Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

How much info do we need really?

I've been under the impression and have been told that general reasers and casual listeners would not be interested in moderate-to-large amounts of musial analysis or blow-by-blow descriptions. However, several articles listed on "to do" lists have considerable detail in this regard. Some of it has been flagged NPOV or needing verification; some of it has not been flagged in the article itself but has been flagged as such on the list. Some suggestons or guidelines would be helpful, as I have already had one case where virtually all of my clean-up efforts were reversed by other Wikipedians. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Are you thinking of Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich versions of Boris Godunov? --Kleinzach (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's one: Piano Concerto No. 2 (Prokofiev). I was actually the one to put the tags on, because although it is a wonderfully artistic description by Livedevilslivedevil, it is, regretfully, all OR. Our much-cited FA Symphony No. 3 (Górecki) is probably the example on which to base your future contributions. The entire symphony is summed up in less than 20 sentences. Also, consider that a portion of the readership comes from people who, after hearing a piece, want to know more about it. Personally, I would like to read more about Piano Sonata No. 2 (Rachmaninoff), and find out what the heck the main theme is (although it will probably be me that adds that info :/). A blow-by-blow is next to useless to me, but a summary that outlines where the movements begin (darn post-romantic sonatas) and other important structural information is orders of magnitude more helpful. ALTON .ıl 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found a good starting point is always taking some programme notes and removing all overly descriptive peacock words from the text and just keeping the short musical analysis. Centy – reply• contribs – 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that "Blow by blow"/analytic description of a work is very hard to do well, but the best authors seem to be able to do it in a way that genuinely helps listeners appreciate the work better. In think in particular of Charles Rosen and Antony Hopkins. So my opinion on "blow by blow" description is, don't try it yourself, but look around in a library until you find something really good. And if you don't find anything very good, say very little. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't thiking about Rimsky-Korsakov and Shostakovich versions of Boris Godunov since there's no musical analysis there. Piano Concerto No. 2 (Prokofiev), which Livedevilslivedevil, already mentioned, was one; two more were Piano Concerto No. 2 (Shostakovich) and (this one not tagged) Symphony No. 7 (Shostakovich). Thanks for the suggestions and reminders! Jonyungk (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Crone. Badagnani (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoax?

Is Vocal theory a hoax? "Vocal theory is a framework for understanding the interrelationships between vocal registration and societal angst that is increasingly common in younger segments of the population of developed countries." Huh? If it’s real it really needs sources to prove this isn’t OR. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I’m also asking at WP:WPO.

Be bold. I've added some tags (original research, unreferenced and essay-entry) to the article in question. If you believe that it is a hoax, you can add the {{hoax}} tag to it. --Bardin (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Piano Concerto No. 2 (Beethoven)

Hello. Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles needs your help. Piano Concerto No. 2 (Beethoven) has been without any references since June, 2006. Could you please take a minute out of your busy day to help add sources? Thanks for your time. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Although more references is always better. (alas, most of it is "passage description"...) ALTON .ıl 01:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

'No Free Image' placeholder graphic

Currently, there is a controversial campaign to put a 'No Free Image' graphic on all biographical pages. This is the 'female version':

If you're interested there is a discussion about this here. --Kleinzach (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been around a while. Many infobox templates default to this type of image if no other image is provided. The point is that the garish ghost head is supposed to motivate users into uploading a better image. While I think its a good idea to have pictures when possible, there's got to be a better way to motivate users to upload their own images. DavidRF (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that there are zillions of historical figures for whom no image exists--I guess they would get the garish ghost head forever... Opus33 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well no since generaly it is limited to living people.Genisock2 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is now a centralized discussion about this at: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. --Kleinzach (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion will close at midday GMT/UTC on 23 April. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was supposed to close, but it has in fact continued, despite some objections. A suggestion just emerged that infoboxes should be added to articles lacking them in order to facilitate the insertion of a revised take on the placeholder concept. Objection that such a course was not in keeping with the consensus of classical music editors (and some other groups) was met with responses that refusing to include infoboxes is irrational and that if an infobox is inserted, other editors are always free to remove it again. Those with views on this issue might wish to review the ongoing discussion (on the centralized discussion page referenced above) and participate if they have contributions to offer. The disscussion of "no infobox" articles has an entry in the table of contents. Drhoehl (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Friedman (2nd nomination)

Would appreciate more specialized users to weigh in on whether this musician is notable enough for inclusion. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tempo links

I had always been using Tempo#Italian tempo markings for my tempo links. Today, an experienced editor (Centy) changed some of them to Glossary of musical terminology#A (or whatever letter the term started with). I really have no preference either way, but I'd like to know what the standard is so that I can train myself to use the corect links. Since these links are everywhere, I thought I would pose the question here. Where should I link to for terms like allegro, andante, allegretto, adagio, etc. DavidRF (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is Glossary of musical terminology has French as well as German tempo markings and links to terms with their own pages. Personally I think Tempo#Italian tempo markings should redirect there. Centy – reply• contribs – 16:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you wouldn't use Tempo#Italian tempo markings for a german tempo, you'd use Tempo#German tempo markings. Both links are quite "ugly" in that they are long, have #'s and still don't take you directly to the term. The Glossary of musical terminology is indeed more comprehensive, but Tempo will tell you at a glance which markings are faster than others. Since they are both so ugly, I guess I'd hope there was a third option, but I'm not sure what that would be. DavidRF (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Then I guess this is one of those issues were its up to the editor (like hyphens in key signatures). Centy – reply• contribs – 17:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Beethoven Middle String Quartets

There has been a long running merge proposal to merge the two parent pages for Beethoven's middle quartets String Quartets Nos. 7 - 9, Opus 59 - Rasumovsky (Beethoven) and String Quartets Nos. 10 - 11, Opus 74 "Harp" and 95 "Serioso" (Beethoven).

Personally it seems sensible to group the Rasumovsky quartets whereas the Harp and Serioso seem a pairing only by process of elimination. To me, I think we should just delete String Quartets Nos. 10 - 11, Opus 74 "Harp" and 95 "Serioso" (Beethoven) as there's really no real need to say Beethoven composed two other quartets that aren't in one of the two obvious groups. I mean the navbox does just read Other middle period quartets. There's no real need to link to that. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Redirect the 74-95 link to List_of_compositions_by_Ludwig_van_Beethoven#String_quartets. DavidRF (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bach Cantatas

There are dozens of Bach cantatas that don't have articles. Could someone work on stubs for each of them? --Ted-m (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Time for an new bot run?

Is it time for a new bot run? Perhaps the run can include the articles that weren't covered last time? Perhaps the bot can automatically assess stubbed articles as stub class in the way that SatyrBot assessed Opera Project articles? IMO bannering would serve to define the project more clearly and attract new participants. Any thoughts? Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, although I'd be very much against any attempt to rate articles beyond the FA/GA/stub distinction. The difference between stub and start class is completely up to any one editor really and has no real issues either way. What I don't want is any time wasted over B-Class reviews. The criterion for B-Class are nowadays almost to the standard of a GA-Class article and an article that is B-Class now is probably so close to GA you might as well take it to GAC, get told to get more inline citations and then either have it promoted or not depending on whether you do that. It's a waste of time for a WikiProject to review articles itself. You might as well let the dedicated article review bodies do that. Centy – reply• contribs – 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I agree. I'm not enthusiastic about full-scale assessment either. I'm just suggesting the minimum automatic stub class marking by the bot. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our usual bot SatyrBot has been halted due to technical issues and is not making any bot runs at the moment. Centy – reply• contribs – 22:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, SatyrTN has been away. The Opera Project is stuck waiting for a bot run as well. In any case my time has been taken up by the mammoth image placeholder debate (about the thing that goes in the bio-infobox). --Kleinzach (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A long time has past and SatyrTN is still away. The Composers Project has just had a successful bot run done by ShepBot by Stepshep. I suggest we ask him to do a run here. --Kleinzach 07:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

recent edit in Symphony No. 3 (Mendelssohn)

There's an extensive (though perhaps suspicious) edit that was recently made to the article on the Scottish Symphony. I'm trying to decide whether to clean up or revert. Could you all take a brief look and see if you recognize the prose? I don't want to bother cleaning it up if it was just lifted from somewhere. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"Your browser may not support display of this image." LOL. It's obviously lifted from something. Brute force copy and paste. Someone's paper? I'm trying various phrases in Google and not finding anything. Considering how disastrously formatted it is, and confusing and useless without the images, I think reverting is justified. We could ask the person where it's from -- "did you write this?" Antandrus (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

José Iturbi tangle

I stumbled upon this tangle today. Can someone here give some advice on this? Something's got to be deleted, but I'm not sure which or how many or how. Here's the story...

23:13, 27 December 2006 NiNgis Ereh created José Iturbi International Piano Competition which despite the name was and is entirely about the XV José Iturbi International Piano Competition in Valencia 2006. Full of totally uneccessary detail about the comptetitors in each round accompanied by zillions of flag icons and virtually no text.

Two minutes later...

23:15, 27 December 2006 NiNgis Ereh created XV José Iturbi International Piano Competition with identical content to José Iturbi International Piano Competition These stayed pretty identical with both covering only the XV José Iturbi International Piano Competition in Valencia 2006 until...

17:16, 16 April 2008 when Michael Russell Group replaced the content on José Iturbi International Piano Competition with a load of unformatted and probably copyvio PR blab about the 2008 competion in Los Angeles, how to apply, etc.

Meanwhile on...

21:54, 28 February 2007 NiNgis Ereh had created Jose Iturbi International Piano Competition (no accent mark over the e in Jose). This one actually has the history of the entire competition and is listed as an external link (!!) on XV José Iturbi International Piano Competition. This one probably needs to be kept, although technically the article name should probably have the accent over the since that's how it's spelled on the official web site of the José Iturbi Foundation who run the competition.

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've merged Jose Iturbi International Piano Competition into José Iturbi International Piano Competition. Hope that helps for a start.--Kleinzach 23:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Collins

This article is currently at Articles for deletion for members who wish to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment on Template

According to this edit by Stepshep (t c) the {{Classical}} template has now been updated to include ratings for all levels of the 1.0 assessment scale, not just the GA or FA statuses that were notated previously. Was this a discussed change? I thought we didn't want to deal with grading articles. ALTON .ıl 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed back this text to avoid misunderstandings. --Kleinzach 07:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Kleinzach is interacting with Stepshep. See his talk page: User_talk:Stepshep. Looks like a general update and standardization on the first pass. It doesn't necesarily imply that we plan on grading all the articles. DavidRF (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed - we are preparing for a new bot run - as explained above [1]. SatyrTN has been away for several months. It isn't possible to use SatyrBot, so we're using Stepshep's ShepBot instead. (The idea is to do a bot run similar to the one we've just done on the Composers Project.) We have been updating the banner coding preparatory to the run. Afterwards we should have a better idea of the size of the project. All articles will go into Category:WikiProject Classical music articles. There's absolutely no intention of introducing assessments without first having full discussion and establishing a consensus. A number of things would have to be considered - not least the current, problematic practice by many projects of doing nominal (instant, uncommented) assessments. (P.S. The first SatyrBot run here was limited. Only 1500 articles were bannered. This one will cover much more of the project.) --Kleinzach 06:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, ok. Thanks for taking care of this. ALTON .ıl 07:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

John Avison/Omer Létourneau/Stanley Saunders

This is strange. A short biography of Avison is followed by a long biography of Arthur Fagen. When I try to edit the Fagen text there nothing visible in the edit window. Does anybody understand what is happening here? --Kleinzach 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. The same thing is happening on Omer Létourneau. --Kleinzach 23:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC) and other pages: Keri Lynn Wilson, Samuel Wong --Kleinzach 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Now fixed. This turned out to be spam attached to a stub template. --Kleinzach 23:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Banner bot run now finished

The bot runs that have been going on since 19 June are now finished. The project has 9,258 articles (compared to about 1,700 before we started). Many thanks to Stepshep (ShepBot) and Richard0612 (Bot0612) for all their work.

As the scope of this project covers "all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects" all articles currently bannered by the Composers, Contemporary music, Opera, Gilbert and Sullivan, and Wagner projects have been excluded from the run.

Of the current 9,258 articles, 8,697 are unassessed and 517 are marked as stubs. (There are also six Class B articles, four GAs, and four FAs.)

Classical music is the largest of all the mainstream music projects. (By comparison, Opera has 4,863 articles, Composers has 3,973 and Contemporary music has 2,687 - Music itself only has 3,742.)

There is a list of all the categories bannered at Classical music/Categories. These categories were checked. The bots did not run through unlisted subcategories as many of these include non-classical music. I'd advise anyone arranging bot runs in the future to keep to the 'authentic' categories. --Kleinzach 00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we do any sanity checks done for possible miscategorizations? Seems funny that St. Olaf College is governed by this project... DavidRF (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Categorization has been haphazard in the past - so yes, sanity checks would be good. The bot run was not recursive (i.e. it didn't cover unknown subcats) so it should be fundamentally sound, however individual articles will inevitably be miscategorized given that they have never been systematically checked. St. Olaf College is categorized as a music school that's why it's in the project - but it can be removed if it's not notable as such. --Kleinzach 00:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Saint Olaf is a small college in a small town that is not far from my hometown. I'm sure it has a music school, but almost every liberal arts college in the country would have a music school, no? Maybe the proximity of Saint Olaf to my hometown is causing me to underrate its music school by some over-compensation of a hometown bias, but I was just surprised to see it on the list. Looking at Category:Music schools in the United States, it looks most of those are music-specific and there are only a few other entire colleges (e.g. North Texas). DavidRF (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've removed both the cat and the banner from St. Olaf College. --Kleinzach 05:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New music theory wikiproject

I just started a new project dedicated to editing articles related to music theory. The scope of the project includes articles on the following:

• The mechanics of music and how music works.
• Elements of music such as melody, harmony, rhythm, pitch, texture, etc.
• Compositional form and structure.
• Theories of harmonization.
• Music notation.
• Music and mathematics.
• Musical analysis.
• Sight singing and ear training.
• Music theorists

All are welcome to join and participate.Nrswanson (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 9261 articles are assigned to this project, of which 1557, or 16.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The WolterBot lists are excellent but given the scale of this project and the low participation perhaps we should pass on this for the time being? --Kleinzach 00:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is heartening to see, however inaccurate they may be, that there are cleanup tags on only 16.8% of our articles. ALTON .ıl 06:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)