Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75

Camilla Kolchinsky

Can anyone help with the article for Camilla Kolchinsky? I saved it from speedy deletion, but I don't really know where to look for sourcing and I'm not really interested enough to do any true digging. There's a bit of a barrier here as far as time and possibly language goes, as she seems to have been most active pre-Internet. She's worked with a number of notable orchestras, so I figured that it was worth asking here to see if anyone can find anything. I'm getting hints here and there that she should be notable, as I see her name come up in various snippets. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79: I'll check it out. Thanks! — Iadmc♫^talk  14:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hm... "This is camilla's page" was a little without context! However, well done for finding the genuine article, I'm using Yandex to search more for her — Iadmc♫^talk  14:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Then again, her Russian Wikipedia article is being considered for deletion: ru:Кольчинская, Камилла Александровна... Still, I'll pinch the translation and see if I can work on it in user space — Iadmc♫^talk  14:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I notice also that ru:WP says she died last year, while the "Official site"* http://camillakolchinsky.com makes no mention of this. (* Is any evidence required to show that something claiming to be an "official site" is, well, whatever it is supposed to mean exactly?) Not difficult to find her searching on "Kolchinsky conducting", and she's one of six featured in A Woman Is a Risky Bet: Six Orchestra Conductors. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up(s)! — Iadmc♫^talk  15:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• No problem - I was initially going to just speedy it, but something about it made me kind of take another look. If you can find enough to justify an article, great - if not then I figure that we can either PROD it or take it to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Overhauling Étude No. 1 (Villa-Lobos)

This article was created in 2009 by a user who has not made any further edits on Wikipedia. It has been flagged for improvements since that year. However there has been no large scale attempt to give the article a proper overhaul. I have just taken the step of adding some additional categories and trying to sectionate the article. Help wanted tracking down sources. Graham1973 (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be better to expand into an article on the full set of 12 Études, rather than just No. 1? --Deskford (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that suggestion, there is also the case of the two one-line articles on the composers 1st and 4th, which would be better served if converted to an article covering full set of 5 Prelude's for Guitar.Graham1973 (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Re-introduce assessment

Hi, I may be beating a dead horse (WP:STICK), but what are the reasons for not having an assessment system? Ideally, all articles should be assessed so that they can be included in Version 1.0 (whenever it comes out). Since WP Classical music is for classical music articles that are not under the scope of any other WikiProject, articles under this project don't have a rating and thus can't be included in Version 1.0 (which would be a shame considering the rich history of classical music). Any thoughts? Icebob99 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you could get an answer to your question by using the Search function on this talk page; search on the word "assessment". I hope this helps. Opus33 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Or read Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Assessment — Iadmc♫^talk  18:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate the advice. It looks like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 25#Assessments redux has the origin of the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Assessment. I still think this deserves some discussion, because my reason wasn't mentioned in the original discussion. That reason as stated above was that articles which fall under this WikiProject don't currently have a rating, so they can't be included in Version 1.0. We could in theory make a subproject for every single article, but that would defeat the purpose of this particular project. Icebob99 (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Editors who didn't already know what "Version 1.0" is may find out at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAQs.

The earlier discussion on Archive 25 includes what I thought was a really good comment from Drhoehl, which I repeat here:

To be honest, I'm not sure that assessments really have much value. Different projects routinely assess the same article differently, and, like the overgeneralized claims in information boxes, the assessments strike me as more misleading than useful for the general reader. Moreover, at least I as a newcomer found the biography project's routine assessment of everything I contributed, no matter how extensive, as "stub class" (essentially, "little or no useful information") to be discouraging, and I can't help but think that others might have a similar reaction [O33: yup] and, if less butt-headed than I am, just give up on contributing. So my vote, given that we don't have elaborate assessments already, would be not to go down that road at all. Drhoehl (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not clear to me that the (unproven) benefit of Version 1.0 outweighs the cost that Drhoehl describes. Maybe if Version 1.0, once released, turns out to be a great success, we should get on board? Opus33 (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that if others are. The reason I advocate for assessments is that it gives a good overview of the general state of a WikiProject. People often decide to contribute to WikiProjects because they see that the project has a low average WikiWork score, or that the project is really nailing the destub process, because those are indicators of a thriving project. I gave the Version 1.0 example because it was the original basis of assessments. I would say I don't have much skin in the game since I don't contribute regularly here (I'm WP:MICRO), but I'm interested enough in classical music and assessment in general to give a good push on the assessment if it comes about (I've assessed large numbers of articles in WP:MICRO before). Icebob99 (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with others who are in favor of having a project assessment. - kosboot (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• A couple of things to consider... There are about 20,000 articles under this project's banner. How many people here are willing to assess them? Given that most people here are content creators and not interested in doing that kind of stuff, a huge number of these will remain permanently unassessed. Not necessarily a bad thing, but then it begs the question of why have assessment? Alternatively, you could "hire" a bot to provisionally assess them by inheriting the assessments from other projects. Not fab, and I'm sure there are many articles which are only bannered by this project, so they would remain unassessed. However, at least you could keep track of how many FAs, FLs, and GAs are within the project's scope as well as how many are classed as stubs (rightly or wrongly) which might be useful. Voceditenore (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

That is something to consider, but to me it seems like it should be said after an initial assessment and to-do list has been done and drawn up. I think I've come across many articles that have some kind of assessment (probably because they're under the aegis of more than one WikiProject). It might be that only 2 of us will actually want to do assessments. I still think that puts us in a better position than having no assessment at all. - kosboot (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to assess articles under this banner if it turns out to be useful. It would be good to have a few FAs and GAs to show to prospective participants. Voc's bot might be a good idea initially as it will deal with quite a number of articles; other articles can then be dealt with at leisure. O33's and Drhoehl's objections to Stub class are noted, though this is really used to point out that an article just needs expanding. Perhaps we just avoid assesing things as Stub and concentrate on A, B, C, GA, FL, and FA? Or even just A, GA FL and FA? The others also seem to give a negative impression of articles...

Regarding Wikipedia:Version 1.0:

If Version 0.8 goes well, we will probably aim to release Version 1.0 in 2013.

Note: The original page for Version 1.0 Nominations has been suspended, for reasons noted on Version 1.0 Nominations and its talk page.

— Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAQs

2013 was 4 years ago and the whole process is on hold as far as I can tell...

Also Ping: User:Icebob99 and User:Kosboot

— Iadmc♫^talk  20:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on with Wikipedia Version 1.0. Their bots still run, e.g. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Composers articles by quality log, but I'm not sure what the purpose of the bot's results is. I think if you decide to re-start assessment, it should be done because it might help the project in its stewardship of articles. Wikipedia Version 1.0 is pretty irrelevant. Ditto, "WikiWork scores". The score approximates how many classes or "steps" a project's articles need to ascend for all of the project's articles to reach Featured status. Supposedly the lower the score, the more "successful" the project is. (More about this dubious concept in this Signpost article from 2013.). Re using a bot to inherit ratings from other projects, the primary source of completely unassessed and therefore "unbotable" articles will be the ones on classical compositions. The ones on classical musicians and ensembles, conservatories, festivals, etc. generally have multiple project banners on them. Incidentally, WikiProject Composers still does assessment in theory but currently has almost 1000 unassessed articles and over 4000 stub class articles, many of which I'm sure are not stubs at all. Voceditenore (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll check the major articles through and make sure they have some sort of assessment: Wikipedians generally expect them to be assessed, I guess (e.g. Classical music, Baroque music, and of course my own 21st-century classical music). Then I'll check the composers (via WP:COMPOSERS). Finally, if I could be bothered, the quadrillion or so composition articles... OTOH, that latter might just not be worth the effort. I'll see how I feel. May be the biggies like Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) should be checked. (I'm not feeling the love for this idea...) — Iadmc♫^talk  15:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hm... Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Composers articles by quality log is great for a laugh at least... Watch Marcos Coelho Neto go!!! — Iadmc♫^talk  15:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah! There were two Composer banners: one saying stub, the other unassessed... hence it flip-flopped daily! Well a bit of fun but now the real work starts... BTW, I just completed an AWB scan of all composers in the 21st-century category and fixed a ton of errors. These should all now be good better articles (BAs?) — Iadmc♫^talk  15:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

One issue:{{WikiProject Classical music}} didn't support the class= field so I added it back in. Hope that's OK? (I'm still working out how to make it work so I can see the assessment on Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven)...) — Iadmc♫^talk  17:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah-ha! Just found the discussion from 7 years ago which is basically me and Kleinzach bashing the proposal out with a little input (mostly ignored) from others. That doesn't really count as genuine consensus to drop assessments to me (5 editors) and I a was one of those agreeing to drop them. So... I think I can go ahead an assess? Once I've tweeked the doc file that is to assess... Thoughts? Am I way out of line here? — Iadmc♫^talk  17:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Opus33 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Opus33: I've reverted my edit to the doc page as there is still obviously a lot of opposition to the idea of assessment. The full functionality needs a template editor or an admin anyway so I couldn't go any farther. Probably just as well... — Iadmc♫^talk  21:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ah...I need to turn assessment on in the template not just the doc page, but no can do: "This page is currently protected so that only template editors and administrators can edit it." So unless the edits by Kleinzach to remove assessment and quality scale are reverted we cannot do assessments any way. Or we can but they don't display on the talk pages — Iadmc♫^talk  18:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no clue how to turn on the assessments feature, but I'll get to work once it's possible. Icebob99 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I do like the provisional bot idea. I think there is also an option to check for a stub tag on a page and assess it that way as well. Icebob99 (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This will likely be opposed by quite a number of the established editors here once they turn up. I think we should hold back until we get further input, though Opus33 is representative of the quorum of editors working at this project so I don't hold out much hope. I'll work on composers in the meantime if you wish to help me? — Iadmc♫^talk  21:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If you think that "quite a number of the established editors" might object to bot assessment, could the bot be programmed to work on a select group of articles so that editors could see and determine whether to go forward with more bot assessment? - kosboot (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I know how to turn on the assessments, but I need to see consensus here before I will do that. I also need to know if both |class= and |importance= are desired, or just |class=. Once firm consensus has been reached, leave a note at Template talk:WikiProject Classical music, linking back here - since I am watching that page, but not this one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Though I suspect the horse has long since petrified and we're using its femurs to flog another... — Iadmc♫^talk  00:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Kosboot: I meant they will probably object to the entire proposal to turn assessment back on... Hence fossilized horses beating other fossilized horses... — Iadmc♫^talk  00:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Voceditenore that arguments to establish assessment based on WP V-1.0 and WikiWork Scores are irrelevant. Further, as the process of assessment is, politely, a very inaccurate science, I can't see any benefit. To the contrary, I've seen quite a few well written articles that suffered badly when taken through the wringer of A/GA/FA assessments. Some suggested partial assessments, but I think the huge number of articles will create a meaningless division between assessed and unassessed articles – sad. Bottom line: Oppose. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I too oppose assessments. The Good Article and Featured Article processes depend entirely upon having well-qualified reviewers who are willing and able to do the work, and both processes seem to be barely but manfully managing to avoid drowning. Having other forms of assessments would either distract reviewers from these more important processes or suffer from the involvement of less-qualified reviewers. I see every week on my watchlist damage caused to articles by editors who are not musically literate. Opening these articles up to review by these editors would clearly be a problem. I do not understand the WP V-1.0 and WikiWork Scores issue, but make the following point: systems should be subordinate to quality articles, not the other way around. Syek88 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise for my over-zealous actions in attempting to re-enable assessments in the Project's banner. I did this because quite a number of articles do have assessments (e.g. see our banner in the edit page of Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven)). However, I reverted after Opus33 correctly pointed out that I had overstepped the mark. I am still willing to do assessments—I have recently assessed two for GA under our banner: one passed (National Repertory Orchestra), one failed (Experimental rock). (Not sure if the latter is really ours, actually... I suspect it is such only because the genre is influenced by classical music.) — Iadmc♫^talk  02:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps another option is to farm out a number of categories to [new?] daughter projects, e.g. classical performers—though I assume they are normally covered by WikiProject Musicians already and should thus be removed from our roster per "... all articles related to classical music that aren't covered by other classical music related projects". Indeed, I'm sure that a great many of the 20.000 articles should be re-bannered, anyway, as they are already covered by other classical music related projects. Also, moving Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force to WP:COMPOSERS would make sense as that is really more the logical place for it, IMO. That way, compositions could be assessed alongside their composers. Thoughts? — Iadmc♫^talk  02:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Opinions

I have placed everyone who has expressed an opinion in one of the sub-headings below to get a better picture of where we are. If you disagree with my placing you or where I've placed you, please remove yourself or change your position. Perhaps others could place their !vote here, too? Thanks — Iadmc♫^talk  02:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Support

• Icebob99 (Questioner)
• kosboot

Oppose

• Opus33
• Michael Bednarek
• Syek88
• Smerus - impractical/more trouble than worth
• Imaginatorium - do not believe this would improve the musical level of articles

Neutral

• Voceditenore (Commented several times on practicalities without committing either way, as far as I can tell.)
• Iadmc (I'll just go with whatever is decided.)

Uninvolved admin

• Redrose64 (Willing to help with templates etc. if we decide to start assessing again.)

Consensus achieved?

Perhaps another day (for seven days to have elapsed) and close as opposed? — Iadmc♫^talk  18:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I was invited here with a view to closing the discussion as an uninvolved editor, though I'm not entirely sure I am neutral enough. Although I haven't commented myself, I have been reading the comments of others and trying to form my own opinion. I don't have strong views either way. I can see that introducing assessment would bring this project into line with most other Wikipedia projects, and there are benefits to unity across Wikipedia. This project often feels to be at odds with the general wikiflow, though that's not necessarily a bad thing - it indicates that there exists a group of editors with the dedication and enthusiasm to work together on improving articles in this subject area, editors who have established views on what works best for their co-operative work and editors whose work I much respect for their knowledge and commitment. If assessment is introduced, but most articles are assessed by bots or drive-by editors who don't spend much time with each article, then I don't see the assessment as offering much by way of value. I think Syek88 (talk · contribs) puts it well in a comment above, and we may be better concentrating on GA and FA assessments. Sorry, am I rambling? If you want my opinion I think we're best leaving things as they are. If you want me to be neutral I would say that the consensus of others would appear to be against introducing assessments. --Deskford (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Deskford! (I invited him, BTW.) Displaying only FA, FL, and GA might be useful as these tend to be assessed independently by those who understand the requirements and wish to improve the encyclopedic quality of articles. IMO, "encyclopedic quality" with regard to any article dealing with music and musicians does require an understanding of Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music, so perhaps we should make that point in the appropriate places? Whether or not we decide to reintroduce assessment, that is. — Iadmc♫^talk  20:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reger

Like Poulenc: We have a List of compositions by Max Reger and a List of works by Max Reger, with a history too long to explain. Should they stay separate or be merged? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

We had a List of compositions by Max Reger (March 2016) and a List of works by Max Reger derived from it (sorry without attribution on the talk page then). The history just got more complicated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Questions:

1. Do we want two pages or a merge?
2. One or two pages: which name(s)?

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I go for a page with this content and its article history. I don't care much how it will be named, nor if there is another list (bulleted) and how that will be named. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge List of works by Max Reger into List of compositions by Max Reger as they are all compositions and none are treatises or books etc. Updated comment — Iadmc♫^talk  17:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Confused: List of works by Max Reger now redirects to List of compositions by Max Reger. Is this deliberate? Was it a genuine merge? What actually needs to be done? — Iadmc♫^talk  18:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Relevant previous discussions: Talk:List of works by Max Reger — Iadmc♫^talk  18:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Have now restored List of works by Max Reger to pre-redirect state: there is clearly a lot to discuss before merging and redirecting — Iadmc♫^talk  18:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Merge "compositions" seems more consistent with other such pages, as well as being more precise. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: A decision to merge two articles should not be decided on a Project page, although the WP:MERGEPROP discussion can be advertised and linked to here. Clearly it should be "List of compositions", to match all other composers' list articles, and there should not be two duplicate articles. To initiate the merge, all of the very precise steps in WP:MERGEPROP need to be followed. Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it should not be decided here, but can be discussed here. Clearly we have two articles for Poulenc, and that made me think there might be reasons for the same for Reger. I had connected this discussion by indenting to the former, because of the connection. If we decide to not merge, no merge discussion is needed. If we decide to merge, all information is at present in the works, only the article history needs to be merged, therefore it's not the typical merge procedure, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

To repeat, a decision to merge two articles should not be decided on a Project page, although the WP:MERGEPROP discussion can be advertised and linked from here. It is indeed a "typical merge"; the articles are duplicative. Edit histories do not get merged; when articles are merged the redirect contains the edit history of the merged article. Softlavender (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal discussion has been initiated at Talk:List of compositions by Max Reger

Per WP:MERGEPROP, both articles have been tagged and the merge proposal discussion has been started at Talk:List of compositions by Max Reger#Merger proposal. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Five AfDs that may of interest

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Artists Records—Deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hunter (composer)—Deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johannes Kretz—Keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issak Tavior—Keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bruce Yeh—No consensus

Voceditenore (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Struck by — Iadmc♫^talk  17:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Mozart piano concerto in c minor now featured!

Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart) - Our first ever FA I think! — Iadmc♫^talk  20:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Who is "our"? - I nominated it for TFA on 24 March. The last TFA of classical music (if we don't Francis Poulenc), was on 16 July 2016. - Another FAC is open, comments welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, no, the last TFA on a piece of classical music was on 19 October 2016, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. Didn't realise there were others as we have no assessment system... — Iadmc♫^talk  23:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a list of a few FAs would be more impressive for a start to this talk than the information that Signpost wrote about it. They can serve as models. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem with the sources for Violin sonata

I was looking over the references for the above article and found that the third reference is simply the words "A Brief Analysis of Debussy's Violin Sonata, Brahms' Violin Sonata, Op. 78, and Shostakovich's Eighth String Quartet, Op. 110". It is not clear if this is the title of an article, the title of a book or simply a statement that the author of the article (Or whoever added the reference.) made this study.

I am not sure how to begin checking this third reference. Can anyone help?

Graham1973 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I imagine it is this dissertation. It seems of limited value to me - unless someone is happy to go through alengthy rigmarole and shell out $33 (or whatever) just to find out what it says, you might as well just delete it. The sentence to which it is attached is an anodyne generalisation, which could itself be deleted, or just reworded; the fact that these composers also wrote works they called "sonatas" can be verified by looking at lists of works on IMSLP, for example, which suggests there are hundreds of such composers. In fact, I think that sentences like this are misleading, because they suggest either that there is something (who knows what) very distinctive about the sonatas of these three composers, or that this is an almost comprehensive list. Imaginatorium

Ask User:Shabidoo who developed the article and added the reference [1]. The article is far from being perfect, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the line and it's reference to the articles talk page.Graham1973 (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

FP

Inspired by Francis Poulenc as TFA on his birthday, I translated - with the help of LouisAlain without whom that would not have been possible - the French catalogue of his works to FP (Poulenc). Now you can link to any piece he wrote by its FP number, which should be helpfully for the many pieces without article, - example: [[FP (Poulenc)#11|FP 11]] = FP 11. - The article was moved to FP (catalogue), which I think is less precise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, LouisAlain. It looks great! Thanks for this. BTW, I don't think there are other "FP" catalogues so FP (catalogue) is fine, IMO: the article explains whose works it catalogues and Francis Poulenc#Music helpfully links to it. I see your point about precision but no need to revert. [[FP (Poulenc)#11|FP 11]] should probably now be [[FP (catalogue)#11|FP 11]], though, to avoid possible future double redirects — Iadmc♫^talk  18:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! The one who moved said I could still use the former, so I do as I still link Max Reger works (in a similar manner, by Op. number) and not List of works by Max Reger, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

True enough — Iadmc♫^talk  10:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Re. FP (Poulenc) vs. FP (catalogue):

• Both seem odd: we don't have BWV (Bach), K (Mozart), D (Schubert), BWV (catalogue), K (catalogue), D (catalogue), etc.
• I'd recommend The Music of Francis Poulenc (after the title of the 1995 book that contains the catalogue – compare other catalogue articles named after the book title of the catalogue: Schubert Thematic Catalogue, Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis) as article title, with the others as redirects
  • Alternatively:
    1. Move the current List of compositions by Francis Poulenc to List of compositions by Francis Poulenc by genre
    2. and then move the current FP (catalogue) to List of compositions by Francis Poulenc

  --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• The by genre list (currently List of compositions by Francis Poulenc) and the sortable table list (currently FP (catalogue)) should have more prominent wikilinks to one another, i.e. assuming that merging both list formats to one page would present a WP:PAGESIZE problem (didn't check yet) – see guidance at Wikipedia:Content forking#List formats.
• See also WP:NCM#Lists

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Francis!

• Go ahead, move to some longer name, as long as we are not requested to code (and first remember) something like [[List of compositions by Francis Poulenc#11|FP'11]] everytime we link to a single piece.
• Crosslinking: in the bulleted list, we have links to articles (from the titles) and links to the catalogue (from FP #). In the catalogue, we have a link to the list by genre from the navbox, but no links to individual sections (as the catalogue has the same information, and linking sometimes to an article, sometimes to a list section, looking identically blue, would be confusing to reader). We could, however, link (for example) not chamber music, but more specifically to the chamber music section in the list, but that would need a link to chamber music where it lands, for those who don't know what chamber music is. (Not long ago, I was requested to link Sacred music, to avoid the impression that the music was sacred.)
• In the navbox, I'd prefer both catalogue and list in the footer, but then it would not show because it's generally collapsed. Should we perhaps go (to a village pump) to have an option "collapsed but show footer"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Moved FP (catalogue) to The Music of Francis Poulenc per my first proposal above (and seeing no opposition to that idea). Not convinced whether we need two pages in this case: combining the table with the "by genre" list on one page seems like a viable option too. But unless there's some encouragement here I'd leave the launching of such merge proposal (with appropriate tags, and a discussion in the appropriate place) to someone else. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Poulenc's Violin Sonata

Please look at Template:Did you know nominations/Violin Sonata (Poulenc): someone who understands French, English and music is needed to improve the article which was translated from fr. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Of possible interest 2

My state classical-music public-radio station has a weekly art song program (previously called Great Songs, now called Singing and Other Sins because nowadays people call anything that can be downloaded a "song"). It is the only radio program in the world that focuses on art song. The station has a new website format and all of the archived episodes are free to listen to: [2]. Over the years the show has also done exclusive interviews: I particularly recommend the 2013–2016 interviews with Ned Rorem, and the two-part 2013 interview with Christa Ludwig(!). Just Control+F interview. Most programs are not interviews but rather artsong programs with well-informed commentary. Anyway, check out the various episodes if you like! Softlavender (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Added ELs from the site to a few pages: [3] [4] [5] [6]. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice idea. By the way the weekly program has been running since 1988; I now notice that those archives only go back to 2012 for some reason. Maybe they don't have the earlier ones converted (yet) or available. Looks like that dedicated site is a labor of love of Gary Hickling, the host. Softlavender (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Leigh Embleton

An apparently non-notable composer called Matthew Leigh Embleton has been repeatedly using IP addresses to add his name to List of composers for lute for about five years. Now he seems to be taking a different approach, adding external links to his own website and to a Google site of doubtful value that mentions him prominently, not only to this list page but to several other lute-related pages. Should these additions all be reverted, or is there any value in them? A second opinion would be welcomed. His latest contributions appear to be as 83.83.253.217 (talk · contribs). --Deskford (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, an "External Links" section is not an invitation for people to add links to their own websites or any other website for no reason other than they are in some way related to the topic.Of the three links currently at the foot of the article, the first and third are definitely not appropriate. You could make an argument for the second, I suppose, although the "Lute Society" seems to be no more than two men operating out of a letterbox. Syek88 (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I'll remove them. --Deskford (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Updating String Trio, Op. 3 (Beethoven)

I was looking over the page after recently being given a CD containing the transcription to a Cello Sonata of the String Trio Op. 3. I noticed that the main source is a 1956 encyclopedia on Beethoven and then two notes on the IMSLP website which do not have their sources listed.

Anyone willing to join in and help with updating the sources.

Graham1973 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I've made a few changes. Nettl (1956) is a known and reputable authority, therefore no intrinsic need to update the ref.--Smerus (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Evi Martyn

Please see my request for help regarding Evi Martyn here. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A clear candidate for AfD - non-notable as a musician, got minor notoriety for an anti-semitic book (not mentioned in article), er, that's it.--Smerus (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article on Wagner's Polonia Overture

I would like to nominate this article for a cleanup. The main issue is that the identity of Adrian Courleonis who is identified as a critic in the text, but he appears simply to be the person who wrote the Allmusic description of the piece, as a Google search on the name only turns up copies of the original Wikipedia article.

Another issue is that there is a book quoted without full publication details (Who/Where/When/ISBN) being supplied. As one of Wagner's pre-operatic compositions a more detailed article might be in order.

Graham1973 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Have tidied this, adding references and deleting duplication. Corleonis (sp. !) is quite a well-known writer and reviewer, I have changed his status to 'writer'. As Wagner's piece is pretty poor, I don't beleive much more detail is needed! Best, Smerus (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:EuropaChorAkademie

EuropaChorAkademie, please see article and talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Please join there, one question raised is if a choir is a biography of living persons, another that came up if performers of classical music belong in WP:Musicians. I suggest to discuss there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Update/Expand Variation on a Waltz by Diabelli (Liszt)

This article has been flagged (By Me back in 2012) as having no inline citations. In addition I am guessing the whole thing is based of the only reference provided, a 19th century biography of Liszt. I think therefore it is in need of some updating and referencing with more recent scholarship. Graham1973 (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Another page for Expansion/Refimprove: 24 Caprices for Violin (Rode)

I'd started to put together a list of reviews/recording details to create an article on these caprices when I stumbled across the article by chance. Looks like it has been neglected since 2014. One of the two references is a magazine article and seems OK even if it is not a web article (Which means I cannot read it.) as far as I can tell. The second reference simply says "24 Rode Caprices", I am guessing this means the IMSLP score, but I'm not sure how to change the cite to make this clear to a reader.

As always any help will be much appreciated.

Graham1973 (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Bold redirect for (all-too-German) Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10

In this (second) revert of Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10, a discussion is cited that allegedly forces me to not bold the redirect BWV 10. I don't have time to read the long discussion. Can we please discuss this here? My point: many readers, especially those who don't read German, refer to the cantata (as to other works by Bach) simply by the BWV number. These readers should be helped by a bold rendering of the redirect BWV 10, explained in a footnote for those (probably few) who don't know what BWV stands for and care to know. (It's additionally linked in the infobox.) - I recommend you also comment in the FAC that I just initiated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Re. "...allegedly forces me..." — nobody forces you to do anything (nor am I forced, I hope). As a layout option this should be discussed on the article's talk page – if not, I already raised the point elsewhere, so we should probably keep the discussion in one place there. We've tried to expand similar discussions to cover all church cantatas by Bach, however, WP:ACRO, suggesting to link an abbreviation on first occurrence, didn't change. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It concerns more than one article (therefore the article talk is not the best place), and it has nothing to with FA criteria (where you raised the point). ACRO wants to link first occurrence, understood, but in this case the acronym is firstly part of the article title, secondly also a redirect: two reasons (for me) to bold it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Re. "This is the one place" ([7]) – no it isn't: it is the second of three places where you are discussing this same topic at the same time. Further, as said in my previous reply, we tried to discuss this more generally (for "all church cantatas by Bach"), so no, I don't think a general discussion will solve this soon if you want a general rule different from current guidance. If you insist on sorting this generally and different from current guidance we could maybe set the FAC on hold until it is solved – although that was the first place where I raised the issue? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This rather minor thing has nothing to do with the FA criteria, so no point in discussing it there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The article isn't stable because of it, so that is a FAC topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Closed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: what is closed – not clear what you're trying to say (the FAC topic, the last thing I mentioned before your reply doesn't seem closed)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 68/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Classical music.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Classical music, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Realisation (music) / Realization (music)

Does anyone feel like having a go at filling this glaring gap? The topic is not mentioned on the Realization or Realize DAB pages, and I can't find it in Wiki. Narky Blert (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Renaming Rondo for piano and orchestra (Beethoven)

I am thinking of renaming Rondo for piano and orchestra (Beethoven) to Rondo for Piano and Orchestra in B-flat major (Beethoven), my reasoning being this will conform with the naming scheme used for the two Mozart concert rondos for piano and orchestra. And if I ever get around to other such works by 'non-name' composers it will make disambiguating them easier. But I would like others opinion before proceeding.Graham1973 (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not just merge it into the article on the Second Concerto? (And BTW I wonder why KV 482 is singled out as a possible inspiration when KV 271 uses exactly the same device.) Double sharp (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it separate due to the publication history, the intervention of Carl Czerny in completing the soloists part, and the precedent established for the two Mozart Rondos for Piano and Orchestra. Graham1973 (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up Symphony No. 7 (Ries)

I've started a small project to expand the coverage of Ferdinand Ries's compositions where possible. I've found a good source on the four cello sonatas and am adding them one at a time. But I've also started cleaning up the categories a bit as I go through the pieces.

This leads me to the article on Ries 7th Symphony. The "Composition History" part of the article is long, detailed and almost completely uncited. I suspect that the author has either copied wholesale or closely paraphrased the liner notes from the cpo recording of the symphony, however as I do not own those recordings I cannot confirm this. If anyone does have those recordings can they check the notes to see if this is the case. Either way I think the article does need a rewrite, if only to make it more encyclopedic and to improve the referencing.

Graham1973 (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

similar problem with Die Räuberbraut (opera) by the same editor.Smerus (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the opera but I have the CPO recording of the 7th symphony. You can tell the liner notes are the source of the article. It is not a verbatim copy and there is a lot of truncation, but the same quotes and the same dates are listed in the same sequence. Let me know if you want the exact text typed/scanned in somehow. The liner notes also include the standard movement-by-movement analysis DavidRF (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. I am currently going through my CD collection to locate my copy of Die Räuberbraut to confirm if the editor (Who last edited in 2016) did the same thing. But as for cleaning up the article on the 7th, I am currently trying to track down details of something in Bert Hagels notes for the cpo recording of the Violin Concerto, he states that two complete sets of parts for the concerto were found in the Berlin State Library "...a few years ago..." (The recording was made in 2007), but does not give a source for this. The Ferdinand Ries Society website has a faulty German to English translator which makes pinning down that statement pretty hard. Help pointing to a source other than the liner notes would be appreciated, as to the Symphony article, my own preference when quoting liner notes is to extract the key dates/facts and then paraphrase rather than what the author of the 7th symphony article has done. Graham1973 (talk) 00:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote on that page's talk page, a source of information should be the symphony's 1982 publication. It'll take me a few days to get my hands on it, but I'll add/revise anything once I see it. - kosboot (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

What are the rules on exceptions?

In a recent discussion on my Talk page, User:DJRafe has stoutly insisted that composers' preferences for formatting work titles should take preference over the Wikipedia Manual of Style rules. Frankly, the relevant style guide is a disgrace, but on the other hand I do not find any specific mention of this matter on any of the linked guidelines there. There are of course some obvious cases where normal rules of capitalization are at least difficult to apply, for example the English(?) title of Harrison Birtwistle's 1979 work … agm …, or the French title of Pierre Boulez's ...explosante-fixe.... However, in the particular case we have been discussing (the series of edits to 2017 in classical music, beginning with this one), the titles are seemingly perfectly ordinary ones, for which the composers are said to have idiosyncratic preferences for formatting (e.g., Ken Burton apparently prefers Many are the Wonders to Many Are the Wonders, Owen Pallett prefers Songs From An Island to Songs from an Island, Matthijs Van Dijk prefers But All I Wanna Do is Dance to But All I Wanna Do Is Dance, and Jonathan Berger prefers to capitalize the second word in the Italian title Rime Sparse). There was a long discussion on much the same topic about the title of a Benjamin Britten composition, here, with a less-than-resounding outcome and, as I pointed out in the referenced discussion, there is one fairly high-profile composer who preferred all of his work titles be in full caps, though they seldom are presented that way outside of programme books or the composer's own writings. It is hard to say whether this practice is being followed on other "[year] in classical music" pages, which would require knowing the preferences (or lack thereof) of hundreds of composers. We two editors are clearly immovable on the subject, and it seems more plausible to bring this up for discussion here, rather than asking merely for a third opinion from an unbiased editor, for the reason that there are wide-reaching implications for articles all over Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree that the style guide on title case is horrible. It reads as if written by the U.S. Typesetters Union, a secretive and exclusive closed shop.

British title case style is much more variable; and I think that explains at least some of the examples quoted by OP. Some people capitalise everything (Owen Pallett). Some only capitalise nouns (Britten, Ken Burton). Some may only capitalise proper nouns (i.e. sentence case, which is what the MOS specifies for article titles and section headings). I suspect that every music publisher has a house style which is imposed unless the title is unquestionably a stylisation - and that several of the examples given above reflect the publisher's rather than the composer's preference. (From a British perspective, I find parts of MOS:CT distinctly odd, e.g. the rules on capitalising the first word in a two-word preposition like "out of", and on capitalising the final word.)

This issue extends to every genre of music. I can see no prospect at all of the MOS being changed at this late date. Adding exceptions would make it even messier. I conclude that, like or not, MOS:CT must be followed. Narky Blert (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Some italicisation issues

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#RfC: some italicisation questions regarding catalogues, sets, collections and types of creative works – please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

WiR focus on music and dance in July

		Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg "Women in dance" "Women in music" "Women from India"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Article tags

What do project members think about the tags in Ach Gott, vom Himmel sieh darein, BWV 2 (today's version)? For background see a discussion on the RSN which questions the sourcing of this project in general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I for one haven't a clue what this is all about. It all looks OK to me as it was before the present series (or, rather, barrage) of objections was raised.--Smerus (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Another neglected article - Sextet for Horns and String Quartet (Beethoven)

I just stumbled across this article while planning to write one on this composition. It looks to be the product of an editor who wrote this article and after a single edit in 2016 on another article abandoned Wikipedia. Literally beyond a Bot edit and an anonymous editor no one has worked on this article since 2015 until I updated and expanded the categorization of the article today. Looks like the sources will need some overhauling, I will be transferring some over later. But if anyone wants to give the article a going over/update/rewrite before that I would be very grateful. Graham1973 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted - I've copyedited it and deleted a long unsourced WP:ESSAY section. But even more remarkable is that there is apparently no article for the incomparably greater Mozart Horn Quintet on which this piece was modelled. That needs urgent correction!Smerus (talk) 09:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got incomplete notes for the Horn Quintet somewhere, when I've found them I'll get to work on it. Once I've got the Stenhammar Violin Sonata article up and viewable. Graham1973 (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded it a little bit by adding a background summary. I may try and synthesize the various authors comments about the piece into a brief analysis as well.Graham1973 (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Ding Yi Music Company

Would someone mind taking a look at this article and assessing it? I'm not sure if the group is notable per WP:BAND and the content seems a bit promotional. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Promotional is a rather generous word: it reads exactly like what I would expect for a set of programme notes to one of their concerts. I am likewise quite doubtful of their notability. Double sharp (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion nomination that may be interest

I've nominated the article aboutDagmar Krug, a German pianist and composer, for deletion; the nom is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagmar Krug. Graham87 06:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

US Composer Charles Jones (1931 - ????)

Currently we have an article on Canadian-American composer Charles Jones (1910-1997). It appears that there was another composer of the same name born in Washington DC in 1931, who was also active as a composer. He owned a record lable called 'Silhouettes in Courage' which recorded his sixth symphony (Aparently the only one recorded.). Research on this individual is going to be tricky due to the existence of the other Charles Jones. Graham1973 (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

		Women in Red is pleased to introduce... A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
		Create articles on any day of any month Cover women and their works in any field of interest Feel free to add articles in other languages, too Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

CfD: Compositions by John Foulds

Category:Compositions by John Foulds has been nominated for deletion.

Please comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 31#Category:Compositions by John Foulds

--Deskford (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Vilde Frang

Please look into the missing references for Vilde Frang and possibly copy problems (as of 2015), see talk, - I noticed it only now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Harry G. Pellegrin

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Harry G. Pellegrin and assessing it? No sources are cited for any of the the article content which is almost always not a good thing when it comes to a BLP; moreover, it's not clear whether Pellegrin satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

PRODded.Smerus (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Now at AFD.Smerus (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)