Talk:Court chapel

Discussion

I intend to expand this page into a full article --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Should it be userfied until then? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

imho, no. I added to both this page and the disambig page today. Both pages can be built into more appropriate pages in main namespace as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This should definitely be userfied. It is not an article and is not a good disambiguaiton page - it is at best a list of court chapels, and a duplicate of Court chapel (disambiguation). By all means, create the 'article' when it's finished. Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• The disambiguation page isn't really a disambiguation page, however - it's a WP:DABCONCEPT listing of things that are properly described as Court chapels. bd2412 T 20:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I would merge this right into Chapel (music), although that is also unsourced. This is merely a subtopic of that topic, and neither is well-developed enough to support at article. bd2412 T 21:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
      • From looking at that article, I agree. Boleyn (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
        • @Francis Schonken:, any objection to such a merge (at least until such time as the article(s) contain enough material to justify separate pages)? bd2412 T 21:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

          yes, objection: court chapel is about both

          • chapels as buildings
          • chapels as musical institutions sometimes with a history quite different from the particular buildings

          However, in some cases they can share (part) of their history, e.g. the Dresden Hofkapelle had several physical and musical manifestations across confessions etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

          • "Court chapels" as buildings are merely chapels associated with some other kind of structure, and neither have nor need another article. It seems to me that the musical institution is the more notable subject as an independent use of the specific phrase, and would be the primary topic of the term between the two. This is basically a WP:TWODABS situation with an attached list of specific entities following one of the two meanings that are actual title matches. This could therefore redirect to one title or the other, with a hatnote to resolve any ambiguity. bd2412 T 22:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
            • well err no, you got about all of that wrong. So about time to let me do the work, build the article and maybe revisit in some time, without keeping me busy with reverts, off-topic talk page discussions and the like. I'd really like to get started on the work of finding the appropriate sources, structuring the article (yes, it's not a dab page, so the structure of the page will still change a few times, I know, it's not the first article I work on).

            Maybe another idea, why don't you just help build the page instead of holding up its development and judging it on its early dab/stub form? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

            • OK, also please stop with the "notability" tags: there's enough material to be found in reliable sources for this to be a separate article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

Is the merge suggestion from the disambig page still active? If so, please explain. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it still active - I'd say so, as it was only applied about a day ago. Any discussion/tag needs a bit of time to discuss/evolve especially as the page is being worked on. Personally, I think it is no longer a disambiguation page, so I wouldn't (at present) vote for a merge, but see my objections below. Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I think the disambiguation page should be deleted. It brings together disparate things that are not matching titles. It's sort of like if someone created a disambiguation page at Tennis court (disambiguation) containing a list of tennis courts that include the phrase as part of their name, along with a list of legal cases about tennis that were decided in a court of law. It just doesn't hang together, conceptually. bd2412 T 18:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, that's dabbing for you: things that look the same (Hofkapelle looks literally & exactly the same as "court chapel", after translation - depending on source the English translation or the original German word is used in English text), but are not the same concept. I just learned today that capella can mean a little she goat (with a star named after that concept), as well as chapel with a lot of orchestras named after that. Where did I learn these conceptually totally different things? At the the Capella (disambiguation) page, because that's what disambiguation pages are for. Things that are conceptually alike... well they don't need dab pages do they? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Anyway, the merger intended by the current templates is no longer discussed, so indeed they proved redundant after less than a day, and I'll remove — if there's any other merger to be considered, put the appropriate templates up, if it needs further discussion than what's already here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability tag

Francis Schonken asked me to take notability concerns to talk page - I thought they were already covered in above sections, but see no harm in a specific section. For me, this is a list page crossed with a dictionary definition. It may improve to prove me wrong, and I'm happy for that to happen. A lot of my concerns wouldn't actually have been an issue if this had been userfied and done properly, instead of changing it to a poor dab with the wrong categories, with edit warring and aggressive messages - that all has undoubtedly affected my attitude towards the current page. Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "create the 'article' when it's finished" — nonsense, that's not how Wikipedia works.

You're not creating goodwill by continuing to discuss the dab version, not the current version.

Well, and stop the aggressive edit-warring it's as simple as that.

Accept the "stub" concept for starters. There's enough material in reliable sources to make this work as an article, the whole approach of trying to annoy fellow Wikipedians out of it is not the type of behaviour expected from Wikipedians.

Currently I'm reading "Nothing shaped the European musical landscape of the Renaissance more fundamentally than the consolidation of the court chapel" here (bolding added) an looking what to do with in the context of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I also continue to have this concern. I think the lede begs the WP:TWODABS ambiguity question. Yes, a "court chapel" could refer to a musical ensemble or to a specific type of building/room, but that is sort of like saying that a "concert hall" could refer to a theater where concerts are performed, or to a hallway in such a building. While technically true, only one meaning (Concert hall) is independently notable. In this case, neither meaning is independently notable, since a chapel (structure) that happens to be attached to a court is merely a kind of chapel, and can be adequately covered in Chapel, while a chapel (music group) that happens to be attached to a court is merely a kind of Chapel (music), and can also be adequately covered there. The title, Court chapel, seems most frequently to refer to the latter. Rather than setting up separate articles on these, I believe the information would flow best in a single article noting that (a) there is a kind of musical ensemble called a chapel, and (b) a prominent use of these was in connection with royal or courtly institutions. I would merge all three of these (Chapel (music), Court chapel, and Royal chapel) into a single robust and thoroughly informative Chapel (music) article. bd2412 T 18:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Well it doesn't work that way does it? See e.g. Royal Chapel of Granada, primarily notable as a building, but then there's Royal Chapel of Granada#Chapel Choir, indicating it had a musical chapel history in its own right. So it's not always possible to separate the chapel (building/space) from the chapel (music), and when it is currently separated in two articles (e.g. Mannheim Palace Church and Mannheim school) it's good to have an overview article that brings the two together. Theoretically Royal chapel could be merged into Court chapel, but then you see there is already a sub-article of Royal chapel, Chapel Royal, listing a host of non-musical Chapel Royals (see Template:Chapels royal). Don't you think Hofkapelle would have enough content matter to be separated in an article at least the same length as Chapel Royal? But as we're still building the content of Court chapel#German language regions I don't think such additional split is what we're looking for right now. Another section that awaits expansion is Chapel (music)#Later developments that is only the the tip of the iceberg for now: there's a lot to be said about these "modern" chapels that have no chapel building/space whatsoever associated with them. So no, for the time being (stubs that need expansion) neither further merging nor splitting is something we have to deal with right now, imho. Let it play out until no longer a stub, and we can see what to do later when the articles have become what they can be. Anyway, for the time being these sort of discussions appear some sort of loss of time that can be better used for improving the articles. The WP:TWODABS link now given several times by BD2412 seems unrelated to the issue, after reading and re-reading that guideline section I have no clue at all what is meant by that (I mean, what it could mean for the discussion we're having here). Chapel(s) (building/space) and Chapel(s) (music) can have intertwined histories, both the Royal chapel and the Court chapel articles explore that (one for the royal courts, the other for the other courts), and there's a lot to be said about that not yet satisfactorily covered by the encyclopedia. Chapels that don't have such intertwined history go either to the chapel article or the chapel (music) article (or at least one of the appropriate disambiguation pages). Simple. Let's not lose more time in these discussions for now. I'm opposed to all of it as long as the articles are merely stubs. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't put "create the article when it's finished" in speech marks as if you're quoting somebody...you're not, you're twisting / misunderstanding. I've had a good look at Chapel (music) and Royal chapel, and would agree with and support BD2412's suggestion for the merge. Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I put "create the 'article' when it's finished" in speech marks while it is a quote, as typed by Boleyn [1] Looks like being argumentative all over the line —Francis Schonken (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • & above I kindly asked "OK, also please stop with the "notability" tags: there's enough material to be found in reliable sources for this to be a separate article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)" Why are you starting a new talk page section on the same topic? Because you didn't read the above? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Anyway I see no explanation on the content of why this notability tag should be kept ("for spite while you bother me" is not an argument on content). The content is that there's enough material in reliable sources to make this work as a separate article. And I see no argument presented against that reasoning, so the template should go (in fact: it should never have been there). On the structure of the article (not related to "notability"), I see this work as a WP:summary style article. Any problems with that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Scope

Above, it is said that this topic is about the architecture and music of these places. It seems to me that there are other significant aspects too and so the full list should be:

1. architecture
2. music
3. politics
4. religion

Andrew (talk) 11:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the most obvious to me seems #5 History. The architecture and the music is what is the most tangible today of what remains of the court chapels, the rest is, imho, rather history of politics, history of its religious function. That's why I added {{history-stub}} to the article. The involved church buildings and choral groups that continue their existence to the present day are only touched by their court chapel history insofar it is their history, not because they still operate as a court chapel; same goes for the musical ensembles carrying "Hofkapelle" or the like in their name today: it is a historic reference, not because they are of much political significance for the "court" of a present-day ruler (staatskapelle, which from a disambig page may some day develop into an article, or other official musical performers may be somewhat different to some extent, but not, as such, the topic of the Court chapel article). Does that answer your suggestion? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

most of these

I wonder how "most of these" is defined in "Most of these are royal (court) chapels, but when the ruler of the court is not a king, the more generic "court chapel" is used, for instance for an imperial court."

"Imperial" seems rather more rare than "royal", but I guess that "most of these" are at the courts of the many dukes, landgraves etc. of Germany and Austria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and...? Don't know what you intend by this remark? Note that in the British commonwealth (for instance) one king had many Royal chapels in his realm; also several German/Austrian rulers with a court chapel were "royal", like August the Strong (with several Royal chapels built/remodeled), so in numbers I think "Most of these are royal (court) chapels..." is correct. If not, change the first word from "Most" to "Many". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

ps: "chapel" for musicians means all musical forces at a chapel, including instrumentalists, - kept in names such as de:Staatskapelle and Blaskapelle. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't understand the content of this remark, and what difference it would make for the article. Note that A cappella (Italian for "by the chapel") means *without* instruments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A cappella does not mean "without instruments", it means without independent instruments. In motets, instruments played colla parte with the voices if available. (Quote from our article, unfortunately well after the misleading first sentence: "In the 19th century a renewed interest in Renaissance polyphony coupled with an ignorance of the fact that vocal parts were often doubled by instrumentalists led to the term coming to mean unaccompanied vocal music.") In BWV 226, Bach requested that strings play with one choir, winds with the other. It's one of the misunderstandings of the 19th century to think it meant "pure" voices without instruments as the Cecilian Movement promoted. - Back to the comment: "most of these" seems unsourced and ambiguous to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but irrelevant imho for this article, or where would it come in? Current use of the musical term: see List of Italian musical terms used in English: "A cappella (in chapel style): Sung with no (instrumental) accompaniment." --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I only tried to clarify because you mentioned it. The list is wrong (or too simple), the article (with a source) is right. - For this article, third (and last) time, I question this "most of them" which is not clear (and not sourced), at least not clear to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the first time you bring it up after my reply on that topic. See my reply above, thus far you gave no response to that. Further, you brought up the "instruments", to which my first reply was "Don't understand ... what difference it would make for the article."

Re. "The list is wrong (or too simple)." I don't think so, but this talk page is *not*, I repeat, *not* the place to discuss that unless some relevance for the article can be shown. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to a response I missed, - next time I will know to look for more than one. - By "The list is wrong (or too simple)", I didn't intend to have you change list or article, only understand better. I agree that it is more general than this article, but you mentioned it here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, I said something about instruments because you mentioned them (in connection with chapel), I didn't start on instruments, and still don't know why you started about them regarding this article.

Regarding my answer to your other question, you've read it you say, but I still don't see any response to the content of my reply. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you expect. If you think "most" is justified, why would I change? I just asked "most of what" and understand that you don't mean the many small German courts that came to my mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Others

Some more:

• Hannoversche Hofkapelle, orchestra reminiscent of the former Hofkapelle
• Meiningen Court Orchestra
• Hofkapelle Bonn (where the Beethovens played
• Hofkapelle Bückeburg, where Bach's son worked --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)