. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Official Classical Singles Chart

Hi all. Official Classical Singles Chart has been sitting at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates without any new reviews for the last couple of months. If anyone has some time, I would welcome any comments or feedback on the nomination. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Cobbett Prize

We have articles on Walter Willson Cobbett and on the Cobbett Association; but not on the Cobbett Prize, awarded for what he liked to call "Phantasies".

Although they're not listed on the DAB page Phantasy, I believe that the following won Cobbett Prizes:

I don't have the resources (i.e. a subscription to Grove) to dig into this. Online searches get horribly cluttered with video games and the like. Does anyone feel like having a go at this topic? Even if it's not independently notable (though I suspect it is), Wiki does not cover it.

Starter links, 1, 2 and 3. Narky Blert (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_70&oldid=841464071"