Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 35

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

→

Dmitry Bortniansky; reliable source issue; can anyone assess this source?

Hi guys -- I'd like to solicit an opinion or two about Dmitry Bortniansky, in particular this. (Yeah, I show frustration in my edit summary. Sorry.) Honestly I don't care what nationality he is, but clearly this is a matter of great importance to other people (there is a long history of no-he's-Russian, no-he's-Ukrainian squabbling), and the current visitor wants to make him Ruthenian. Is the article in the current New Grove a sufficiently reliable source? Is this a reliable source? I don't speak Russian, but it does appear to be an encyclopedia. I typically defer to the New Grove on things like this. Bortniansky's case is rather akin to Handel, in that he was born in one place but made his career, and his fame, elsewhere. Antandrus (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very odd source. With my limited Russian I can't work out what it is. Some sort of question and answer session in which the Ruthenian credentials of various historical figures — including Andy Warhol — are asserted and discussed? I notice that certain blocks of text are repeated over and over again. Certainly nothing to rival New Grove as a reliable source. The WP article on Ruthenians suggests from the start that this is a controversial and ambiguous term, so it should be avoided here. I know next to nothing about this composer, but if he was born in Ukraine and worked in Russia, can we not say that in the lead? I'm trying to think of a compromise that might satisfy both squabbling parties — but perhaps it would just alienate both. --Deskford (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it would alienate me (as I'm one of the squabbling parties at least today -- although my squabbling is limited to insisting on using the nationality proposed in a reliable source, for example the New Grove). I'd be happy with a third opinion there, especially now that the other editor is accusing me of vandalism (for what? using a reliable source? disagreeing? whatever...) I think some formulation that states the facts would be just fine: born in the Ukraine, worked in Russia. (I also left a note for JackofOz because he speaks Russian.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I represent the other squabbling party. I just changed Ruthenian (which I added earlier) to Rusyn and hope that this will be clearer and less controversial. I think that the original description "Ukrainian composer who became famous in Imperial Russia" will strike anyone unbiased and familiar with the subject as very odd, even if it is taken from the current New Grove, if that is indeed where it is from. I can elaborate if necessary. At least one other editor seems to have a similar point of view. The current description "Russian composer of Ukrainian[2] (or, according to some sources, Rusyn[3]) origin, who is best known today for his liturgical works" is more accurate and informative. Incidentally, I sang some of Bortnyansky's works in a choir, and speak Russian and Ukrainian. While I appreciate Antandrus's use of reputable sources, some familiarity with the cultural context is important Sergivs-en (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks — that reads much better. Your familiarity with the cultural context is very helpful here. Could you help us out here with a bit of information about that Известные подкарпатские русины source — what exactly is it and who publishes it? And can we use it as a reliable source? --Deskford (talk) 11:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't work it out at all. The 2 words repeated in the banner at the top seem to mean "of the Orthodox Church" - but what of the Orthodox Church? It's full of ads, repeated information, apparently meaningless headers, and I can't see a title anywhere. I would severely avoid it as a source for anything. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 18:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sibelius and Finnish nationalism

Several recent edits on Sibelius have a Finnish nationalist flavour. Some were clumsily delivered, and Melodia got apostrophised most indecorously (I feel the need to apologise to her on behalf of the male gender!). Nevertheless, I think the underlying issue of Sibelius as a major Finnish icon does deserve attention. IMO his broader national significance within Finland could be succinctly addressed in a paragraph towards the start of the Reception section (maybe after the mention of Madetoja).

Another pending issue regards whether or not the Wikipedia article should state that Sibelius grew up in a Swedish-speaking family. An anonymous user appears to object strongly to this statement on the grounds that a) "all Finns spoke Swedish at the time"[??], and b) "this makes it sound as if he is ethnically Swedish, not Finnish". In response to that criticism, I changed the wl fromSwedish language to Swedish-speaking Finns, which I feel is quite appropriate. Although I'm no expert on the subject, all my reading suggests that it is essential to explain that he grew up in a Swedish-speaking family. I have invited the anonymous user to make the opposing case on the Talk page (hopefully avoiding an edit war). Any input would be welcome. Thanks in advance,MistyMorn (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It strikes me as analogous to Smetana growing up in a German-speaking family and equally worthy of mention.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful analogy, Peter. From what I understand, it was not at all surprising for a well educated family of Sibelius's time to be Swedish-speaking. Maybe a footnote could clarify this point... when the article reaches this level of detail! In the meantime, I've moved the mention/link a few lines down to avoid undue emphasis. MistyMorn (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Glad to have been of use. Your change looks good.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Gautier d'Épinal

An article has recently appeared on the trouvère composer Gautier d'Épinal, giving a birth date of 1202. Is there any evidence for this date? The only reference given is to a review of a recording that doesn't give a birth date, whilst the article on the French Wikipedia gives 1205 but seems to express uncertainty. --Deskford (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Funny you should mention it; this person has been making up dates for a while now and adding them to List of Renaissance composers and List of Medieval composers. I am starting to think it would be good to roll both of those back to before the first edits by Cmach7/24.209.139.161 / 101.160.148.192 (that's all the same person). He also created Jion de Jordan which may be a hoax. I left a warning a few minutes ago on his talk page; enough of his edits were in good faith that I'm hesitant just to block. Any other opinions? Antandrus (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Btw Theodore Karp's current New Grove article on Gautier gives "born before 1220". 1202 is probably fictitious. As far as I can tell, Cmach7 invents his dates by subtracting about 20 years from the earliest fl date -- usually. But unless he talks to us, I can only guess where he's getting them. Antandrus (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see! This is the same editor I reverted a couple of times when he was trying to promote a composer called Cory Machkovich, apparently born in 1998. Seeing your comments on his talk page, perhaps we have to wait and see if he responds, but in the meantime regard any of his unreferenced edits as suspect. --Deskford (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Palestrina

Hi everyone,

There seems to be some confusion on the wikipedia page for G P da Palestrina over exactly where he worked and when. The article currently mixes up the Cappella Giulia and the Cappella Sistina, and confusingly uses the English term "Julian Chapel" interchangeably for both when that term probably is best not used at all (since it has the tendency to make us think of a venue rather than a consort).

At the moment, the page talks (correctly) about Palestrina's first appointment being at the Cappella Giulia at St Peter's, but it then describes this as being the papal choir, which isn't right - the papal chapel was/is the Cappella Sistina. The Cappella Giulia was/is the Basilica choir. In the next sentence, it says that the Pope was so impressed that he appointed Palestrina to the "Julian Chapel" (of course, that's simply the English term for the Cappella Giulia!) - this was actually Palestrina's appointment to the Cappella Sistina.

The next paragraph refers to the "Julian Chapel" again - by this point it's completely unclear whether the text is meaning the Cappella Giulia or the Cappella Sistina. I suggest the phrase "Julian Chapel" be removed entirely from the article. Better to refer to Palestrina's "Vatican experience", or similar. The paragraph then states that Palestrina returned to the "Julian Chapel" - by now, we aren't sure what that term means, so I suggest it be made explicit that Palestrina returned to the Cappella Giulia (not to be confused with the Cappella Sistina where, after being kicked out!, he did not return).

The key thing here is that there were two choirs at the Vatican, and they really were separate. Let's try not to muddle them up.

My suggestion for the revised text (paragraphs 2 and 3 of "Biography" section, my edits marked with **):

From 1544 to 1551, Palestrina was organist of the principal church (St. Agapito) of his native city, and in 1551 he became maestro di cappella at the Cappella Giulia, the **Basilica** choir at St Peter's. His first published compositions, a book of Masses, was the first **published in Rome** by a native composer: in the Italian states of his day, most composers of sacred music were from the Low Countries, France, Portugal,[3] or Spain. (In fact the book was modeled on one by Cristóbal de Morales: the woodcut in the front is almost an exact copy of the one from the book by the Spanish composer.) This publication made so favorable an impression with Pope Julius III (previously the Bishop of Palestrina) that he appointed Palestrina to the **Cappella Sistina, the Papal choir**.

(I don't think it's right to say that Palestrina was maestro di cappella at the Cappella Sistina, but maybe I'm wrong about that. There's no mention of the controversial circumstances under which Palestrina left the Vatican, but we can talk about that another time. His Missarum Liber Primus was actually the second native Mass publication in Italy, not the first; it was, however, the first to be published in Rome.)

During the next decade, Palestrina held positions similar to his **Vatican appointments** at other chapels and churches in Rome, notably St John Lateran, (1555–1560 – a post previously held by Lassus) and Sta Maria Maggiore (1561–1566). In 1571 he returned to the **Cappella Giulia** and remained at St Peter's for the rest of his life. The decade of the 1570s was difficult for him personally: he lost his brother, two of his sons, and his wife in three separate outbreaks of the plague (1572, 1575, and 1580, respectively). He seems to have considered becoming a priest at this time, but instead he remarried, this time to a wealthy widow. This finally gave him financial independence (he was not well paid as choirmaster) and he was able to compose prolifically until his death.

Comments? Ajrcarey (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)ajrc

Thanks for the post. Without looking elsewhere, I don't happen to know whether you are correct but you sound like someone who knows what they are talking about. Let's give it a while in case someone who knows more than me has something to say. If no one objects in a day or two, then go ahead and make your change.

Do you happen to have references? The section is quite poorly referenced at the moment and it is not obvious which of the sources cited at the end might support the current text. If you do have a reference that qualifies as a Wikipedia:Reliable Source, then it will be useful to include it inline to support the new text. The syntax for referencing can be quite complex depending what style has been established in the article. If you need any help with the referencing, feel free to post the details here and someone will add it in and explain what they did. Alternatively post the details on my talk page and I can do it for you.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Julia Gomelskaya

Back in October, an AfD discussion recommended the article on composerJulia Gomelskaya for deletion, but instead it was moved into userspace, and it is now back in mainspace again. It has been worked on mostly by a series of single-purpose accounts and has a feel of conflict of interest about it. Her article on the Russian Wikipedia, which has much the same content and has been written by editors with the same names, is labelled with an "autobiography" tag. Despite all of this, among the many references added a few look like they may be reliable indications of notability. What does anyone else think? --Deskford (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Vagn Holmboe (especially list of compositions)

Hello,

I have been doing a lot of detective work lately on the works of the Danish composer Vagn Holmboe. There is already a wikipedia page for him, with some information about works which I could expand/tidy, but I'm quite keen on the idea of doing a separate 'list of compositions' page, as occurs for many major composers. I especially like the idea of a list that is arranged both by genre and by chronology/opus number - whether this is two separate lists or a sortable list as occurs in some cases (eg Vivaldi). Given the high regard Holmboe appears to have among 20th century composers (certainly, almost every review of a recording is positive about his work), I think this would be warranted.

However, my Wikipedia experience is extremely limited and I don't really have much idea about how to construct such a page. Is anyone with more expertise interested in assisting?

I have tracked down - through a mix of publishers, recordings, Grove and the 1st edition of the catalogue of Holmboe's work by Paul Rapoport, information on every one of Holmboe's 197 opus numbers. I haven't yet got information on everything in the larger catalogue of around 370 'Meta' numbers assembled by Rapoport, although not far off.

I have only done a very small amount of Wikipedia editing, and I think this is my first ever contribution to a talk page, so apologies if I make errors/breach etiquette.

Orfeocookie (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. If you like to set up a user page with a basic list of compositions, I'd be happy to have a look at it and make some suggestions. Regards.--Klein zach 12:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made a start here and am beginning to realise this is going to be a lot of work! Orfeocookie (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll comment on the talk page. --Klein zach02:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Free pre-1923 music journals on jstor.org

Jstor.org is now making their pre-1923 journal content available without subscription. There's more about ithere. They're rolling out the free content gradually. For now the following are available in areas of interest to this project:

The list of all journals currently available without subscription ishere. – Voceditenore (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That is excellent news; thank you. Now if they would only allow non-institutionalized people, i.e. "independent scholars", to buy subscriptions for the rest of their content ... Antandrus (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There's been some vague talk about the WMF arranging this and/or providing grants. But I wouldn't hold my breath. I agree, it's very frustrating. Almost makes me feel like getting re-institutonalized again.Voceditenore (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Charles-Valentin Alkan

I am starting to clean up this article in preparation for a rewrite , with the aim of making it at least a WP 'good' article by the time of Alkan's bicentenary (2013). Any contributions would be greatly welcomed. All areas of the article are somewhat scrappy or lack focus at the moment.--Smerus (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky Featured Article Review proposal

See here - comments welcome. --Smerus (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

'Jewry in Music' (plug)

For anyone who is interested.....I will be giving a talk on my recently-published book Jewry in Music: Entry to the Profession from the Enlightenment to Richard Wagner (Cambridge University Press) as part of the event series of the Institute of Jewish Studies, at the Gustave Tuck Lecture Theatre, University College London, at 18.45 on 22nd February. Reception from 18.15. Entry free, voluntary donation if you like to the IJS. Contact me if you want further details - David Conway aka--Smerus (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Marianella Machado

This article is under discussion for deletion. Machado is a composer and Music Encyclopedia subject. To comment on the AfD, seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marianella Machado. Pkeets (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Info boxes again

I see we are still encountering issues with this projects malinformed guidelines on info boxes. Despite years of concerns over this our editors are still confused about what our real policy is over this matter pls see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Composers.Moxy(talk) 17:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam Research partnership

HighBeam Research [1] -- an online, pay-for-use search engine for newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias has agreed to give free, full-access, 1-year accounts for up to 1000 Wikipedia editors to use. HighBeam has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications, most of which are not available for free elsewhere on the internet. Aside from a free 7-day trial (credit card required), access to HighBeam would cost $30 per month or $200 per year for the first year and $300 for subsequent years, so this is a wonderful, free, no-strings-attached opportunity. To qualify, editors must have at least a 1 year-old account with 1000 edits. Please add your name to the WP:HighBeam/Applications account sign-up page if you are interested.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Lists versus categories for pupils

There is a discussion of interest at wp:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_29#Pupils_of_people. Personally I don't have a preference. Aegoceras (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Some of us may recall the long, tortured debate about this subject in which we engaged some time ago under the aegis of this project: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Infoboxes_RfC, which eventually reached a consensus on a proposed infobox template for classical composers. Indeed, this project's "guidelines" link to that very discussion. Because this contentious subject has yet again reared its ugly head in several concurrent discussions—including at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, Talk:Marian Anderson, Samuel Barber, and Template talk:Infobox musical artist—I went looking for said template to offer as a possible solution; much to my surprise, I found that about a week before last Christmas our old pal Andy Mabbett successfully put it up for deletion here based on consensus of rather sketchy comments by him and exactly two others, neither, as far as I know, a participant in the original debate or a regular contributor to articles about classical music. That being the case, I figured this project might want to revise the "guidance" section to reflect current reality. Please do not shoot the messenger, who is none too pleased at the present state of affairs. Drhoehl (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Given Andy Mabbett's history, that was rather unethical and underhanded for him to do that. Is there a way to get the AFD overturned?4meter4 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Both Template:Infobox composer and Template:Infobox classical composer appear to exist as redirects to Template:Infobox person. I seem to remember there was once a suggestion that one of these could become a minimal infobox holding only the fields that are agreed to be appropriate for a composer, but the general feeling was that probably only name and photo would be deemed appropriate. I have to say that whenever this infobox discussion comes up I tend to run for cover or spend my time doing something more productive. I don't have strong views for or against infoboxes, but consensus is that we won't use them, so I'm happy to accept and support that consensus. Anything else would seem pointlessly disruptive. --Deskford (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Would be nice to get this behind us. The advice on this page should reflect policy as per WP:Advice pages "Editors who are working on such an advice page are encouraged to carefully study the main policies, guidelines, Manual of Style, and relevant essays. The best advice pages do not conflict with the site-wide pages" Something that is informative, emulates and links to our policy on the matter like

Infoboxes have generally been discouraged for Composer articles, however the use of infoboxes is neither prohibited nor required for any article. Whether to include an infobox is determined through discussion and consensus among editors at each individual article. Composers' bios that contain {{Infobox person}} allow for an image of the author and display some brief information. Using an infobox also makes the data within it available to DBpedia.(first trial draft)

. Moxy (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have asked the deleting admin to reinstate the infobox. You can read my post here. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's back -- in your userspace -- I left a thank-you for Plastispork.

I had absolutely no idea someone had arranged for its midnight disappearance. Wow. Antandrus (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's tossing me a hot potato! What do I do with it now? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

One way is to move it back to this Wikiproject space. Ironically enough -- says one who is generally against biographical infoboxes -- maybe we should try it out somewhere? Antandrus (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In its Handy references section, the template suggests that it "may be a better alternative [for] Terry Riley, Bradley Joseph, Robert Nathaniel Dett, Enrique Granados". Apart from Dett, I can see all sorts of possible objections by editors who might prefer the current variety of infoboxes there (person, musical artist, writer) and who have invested in it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, given that a debate over the issue already broke out at Samuel Barber, perhaps he would make a good test case? Meanwhile, thanks to all who have taken steps to undo the end run around our earlier discussion--and please note that I am also no great lover of boxes! Drhoehl (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, then again, that one seems to have wound down with the usual name calling and finger pointing. Maybe not such a good choice after all.... Drhoehl (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear friends,

I have restored the infobox, and have written a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Discussion at Infobox musical artist. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Moments later: Andy got the message, and immediately renominated it for speedy deletion. I have contested the speedy delete. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox up for deletion again

This time, however, someone is notifying you, rather than disappearing it in a midnight raid. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_20#Template:Infobox_classical_composer. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

By the by, the present proceeding marks the third time our porcine friend has nominated this same template for deletion (the others were the "midnight raid" referenced above and a nomination before the virtual ink was even dry when the template was first adopted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_22&oldid=358311497#Template:Infobox_classical_composer). After this one runs its course, assuming the consensus is "keep," is there any way to put an end to these time-wasting refusals to accept that the question is settled? Drhoehl (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Fourth time, actually, if you count his speedy delete nomination. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

BL collaboration - music manuscripts

(crossposted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music; apologies if you see it twice)

Hi all. I'm currently working as the Wikipedian in Residence at the British Library; this is a full-time position working within the BL and aiming to help support collaboration between the institutional community and the Wikimedia community.

I've been speaking to the curator here responsible for the musical manuscript collections, and they're very keen to make contact with Wikipedians who might be interested in working on topics related to these items. The BL has a wide collection of MS, including the major collection of Handel's manuscripts and a significant amount of material representing 20th century British music. (summary; images)

If this sounds like something you'd be interested in collaborating on, please let me know and I'll put you in touch! Andrew Gray (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Olaus Andreas Grøndahl

Hello. This article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olaus Andreas Grøndahl. Thanks for any opinions. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Canning

I declined CSD nomination on this article, but I'm not really sure if he meets our notability requirements and I'd appreciate any hints. See G-Books and G-News Archives. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Now nominated for CSD as copyvio of the ACA. I missed that previously. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Meyerbeer

For interest, I am slowly ploughing through Giacomo Meyerbeer with the intention of bringing it up to GA status. This will eventually involve placing detailed stuff about the operas in a separate section of the article, and gathering up the other scraps into some sort of continuum - I envisage separate sections for Meyerbeer/Wagner and modern productions (as at present), on influence/reception, etc. Comments, suggestions, and additions/corrections from others greatly welcomed, of course.--Smerus (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've finally put this up for GA (see Talk:Giacomo_Meyerbeer) so of course everyone is free to weigh in....--Smerus (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Roger Reynolds

I recently used the existing article as an introduction and added a substantial amount of information to Roger Reynolds. Please feel free to take a look and let me know what you think. Phembree (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow! You've done a huge amount of work there. The best aspect is that you seem to have documented everything thoroughly (not that I've taken the time to double-check all the references!). If I have one criticism to make, it is that the very large number of headings and (especially) subheadings creates a cluttered look and an unusually long and complicated TOC. I wonder if they are all really necessary, especially when comparing this with other long-ish 20th-century composer articles, such as the ones on Arnold Schoenberg, Béla Bartók, Luigi Nono (composer), or Karlheinz Stockhausen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a good piece of work! Agreed, the use of so many sub-headings is unusual, but it makes the article easy to navigate, so I don't think I would worry about it too much. I guess it comes down to personal taste, but I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing when the content is so well-organised. Welcome to the project! --Deskford (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

very nice article but slight whinge; most of the supposed 'notable' students are redlinks - if you are not proposing to write referenced articles on these they should be at least unlinked or (more appropriately) deleted. Other wise 'notable' is simply not WP:NPOV. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Antonín Dvořák

Lately, I have been thinking about doing a GA/FA push for Antonín Dvořák. The discussion is here if anyone is interested. Comments, additions and ideas on how to improve the article are always welcome. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Alerts

I can't see the alerts section on the WikiProject Composers home page. It may be of interest that a request is in WP:RM to revert a fait accompli pruning of French composer Talk:Tôn-Thất Tiết's Bibliothèque nationale accents to Ton-That Tiet. This is a belated heads up. But I think everyone is on holiday... In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of signing this project up for Article alerts. It's a very useful tool. The next time the bot runs, it will automatically create Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Article alerts. Once it's created, the link can be added to the main project page and/or transcluded onto other project pages. Voceditenore (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added the link to the main project page in two places: under Current status of articles and Tools. Voceditenore (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Chopin

There is a discussion about a possible GA/FA push for Frédéric Chopin. The discussion is here if anyone is interested. Comments, additions and ideas on how to improve the article are always welcome. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Four more composers

Hi from the Opera Project. I've been busy on List of radio operas and have discovered that the following composers don't appear to be in English Wikipedia. Maybe some of you might be interested in creating one or more articles. Myself - I've never heard of any of them, but in the above list I have provided refs for all of them, which may help. Here they are:

--GuillaumeTell 21:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for re-assessment

Since I did most of the expansion of the article on Frederik Magle I don't think I should re-assess it myself. Thanks in advance, --Danmuz (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Clustering of composers

This article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clustering of composers. – Voceditenore (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Richard Wagner

Some editors are now trying to get this toward FA status (with a view to the bicentenary next year). The article has been substantially gone over and there are numerous comments on the talk page. Additional comments warmly welcomed if anyone is in the mood.--Smerus (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Class for Chopin

I recently looked at the 200 most popular composers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Popular pages and was surprised to find Chopin (#7), Rossini (#51), Burgess (#67), Charpentier (#118), and Leopold I (#151) classified as "unassessed". I looked at these articles and classified them, all I think, as "B". Chopin was a special case, as that article used to be classified as "B" until User:Piotrus changed it on 16 March 2012 to "C"; that class is not supported by {{WikiProject Composers}} and so the article became "unassessed". My restoration of the "B"-classification for the composers' and the biography projects was then reverted by Piotrus to "C" for biography and to "Start" for composers.

There are two relevant sections on the talk page: 1) Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Comments, an assessment by User:Magicpiano from February 2009 (nutshell: "well on its way to FA consideration", "arguably A-class"; 2) Talk:Frédéric Chopin#GA/FA?, initiated in September 2012 by User:Sjones23 where Piotrus promised some help after previously explaining why he downgraded the article for the {{WikiProject Poland}} ("insufficient citations"). Not a lot of improvement has occurred since September 2012, or indeed since March.

Two points: 1) Surely, different WikiProjects may assess the same article independently. 2) Classifying the article as "Start" seems inappropriate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate for projects to individually rate articles per their own guidelines. See the WikiProject Council Guide. The only ratings which apply universally are GA and FA. My own suggestion, however, would be to add the C class to the rating system as well. It can be very useful, and I'm unclear why this project decided not to have it. It's far more useful than the A rating. Voceditenore (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Technical hint: if the class "C" is to be enabled, the Template:WikiProject Composers/class needs to be edited accordingly. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Past discussions on the "C"-class I found are:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 15#Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme, July 2008, when the class was introduced
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 16#Assessments/B-class, October 2008, when it was dismissed (mainly by User:Kleinzach with some input from User:Antandrus)

-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There is, however, a serious drawback with the Chopin article, namely that very many of the citations given are to books in Polish, and some of these are rather ancient. - ( e.g. : Jachimecki, Zdzisław (1937). "Chopin, Fryderyk Franciszek" (in Polish). Polski słownik biograficzny. 3. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności). I don't think that, until these and similar are replaced by (preferably modern) English citations, the article can justify a B rating.--Smerus (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have been busy with other projects as well, and I have not been active on the Chopin article, but I will work on Chopin when I have the time, but this article may need a total makeover. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is one of the largest biographies of a classical composer on Wikipedia, but a lack of citations is fatal. There are other problems as well, and I have already posted one critique on the article's talk page. The tone of the section "Publishing" is terribly unencyclopedic, and there are several violations of WP:NPV in the article. Moreover, the article ignores those musicians who have been critical of Chopin (Glenn Gould being one of the best known critics of Chopin's work). Toccata quarta (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)