Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

Article expansion.

Just to let everyone know, I'm planning to expand the Oboe Quartet (Mozart) article based on the new material I've found and added to the external links section to try and bring it in line with the other articles, similar to my expansion of the Quartettsatz article last year.

I'd also like to invite others to have a look at the notes I left on the talk pages of Quartet Movement in F major (Dvořák) and Quartettsatz (Schubert) as these contain details of items I was not able to research myself.Graham1973 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tried my hand at re-writing the article on Bruch's 3rd Violin Concerto to add some more information. I've used what little I was able to find online to expand on what was there, but I suspect there's a lot more information offline. I think the most important thing would be to pin down the 20th C recording history. Graham1973 (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

User behaviour

Melodia has made a reversion with the words God you fuckin g idiots and your vandalistic repressions FUCKING STOP IT [1]. Most of us shun this kind of behaviour, but ad hominem attacks from this user are becoming more and more frequent. Is it time to take action, and if so, what needs to be said, or done? Kleinzach 05:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Melodia has now removed the related warnings from their user page ([2]). Toccata quarta (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Improving "List of compositions" articles

Does someone know whether there have been attempts to improve the "List of compositions" articles along the following lines:

1. Standardisation of templates.
2. Reconciliation with IMSLP and/or vice versa. LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I use IMSLP several times a week and I'm a contributor (their entries on music publishers is better than what's on Wikipedia). But I hate their naming "convention." I'm happy there's a template which links from WP to their site, but I'm wary of using their form of compositional names on WP. -- kosboot (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I was not per se concerned about reconciling the naming conventions between IMSLP and WP. One naming convention might be converted "mechanically" into the other as long as it is applied consistently on each site. In the extreme you could even automatically generate the templates which link to IMSLP. I intended a broader reconciliation than naming convention: for example compare both sites against each other for completeness of lists of compositions and of various data attributes about compositions, such as year, opus number, type of composition, etc. In such way both sites may be able to improve. If both sites are well structured in their data, such reconciliation efforts could be done with help of some automation. As for point 1 of my inquiry (standardisation of templates in WP), besides the fact that that could make WP better in itself, it also allows for better reconciliation. IMSLP appears to be further in structuredness of certain data, for example when I look at the IMSLP Category Walker functionality compared to the WP lists. Could also be due to differences in technology maybe, but I'm not sure. LazyStarryNights (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you (and maybe kosboot?) give some examples so it's clearer (at least to me!) what the parameters are here? In the past I've done a lot of work on articles in Category:Lists of compositions by composer, typically involving the development of simple lists into tables (with the help in particular of Michael Bednarek) — but not so much on IMSLP related stuff. Thanks. Kleinzach 00:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Below 2 random examples easily found for Prokofiev which shows potential improvements in both directions:

WP: List_of_compositions_by_Sergei_Prokofiev

Has a list by genre and a list by opus. I'd expect they should only differ in terms of sorting and be 100% the same in terms of data, but they are not.

Two Poems, Op. 9 (1910-1): Genre is only in the By Genre list and Instumentation is only in the By Opus list (merged with title).

Five Kazakh Songs (1927): Only present in By Genre.

The 2 lists combined give Genre, Opus number, Title, Composition Year(s) and Instrumentation.

But not consistently for all compositions within 1 page, not in a single integrated overview, and not the same way for all composers.

IMSLP: http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:CategoryWalker/Prokofiev,_Sergey/

Has 1 consistent list of data in which you can slice and dice anyway you like for all composers.

By comparison for the same 2 examples:

Two Poems, Op. 9 (1910-1): Besides the attributes found in WP, there are also some (possibly less important) attributes: ::::::Movements/Sections, First Performance, First Publication, Librettist, Language, Average Duration, Piece Style, External Links.

Five Kazakh Songs (1927): Not present in IMSLP at all. LazyStarryNights (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, now I understand. It's a common enough situation on WP where many of these pages are written up as simple lists with exactly the kind of inconsistencies that you have noted. On the research side, it would obviously be necessary to check sources and make sure all the facts are correct — but I'm sure you understand that.

On the publishing/technical side, the best method (IMO) is to use sortable tables (not templates of any kind). Michael Bednarek and I worked on a series of these at Category:Lists of operas by composer. In most cases there is a single table which can be sorted by any column (except the notes), so the entries can be lined up by title, date, genre, opus number, catalogue number. A relatively simple example can be seen at List of operas by Siegfried Wagner. You can see how sorting works by clicking on the matching pairs of triangles on top of the columns. In the case of this example the default is sorting by opus number — i.e. that's the order the reader will first see when opening the page.

I think it would be great if you are willing to work on these lists, though it's of course a lot of work, and you need access to authoritative sources. Let me know if you have questions! --Kleinzach 03:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For now I'm mostly looking at the "publishing/technical side" (structuring data already in WP). See further discussion on this under your other reply below. Speaking about the "research side": I wonder whether IMSLP data (eg composition year and type) can be used as source in WP? I.e. can we enrich WP data with IMSLP data? It still bothers me that 2 projects work on the same data. Seem like such a waste. LazyStarryNights (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I can help with templates. The assimilation/ comparison of lists of works sounds very much like what the WikiLovesMonuments crowd have been doing, I'm sure they would advise, share scripts, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at WikiLovesMonuments and recognise some similarities indeed. Thanks for pointing that out Andy. Also great that you can help with templates. Inspired by Kleinzach's approach for Orchestra Infobox, I'd like to propose the following for a potential Composition list template:

1. Could people agree/disagree, and perhaps even offer to help with a template for composition list articles if the project was interested in going ahead with this?
2. If so then we will work on agreement on a template.
3. If agreed then we will convert the composition lists to the template.
4. Optional: IMSLP reconciliation efforts discussed above could be a next step or parallel effort, but not per se linked to the template discussion. LazyStarryNights (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As explained above, I think you need to use sortable tables, not a template (in the Wikipedia sense), for this. Kleinzach 03:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand better now and agree with Kleinzach - what you want is sortable tables. -- kosboot (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think "template" here means that they all (should) follow the same format. Sortable tables are used for compositions, for example in List of Bach cantatas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda, though with all due respect, that's a spectacular example of how not to do one of these lists! --Kleinzach 09:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I also was thinking of some kind of template (or guideline?) involving sortable lists. Kleinzach, could you point out what kind of things might be wrong about Gerda's example? I created an example myself as well in my sandbox based on Boccherini. It is a rudimentary Excel based conversion of the data already present in the original article. I still see various obstacles. For example: if List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is converted to a sorted list, there is no place anymore for all the texts between the current lists. Then I wonder, should these texts be here at all and not in separate articles, eg the article about the composer or eg in articles about his string quartets. LazyStarryNights (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

When we did the opera series, we basically did one list at a time, and then copied the basic table structure for the next one. This enabled us to be flexible as different lists implied different combinations of columns. (For example some composers used opus numbers and some didn't.) Doing it this way, it makes sense to try shorter, simpler, lists first and then do more complex ones later. (BTW List of Bach cantatas is overly complicated and doesn't relate to any other lists AFAIK. It uses abbreviations extensively. It's reader-unfriendly.)

Your Boccherini list looks fine as far as it goes, though it could be easier to start with a 20th or 19th century composer. (With later lists you have fewer disputed/lost/rewritten or whatever works which require special notes etc.) Mozart would be a challenge to put into one, single list — have you seen the List of operas by Mozart? Even that list is very complicated. I'm a believer in WP:KISS — also in not starting anything unless you are confident about finishing it!

List of compositions by Anton Bruckner might be worth trying if you wanted to work on the list of a major composer. List of compositions by Gustav Mahler has already been done as a sortable list, though the default sort is genre which is rather awkward. Hope this helps. Kleinzach 01:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

See my reply to your other reply below. LazyStarryNights (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The use of templates does not preclude sortable tables; each template instance represents a single table row, with a separate template for the table header. This is done widely, acorss Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you know any good examples of lists in other areas of WP which could inspire an initiative for composition lists? LazyStarryNights (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think most of us have seen sortable lists. The thing to do next is to see how it would fit with various composers. To take Mozart: you'd need to have fields at least for the Köchel number(s - that's 2 fields), the year of composition, the genre, the key, the name, author of text, and the solo instrument(s). Perhaps if someone had a good template, because--to me--tables in MediaWiki are laborious. I can't think of one on WP just now, but am very familiar with one on IMSLP: Music Publishers. -- kosboot (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've dealt with this above, but to elaborate, it's a matter of first choosing a composer — ideally an easy one — then after that deciding the default sort field (on the far left) — typically the opus or catalogue number — then deciding what other fields are necessary, and how they should be ordered from left to right. At that point, I or someone else can just give you the code, or you can copy it from another list. After that it would be better to work on it in userspace, not on the article itself, because a lot of small changes will be needed. The table code can be checked and tested — to see if it 'works' — with a minimum of entries, you can see if it's OK with only 4 or 5 lines. When the table is complete, or a section is complete, it can be moved to the article.Kleinzach 05:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Kleinzach.

About the List of Bach cantatas: I guess the main problem is the way instrumentation is listed. If these would be merged into 1 column and use the already existing instrumentation guidelines it could be better readable. Nevertheless, I do like the IMSLP links in the table.

List of operas by Mozart looks nice. I'd expect List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart being similar workload as List of compositions by Anton Bruckner, maybe even less, because it is already more standardised.

List of compositions by Gustav Mahler has a sortable list, but still has that "oddity" of having 2 lists. A sorted one and a chronological one. This could merge.

As you suggested I had a go at Bruckner, see User:LazyStarryNights/List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. Some points I have already observed myself:

• It is quite some work, although with some more routine that should hopefully decrease.
• It is far from perfect yet, especially in terms of naming conventions and the type column. My philosophy so far was the same I used for Boccherini: choose a general genre/type which has a wikipedia article. I do like the IMSLP way where you have subtypes in some kind of hierarchy. Alignment with IMSLP could be nice in this regard maybe one day.
• Quite tricky to put the column widths nice.
• I did not add or throw away data from the original article, just restructure, with the only exception of some additions from [Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckner] for WAB 127, 128, 136, 139, 140, 141, 143 which were missing. This article may need to be merged if you follow simlar merges that happened for other composers.
• I am not sure what to do with some of the general texts per genre which were between the original lists. I parked them under TODO in User:LazyStarryNights/List of compositions by Anton_Bruckner. I wonder whether they should stay in this article at all and not merge into Anton Bruckner. Various composers have this. Eg the same applies for List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. List of compositions by Gustav Mahler has less of this "problem", but even there I wonder whether it is more "correct" to merge the story on top of the article into Gustav Mahler.
• For comparison I also compared against the similar Bruckner list on IMSLP: http://imslp.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Anton_Bruckner, which could be used for enrichment - eg instrumentation if this is allowed.
• Along the way I discovered {{Infobox Bruckner symphony}}, which triggered me to think that standardisation of composition list may go hand in hand with maybe standardisation of Infoboxes and even generating one out of the other. LazyStarryNights (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bruckner looks good. Having the WAB as the default makes sense. Should 'type' be 'genre' or perhaps 'form'? What are your capitalization/italicization rules? Will there be a column for date of first performance? I think the general texts will need to be reworked into the introduction at some point. My feeling is that it would be better to finish a simple version (without instrumentation) first and get it published, and then think about whether to add more columns. There comes a point where these tables can hold too much information, and the reader simply can't take it all in. He or she takes one look and clicks the exit button. (Likewise I think it would really better to stick to tables and leave the incendiary topic of infoboxes aside for the rime being!)

If you have problems with column widths etc. I'd strongly recommend talking to Michael Bednarek who helped me a lot with this kind of thing when I was working on the opera lists. As you've noted, List of compositions by Gustav Mahler is a bit odd. The chronological list should really be merged into the main one — but that's a job for another day. List of operas by Mozart is atypical, e.g. including place and date of first performance as one column. It's also arguable whether a language column is worthwhile — other lists don't have this. I've also discovered two simple Brahms lists which are a perfect candidate for a sortable list: List of compositions by Johannes Brahms by opus number and List of compositions by Johannes Brahms by genre. --Kleinzach 01:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As for the 'type' column, I was thinking of some kind of clear separation of type and instrumentation. Although I do not completely understand it yet, IMSLP seems to make a clear difference between "Work Type" and "Instrumentation", but both are seen as "Genre". This give some inspiration: http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:View_Genres.

As for the capitalization/italicization rules, I was thinking we should ideally follow the same rules as for composition names in general. I could not find this in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), but maybe somewhere this is already in a guideline? In my Bruckner prototype I removed all capitalization/italicization in the names, but not on purpose and I could revert this if needed.

As for the naming I still had some other dilemmas: how to call the column? Name? Title? Composition? Work? And another question is: should always only the literal name as used in the wiki composition article name be used (maybe except removing the composer name if any), or should more be allowed to be there in the column.

I think for compositions in general, first performance may be less relevant than eg instrumentation. I can remember to have seen a discussion on this, that for opera specifically this was more important than year of composition, in which opera is special in relation to other types of compositions.

I am still in doubt whether the general texts should need to be reworked into the introduction at some point. I thought to have seen some guideline that says that everything about a topic should be in that topic. In this case, a list should be primarily just a list and an article about a composer should have discussion about his compositions in general.

Tables size should be balanced to needs indeed. Shame that wiki tables don't support options like expand, scroll, filter and fix headings.

I will leave the "incendiary topic of infoboxes" aside for now. Thanks for the heads up! The years of discussion provide an interesting read on how WP collaboration works though for a beginner like me.

I think I got the grasp of the column widths now and updated the prototype.

I also thought of a disadvantage of the sorted list: the lack of a "genre hierarchy", which is in some way present in the automatically generated TOC for lists sorted by genre.

Mahler, Mozart and Brahms are interesting ones to start on at some point as well. Brahms provides an interesting comparison against http://imslp.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Johannes_Brahms, which poses quite some "competition". LazyStarryNights (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I had a go at User:LazyStarryNights/Lists of compositions by Johannes Brahms. Curious to comments. LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A very nice start - bravo. To me, your list reveals that both IMSLP and WP (and especially WP) needs more work in determining what is a "genre." I would have thought forms (symphonies, sonatas, etc.) are genres but from the list it seems most think groups of instrumentation are genres. This being so, I'm kind of disapointed that one will not be able to easily determine how many works Brahms wrote in a particular genre/form (symphonies, sonatas, quartets, etc.). Just some thoughts, otherwise it's very nice. -- kosboot (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you've done some hard work!

I agree that separation of type/genre (e.g. sonata) and instrumentation (e.g piano) is necessary. (IMSLP doesn’t seem to follow the usual definitions/rules here.) I agree with Kosboot that forms like symphonies, sonatas etc are genres. Sometimes the genre is the same as the instrumentation, but the reverse might not apply, e.g. string quartets. I don’t think this should be a big problem, especially with 19th century composers.

Regarding capitalization, 'sentence style' will usually work. This applies to the Notes column where the entries sometimes start with lower case and sometimes with upper case. This should be consistent. I also recommend using ‘note style’ text, e.g. “Celebrating the laying of the . . .” rather than “to celebrate . . .” and “Discovered in the . . .” rather than “Was discovered . . .”. Proper names should follow normal German capitalization, of course. Unique titles should be italicized, per Wikipedia style (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)).

Personally I’m not bothered by not having "genre hierarchy" as this differs from composer to composer, and I think is subjective. To be frank, I think The Brahms list has too many repetitive fields. I’d prefer to see something a bit simpler with the general (Brahms) reader in mind. Kleinzach 16:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation Kosboot and Kleinzach! Good to see that the prototype is of some use at least.

Definition of "Genre" needs more work indeed in both IMSLP and WP. I have the impression that IMSLP is further than WP as it stands today though. Music genre and related articles may need some work as well to straighten this out. The best I have seen so far is in the IMSLP Genres which seems to make a clear difference between "Work Type" and "Instrumentation". Although both are seen as "Genre", here "Genre" is probably meant as "Category", while "Work Type" here is probably what we are looking for. Although I do not know IMSLP's definition of Work Type, IMSLP seems to categorise all pages based on this system which is great! The result is for example seen in the IMSLP Brahms category walker which should not be confused by the IMSLP manually maintained Brahms list which I used to compare the 2 WP lists with. This IMSLP manual list uses as definition:

"Genre — works are grouped in the following broad categories: Stage, Choral (for many voices), Vocal (for individual voices), Orchestral, Chamber and Keyboard"

But take for comparison IMSLP Bach list which uses:

"Genre — as used by IMSLP's categorization system."

I like the IMSLP category walker a lot since it is the most structured and it also gives the genre counts Kosboot is looking for. The main problem is that it only lists compositions that have an actual page linked so that the categorisation data can be taken from there automatically. Compositions without pages are simply missing from the category browser, but not from the manual list. But these missing pages maybe could be generated as stubs containing the categorisation data.

Maybe something similar could work in WP as well. If all composition pages contain proper categorisation data for Work Type, Instrumentation (and maybe more), and also includes stubs then you can easily browse using the category browser. And Composition lists could be using the same data in the columns. Maybe even (semi) auto generated from the categories.

For comparison purposes I made User:LazyStarryNights/List of IMSLP work types, which compares IMSLP and WP work types with links to category browsers and articles on respective sites. This list might be useful in getting a clearer picture on genre. I am thinking of doing something similar for instrumentation.

Although I agree with Kleinzach's proposed guideline on the Notes column, I did not give that column much thought yet. In the Brahms list I blindly copied it's contents over from IMSLP. But it makes me think whether there should be (limiting?) criteria about what kind of information to put in the Notes box in the first place.

Regarding capitalization / italicization etc, it seems that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music) is not complete without also looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music. Maybe these articles / sections should be merged? (Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines also has some overlap). Then ideally if there would be a guideline or template for Composition List articles, it would just point to one of these articles for the naming conventions in the Title column.

About the "genre hierarchy". It is not just the "hierarchy" element I was worried about (maybe I should have avoided that word), but it is more the TOC element, which some readers may start to miss. Or maybe not, I don't know.

Kleinzach mentioned the Brahms list has too many repetitive fields. Currently the first row is:

ID	Genre (WP)	Genre (IMSLP)	Title (WP per Op.)	Title (WP per Genre)	Title (IMSLP)	Year/Date of Composition (IMSLP)	Forces (IMSLP)	Key (IMSLP)	Notes (IMSLP)
Op. 1	Piano	Keyboard	Piano Sonata No. 1 in C major (1853)	Piano Sonata No. 1 in C major (1853)	Piano Sonata No.1	1852–53	pf	C major

But after merging the data from the IMSLP and 2 WP pages, this could become:

ID	Genre	Title	Date	Instrumentation	Key	IMSLP	Notes
Op. 1	Sonata	Piano Sonata No. 1	1852-53	Piano	C major	[3]	Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla note

Do you still feel it would have too many repetitive fields in this form? If so then what would you suggest? LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your merged form is much, much better than either IMSLP or WP. (With the exception of Terry Riley, "in C major" is almost never a title but a way to disambiguate works.) I like it very much. -- kosboot (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the merged list is great. In this case you have a Key column. Is this is a special requirement of the Brahms? Fine if it is. (In other lists it might repeat the title.) I think a logical order would be Op.1/Title/Key/Genre/Instrument/Date/IMSLP/Notes.

Regarding capitals and italics, this is basic copyediting. Tables have their own rules, but these are not standardized throughout WP. If you like, I can go through the Bruckner and edit it according to the style I used for the other lists. You can then either follow my copyediting style, or make changes as necessary.

Regarding genre, I'd recommend keeping a working list on one of your user pages. A composer like Bruckner didn't use many so this should be simple. It can just be a simple list based on what you already have at User:LazyStarryNights/List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. The list can be updated with each new composer. Of course you have to decide when or not to use English, e.g. Song Vs. Lied.

To be frank I don't like the List of IMSLP work types at all!. I think it's nerdy and amateurish. It mixes genres, musical terms, English and native language etc into a grand hotchpotch. The heirarchy — particularly of opera forms — is just plain wrong. (See List of opera genres for comparison). Of course it also contains a lot of genuine genres, but correcting the list is not worth the effort that would be involved. I think it's much easier to take the genres, one composer at a time.

Hope this helps. Kleinzach 01:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I had a go at the Italics in User:LazyStarryNights/List of compositions by Anton Bruckner and also applied other the column order suggested here. For other updates on Bruckner see our separate discussion with Meneerke on that article's talk page.

I don't have enough knowledge to judge the genre list of IMSLP. I guess it could further improve and I guess the same applies for the WP side of it. Ideally they should be more or less the same.

Hopefully the Bruckner list can be completed soon and then free time to merge Brahms in a similar way. LazyStarryNights (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I Added "Genre (Proposed)" and Updated column order and names in the User:LazyStarryNights/Lists of compositions by Johannes Brahms. I also added some project info to the article. If you have Brahm's specific comments / questions, could you post them at the talk page there? Otherwise here. LazyStarryNights (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

While working on Bruckner and Brahms I felt the need to work on some kind of guideline for the Instrumentation column. I put some initial thoughts here: User:LazyStarryNights/Scoring. LazyStarryNights (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I see some of this relates to abbreviations. This issue was recently discussed in the debate here. I — and I think most editors here — are opposed to using abbreviations because they make the tables more difficult for the reader to use. Kleinzach 23:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

OK agree with its main conclusions: no abbreviations - maybe except additions like SATB addition to choirs. Still some issues of Ordering, Optionality and Terminology - see User:LazyStarryNights/Scoring. LazyStarryNights (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Bruckner symphony/Infobox musical composition

Infobox Bruckner symphony has been put up for deletion, see here. Apparently this is so it can be replaced by Template:Infobox musical composition, a very large box (29 visible fields) developed by Gerda Arendt and Andy Mabbett. AFAIK this work has never been notified to this project. --Kleinzach 22:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Below is a list of articles that now have Infobox musical composition. The boxes were all added in the early part of the year.

Article	Box date
Agnus Dei (Barber) [4]	27 Dec
All-Night Vigil (Tchaikovsky) [5]	29 March
Bassoon Quintet (Waterhouse) [6]	7 April
Bei Nacht [7]	7 April
Bright Angel (Waterhouse) [8] |	7 April
Celtic Voices and Hale Bopp [9]	7 April
Chinese Whispers (Waterhouse) [10]	7 April
Deutsche Messe (Schubert) [11] |	29 March
Der Handschuh (Waterhouse) [12]	7 April
Epitaphium [13]	7 April
Gestural Variations [14]	8 April
Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Tchaikovsky) [15]	29 March
Mass No. 1 (Schubert) [16]	29 March
Mass No. 2 (Schubert) [17]	29 March
Mass No. 3 (Schubert) [18]	30 March
Mass No. 4 (Schubert) [19]	30 March
Mass No. 5 (Schubert) [20]	29 March
Mass No. 6 (Schubert) [21]	1 April
Membra Jesu Nostri [22]	29 March
Messiah Part I [23]	23 February
Messiah Part II [24]	23 February
Messiah Part III [25]	23 February
Piccolo Quintet [26]	8 April
Rhapsodie Macabre [27]	7 April
Sparrow Mass [28]	30 March
Structure of Handel's Messiah [29] |	8 January
Three Pieces for Solo Cello (Waterhouse) [30]	8 April
Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate [31]	26 March
Zeichenstaub [32]	7 April

Kleinzach 09:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kleinzach. I just edited the one Mozart item (since Mozart is one of my editing foci). I felt the infobox was too detailed and so I replaced it with a simple picture caption (which the infobox lacked). Opus33 (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Why this intensive focus on infobox development and implementation, when people's time is urgently required to improve the actual articles. I've outlined my reasons for not using infoboxes in complex-music articles at ANI. Tony (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Since February, there have been at least 18 infobox discussions relating to classical music: see here. (If I've left any out please tell me.) This has indeed been a frustrating period for music editors. --Kleinzach 05:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI relating to classical music infoboxes

See Persistent edit stalking, a complaint brought by Andy Mabbett against Nikkimaria, which refers to a number of classical music infoboxes and their editing. --Kleinzach 03:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Barbican 2014

Next year's Wikimania is going to be at the Barbican Centre in London, and as a result we are having discussions with the Barbican about other possible collaborations between us and them including a Wikimedian in residence. Suggestions and requests from this WikiProject would be welcome, especially if there are any specific requests for material that would be in their archives. click here for the discussion page. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

'Choir' or 'chorus' for secular music?

Does anyone have an opinion on 'Choir' Vs. 'Chorus'? Please see Talk:Men's chorus. Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Genres

Some of us are working on lists of compositions involving making decisions about genres. This is not always easy because we don’t have any lists defining terms. Category:Lists of music genres has a number of articles but there is no 'List of classical music genres' as such. We do have a long List of music styles, which starts well and then dwindles, but that is really for pop and folk music. We also have an article on Music genre, with a good introduction that approaches genre in an intelligent way, but that also is incomplete. Should we attempt a 'List of classical music genres'? One approach would be to agree a definition — distinguishing genre from style, form and instrumentation — and then divide up the work by category or period: maybe voice, chamber, symphonic, choral, Baroque, Classical, Romantic etc etc. Any interest? Any ideas? --Kleinzach 00:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Support and willing to help. Some initial observations:

• Initiative has overlap with earlier initiative User:LazyStarryNights/List of IMSLP work types that was born out of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Improving "List of compositions" articles.
• We have to take into account that compositions may sometimes belong to multiple genre's or its genre may be ambiguous or controversial.
• Hopefully we can align these genres with categories as well and vice versa. For example, I would expect that all articles in Category:Psalms by Anton Bruckner have an entry with Genre Psalm in List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. (interestingly this random pick already appeared to be an example of inconsistency, see talk).
• Some other relevant articles: List of opera genres, List of musical forms by era, Category:Song forms, Category:Musical form, Category:Western classical music styles. LazyStarryNights (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply: The articles in Category:Psalms by Anton Bruckner have now an entry with Genre Psalm in the List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. In addition, I have set a link to the wiki page on the individual psalms in de column "Notes" (see talk). I think that it is, as we say in Belgium, "Un compromis à la belge" (a quite good political compromise).

Some genres, which are relatively specific to a country, have currently no link to a wiki page, e.g., Weltliches Chorwerk, which could be translated as "Secular choral works". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. i will put up a list on a user page next week, probably based on existing WP material, and we can see what it looks like and how we can take it forward. Kleinzach 14:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:IMSLP3

In List of compositions by Anton Bruckner I had added a ♫ to the IMSLP links following example of List of Bach cantatas. But for this approach full IMSLP links must be provided: (http...). I considered using Template:IMSLP2, but it adds the IMSLP text " : Free scores at the International Music Score Library Project". Would it be useful to have Template:IMSLP3, which would then provide a link with ♫, or with any specified text, but without the auto added IMSLP text? LazyStarryNights (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's very nice an convenient to have links to what's on IMSLP. The problem with it is maintenance. Are you always going to be around and available to check when a new Bruckner score is added to IMSLP? What about other composers? I can't imagine that anyone would want to be perpetually responsible for watching another website's holding. As with all external links on WP, I think it's better just to have a single link to the composer's page on IMSLP. -- kosboot (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

ISMLP links to individual compositions are already on many WP composition pages. There you have the same problem. If you create an article about a composition but there is no IMSLP yet, it may need to be added later if it becomes available later, and also corrected when the name changes on IMSLP.

The links in the lists provide a user friendly way to the scores on IMSLP, but yes it comes at a maintenance cost as well. Similar to discussions in #Improving "List of compositions" articles I hope that one day WP and IMSLP composition data can be easier aligned, since both sites' contents are driven by (partly the same) users and have a considerable information overlap. I believe the links per composition are a step towards that as well. Maybe I'm thinking too big, but a link was a small step already. And ISMLP already proved useful in our joint efforts to improve the Bruckner list, which now we are also working on similar lines for the Brahms list.

Note also that the idea of having links to other sites in table entries is not new. See for example List of Bach cantatas, but also 2011 in film#2011 films. LazyStarryNights (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Be prudent with the links to IMSLP! When working to the (I agree complex) List of compositions by Anton Bruckner I found that the content of one IMSLP link was incorrect (WAB 42 instead of WAB 43 [two different Tantum ergo]) and the content of another (WAB 9) was inconsistent. I have then corrected these two IMSLP page, so that they are now OK.

Previously, I had already encountered two other problems, which I have corrected: WAB 6 was incorrectly named WAB 5 (another Ave Maria) and there was some confusion among the two Um Mitternacht (WAB 89 & 90).

Moreover, it is not always very clear to which version the scores apply (e.g., the version of the five Tantum ergo of WAB 41 & 42). The same applies for Bruckner's symphonies (WAB 101 to 109), of which the scores are generally of the first, non-critical edition. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to the original question: I don't think a template IMSLP3 for very short citations is needed. These can be created just as quickly using the syntax [[Scores:…]], e.g.
[[Scores:Messe für den Gründonnerstag (Christus factus est), WAB 9 (Bruckner, Anton)|♫]] which gives ♫. For general documenation on interwiki maps, see meta:Interwiki map. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)