Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

All the main orchestra articles at present use the ugly pop music Infobox Musical artist, with fields more suitable for individual musicians such as 'genres', 'occupations', 'associated acts', 'origin', 'years active', 'notable instruments'.

See: Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, BBC Symphony Orchestra, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, Cleveland Orchestra, Dallas Symphony Orchestra, Detroit Symphony Orchestra, London Symphony Orchestra, Los Angeles Philharmonic, Minnesota Orchestra, Montreal Symphony Orchestra, New York Philharmonic, Philadelphia Orchestra, Philharmonia Orchestra, Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Sächsische Staatskapelle Dresden, San Francisco Symphony Orchestra, Seattle Symphony, Toronto Symphony Orchestra, Vienna Philharmonic etc.

Perhaps it's time to do something to cleanup the appearance and the accuracy of these articles? I propose we make a dedicated Infobox orchestra with appropriate fields. Is that OK? I know many of us dislike boxes for biographies, but institutions should be a lot less controversial. It might be helpful if people could agree/disagree, and perhaps even offer to help with the box if the project was interested in going ahead with this. Thank you. Kleinzach 03:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I think that's a good concept and if we can create an infobox for orchestras, it will definitely work for us. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per proposal. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - would certainly be a great improvement on current situation. But please don't make it too enormous! (Maybe date founded/founder/home town where not in title/base concert hall if any/present lead conductor/website?)--Smerus (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suggest to first look if existing infoboxes don't cover the requirements, for example {{Infobox organisation}}, or can be expanded to meet them, also compare {{Infobox choir}}, for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've proposed a box specially for orchestras, Gerda. If the proposal is accepted, we can discuss here what fields it will have. Kleinzach 09:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why not update the documentation for the existing infobox, indicating which fields are not suitable for orchestras? Of the parameters you list, (place of) origin may be relevant, for orchestras with no place name in their own name; as might years active, for defunct orchestras, while a year of foundation is needed for those still active. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We definitely need this infobox. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fields for infobox orchestra

We have a consensus for a new box — which I hope won’t be disrupted — so what design and what fields are appropriate? My suggestion would be to use the 'clean design' of Template:Infobox person (pale grey tint with black hairline boxing). Per Smerus above, fields could be:

• date founded
• founder
• home city (if not in title)
• home concert hall
• principal conductor
• famous instruments
• website

I’ve added ‘famous instruments’ to Smerus’s list because a number of mainly American orchestra articles list Stradivarius instruments, organs etc, see for example Los Angeles Philharmonic. However we could leave that out, or put the info in a separate box, if people think the infobox would be too busy.

Please comment if you think any of the fields should be omitted, or if extra ones should be added. Thanks! Kleinzach 02:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asking as someone having no knowledge, I would have assumed the instruments were generally the property of the individual musicians rather than the orchestra. (Obviously not an organ.) I take it this is wrong? Milkunderwood (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) See List of Stradivarius instruments for owners of some instruments. I think this might be complicated with some instruments owned by foundations etc. Obviously any info we include would have to be checked. --Kleinzach 03:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think listing instruments owned would count as trivia. It's not a widely known fact about any orchestra (whereas the identity of the music director and the name of the concert hall is). It also can't make that much difference to the sound of the orchestra; most musicians play their own instruments. So let's leave it out. Opus33 (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with Opus33. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll strike it out for now. Kleinzach 03:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about particularly important previous principal conductors, and dates? Szell Cleveland, Karajan Philharmonia, etc? -- Munch, Koussevitzy, Bernstein -- too much clutter? And isn't it likely that "founders" are unknown obscure names? Milkunderwood (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my own suggestion about prior conductors. These should be listed in the text. But what about "founders"? I would relegate these to a text mention. Or, what is a "founder"? Occasionally a conductor will decide to create an orchestra for his own use, but generally it's some civic leader with a gleam in his eye, who acts as organizer and fund-raiser, and hires a conductor. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested fields (edited to strike guest conductors):

1. home city (if not in title)
2. date founded (and date disbanded, if defunct)
3. home concert hall
4. principal conductor

• principal guest conductors, if any, no more than two at most (? this is probably asking for trouble)

5. website

All significant prior principal conductors should be listed, with dates, in the text. The term "music director" should not be used, because a principal conductor may not have been officially designated as such -- cf. Philharmonia Orchestra early history. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• The home city should be mentioned even if it is part of the title.
• Conductors: the current conductor and important predecessors could be listed open, other former ones in a collapsed list. For example: Nordwestdeutsche Philharmonie (In the real article, I would list all with an article.)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re. principal guest conductors, and Milkunderwood's remark, "this is probably asking for trouble": Yup! Deciding which guest conductors are "principal" is a judgment call, often nuanced, and so properly addressed with prose in the article itself. One of the problems infoboxes cause is that they encourage editors to make all-or-nothing snap decisions on nuanced topics. I think if "principal guest conductor" is removed, an infobox containing the remaining five fields would not be likely to cause too much trouble. Opus33 (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) (revised below) Milkunderwood (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are at the beginning of a discussion, right, offering options. We could list all conductors, list all with an article, or highlight a few and collapse others, then again: others could be all others, all others with an article, selected others. - It's only an attempt to show possibilities, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, of course Gerda - we are just throwing out ideas. Here is the way I was trying to revise my paragraph above:

It occurs to me the same criticism applies to Gerda's example, where she specifies "important" predecesors, skipping some years as presumably unimportant(?). Further, there's no point in saying the Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, etc, orchestras are located in those cities - that's just clutter. NWD would fall under Kleinzach's exception. Also, NWD is different from most orchestras in "serving" a region rather than being located in a large city. Attendees may come from all over the world, to any orchestra. And I disagree with including tours in an info box. Let's keep it simple. What would be helpful would be to list the types of information that may be useful to discuss in the article, as opposed to putting it in the infobox. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in a separate conversation on our userpages, Gerda has raised the issue of infoboxes needing certain information being specified for the purpose of inclusion of metadata, which I know nothing at all about. This would put the whole topic in a different light. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For orchestras whose name is not in English, a parameter for |name_lang=, to take the two-letter ISO code (such as de for German). This would not be displayed, but applied using {{lang}}. I can provide markup if necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'metadata': this is a red herring, as far as I can gather from discussions about infoboxes in other arenas. Maybe Gerda has got the wrong end of the stick. Metadata may be linked to infoboxes, but don't have to be (and vice versa). It's a quite separate topic, and shouldn't be allowed to muddy the waters of this discussion, which otherwise could risk becoming yet another attempt by fanatics to slap infoboxes on everything in sight by falsely citing metadata and other little-understood topics as excuses for global standardization. There seems to be some consensus here on orchestras; let's not put it at risk by seeking to broaden the issue. Oh, and of course keep doubtful topics sch as 'guest conductors' and trivia such as tours out of any orchestra box. WP:KISS--Smerus (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I didn't mention the word you don't like, and told you, Milkunderwood, better not to do so (on my talk), and certainly hoped if doing so my name was not mentioned. - I didn't raise a stick, so can't drop it ;) - I could begin a template on a user page, to be edited by all until we are happy, - perhaps easier than showing too many examples here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended. If there's a controversy, I know nothing about it. I certainly agree with Smerus, to keep it as simple as possible, which I thought had been illustrated in my (amended) five fields. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never before had occasion to look at an infobox template, but looking now at Template:Infobox choir, this mess is exactly what we are trying to avoid here - it has fields for every conceivable item of information. Would it help for this Template:Infobox orchestra to specifically say in the explanation that fields should not be expanded, and additional information such as [...] should be listed, mentioned, or discussed only in the text of the article? Milkunderwood (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fields don't have to be filled, of course, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the whole point - if the fields are there, people will fill them. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A latecomer as usual, I do support the proposal, but I have a couple of thoughts. First, something specific: might it be useful to add a line for former names or predecessor organizations? I'm thinking in particular of the George Enescu Philharmonic, formerly the Bucharest Philharmonic, and what today we call the New York Philharmonic, which until sometime in the early '50s or so was The Philharmonic-Symphony Orchestra of New York, derived from merger during the Great Depression of the New York Philharmonic and the New York Symphony. Seems to me that's the sort of "un-nuanced," purely factual information that a "quick glance" user, say, somebody coming to Wikipedia because confused by dueling Toscanini reissues citing different names for the same organization, might be grateful to have presented without need to resort to the text. Second, and rather more generally, might we do well, before going much further, to take a look at a cross section of the orchestra articles and systematically assess what pitfalls they may present and how well the proposals to date would deal with them? Better to chase out potential problems now, I think, than to discover them after the box has come into being. Drhoehl (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a couple of others that might bear consideration (sorry if somehow I missed them earlier): what about, for want of a better term, "type": broadcast (e.g., NBC Symphony), concert (e.g., Philadelphia Orchestra), recording (e.g., Philharmonia Orchestra), etc.? And what about record labels? Drhoehl (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me these are both very interesting ideas. The first, concerning different names, I agree would be important to include in an infobox for the reason given. Concerning "type", first, all three categories suggested did make recordings. I had not been aware that the Philharmonia did not give live performances. And I wonder if these might be difficult to reference. (Note that at the top of the major section on his proposal, Kleinzach listed a number of orchestras for reference in this discussion.) Milkunderwood (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Thank you everybody. I think we have some agreement about essential fields and some good ideas for optional fields. Without making any final decisions on these, I've gone ahead and created:

• Template:Infobox orchestra
• Template:Infobox orchestra/doc

These will require tech checks before they are usable. Can we continue discussions about fields at Template talk:Infobox orchestra? Kleinzach 03:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: 'Native name' field

Unfortunately changes are already being made to the box without discussion, see [1] and [2].

We now have a field called 'Native name' which no-one asked for! (The name of the orchestra is now sometimes in more than one language, i.e. English and the 'original'!) etc. (We also have microformats, coordinates etc.). It's a pity because these changes are being made before the setup is even finished (which can't be done in userspace). I had asked Frietjes to look at it. --Kleinzach 14:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I was not involved but would assume that) for the Vienna Philharmonic, there should be a parameter saying that they call themselves "Wiener Philharmoniker", and the information that this is German. - I didn't know that anything is ever "finished" on WP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, do you really want to see the 'original name Vs English name' can of worms re-opened? Don't you realise that many editors want all German names to be translated into English? --Kleinzach 15:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I observe names such as Deutsche Radio Philharmonie Saarbrücken Kaiserslautern which I hope will not be translated, and I see that in some cases you could not deduct the original name from a translation, for example "Symphony" could have been Sinfoniker, Symphoniker, Sinfonieorchester, - and some names are awfully similar: WDR Symphony Orchestra Cologne is the WDR Sinfonieorchester Köln, until the 1990s Kölner Rundfunk-Sinfonie-Orchester, but there's also a different orchestra, WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln, which is a wrong redirect at present, it should be a translation of de:WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln. To make it short: these names are the worms, not the discussion, and if you go to the native names you are safer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has got nothing to do with infoboxes. Wrong redirects etc. should of course be corrected. No-one is disagreeing with you about this. --Kleinzach 00:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back to the last version edited by Kleinzach, considering this a case of simple vandalism. I apologize to editor Frietjes for the collateral damage. Opus33 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was vandalism. Gerda pointed out to that editor that the box might be a "fork" [3], and he was trying to improve it by bringing the code in line with other boxes of that type. Some of it is an improvement in its mechanics. The "native name" field is debatable. Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "These will require tech checks before they are usable." That was disregarded. 'That editor' (who many of us think should be topic banned, see [4]) characteristically went in and took pre-emptive action to get what he wanted included in the box, including the language stuff. Obviously not everything he did was bad, but that's hardly the point. Kleinzach 17:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I know who 'that editor' is. The way he made the changes was not at all collegiate, but not vandalism either. Voceditenore (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support Voceditore's view, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Voceditenore (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we are being a little naive here? 'That editor' wrote: "This new infobox looks promising, but should not replace infoboxes with additional, useful, parameters, such as those in City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, until it can handle similar detail (with better labels, of course)." [5]. So he's determined to inflate the number of fields until the new box matches the trivia of the pop music one, contrary to the intentions of everybody here (except possibly our poor Gerda who thinks this is about Germany-language titles!). Are we all ready for another huge-waste-of-time edit war? "Not at all collegiate" yes, well . . .Kleinzach 10:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naive? No. Disingenuous? Yes. I said nothing about "trivia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opus33 should be aware that false accusations of vandalism are not allowed on Wikipedia. I invite him to strike that comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As also noted on the template's talk page, there is no requirement for prior discussion before changes are made, especially to a draft temp[late. You say "no one asked for" the native name parameter; I did so above, yesterday, and it clearly didn't arise spontaneously. And there is no coordinates parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to throw a spanner into this discussion, is Württembergisches_Kammerorchester_Heilbronn WP's standard format for other-language orchestra/chamber groups? Milkunderwood (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are probably the most German-friendly group of editors on WP — Gerda please note — but that might be pushing it. --Kleinzach 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciating your friendliness, I started a new thread for this topic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline

Can we add a short paragraph to our guidelines about orchestra infoboxes as follows?

A dedicated infobox for orchestras is available. This is called {{Infobox orchestra}} and is available at Template: Infobox orchestra. (As noted elsewhere, the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article.)

Thanks. Kleinzach 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sentences can be shortened to: "A dedicated infobox, {{Infobox orchestra}}, is available." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Native name fields again added

The native name fields have again been added to the template[6]. As there is no significant support for these fields (adding invented translated names of orchestras that don't have official English names) I've reverted. It really is difficult to develop bona fide info boxes for CM articles when this kind of thing is going on. This again illustrates why so many of us think the attempt to work on fit for purpose boxes is counter-productive. (And yes, the same editor, is of course involved here.) Kleinzach 04:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time today these fields have been added. [7]. --Kleinzach 15:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with that field? I fail to understand how you improve the encyclopedia by preventing a reader or re-user from getting the information that the Vienna Philharmonic is called Wiener Philharmoniker in its native language. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus example. See the first sentence of the Vienna Philharmonic lead: "The Vienna Philharmonic (in German: Wiener Philharmoniker), founded . . . . " Of course no one is preventing the reader seeing this. That's not the point. And it's important to remember that the Vienna Philharmonic is an official name. --Kleinzach 14:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kleinzach's claim that the field (singular) is for "invented translated names" (my emphasis) is bogus. He offers no explanation for his removal of HTML classes unrelated to the native_name parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. But surely we don't fix the problem of folks supplying incorrect information by removing everyone's ability to supply any information at all? --RexxS (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation/unnecessary field added without discussion

I've now implemented a lot of these boxes, removing the old pop music ones.

Unfortunately ‘that editor’ has again changed this orchestra infobox, this time adding a 'short name' field. [8] [9] As before this was done without discussion. I've reverted, though I expect the field will soon be put back and perhaps others will be put in as well. (The user knows that I observe WP:1RR). After going through many of these articles, I haven’t found one instance where this 'short name' field would be useful. Kleinzach 04:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied - including a rebuttal of your final assertion - on the template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, it would be great to hear a few opinions on the recent additions of infoboxes to classical composition articles (see {{Infobox musical composition}} and Mass No. 5 (Schubert) for a usage example).

I personally think it's not /hugely/ necessary. It contains the sort of metadata that should be in the introduction (eg composition date, key, instrumentation) or at the very least within the article somewhere. I see the necessity of {{infobox song}} in non-classical song articles, where record label etc information might not be repeated within the article - but the musical composition parameters cover the sort of information that are inherent in any discussion of the composition and any prose about the composition.

That said, I can see that it is useful for a certain kind of reader, and when used properly it can give a good overview of the composition. So, I'm torn.

The infobox is currently being added piecemeal to various compositions, which doesn't help to achieve cohesiveness in terms of look or application of the template. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know {{Infobox musical composition}} existed. It seems to have been recently developed by Pigsonthewing [10] and Gerda Arendt [11] apparently without notifying the project.

The box has too many fields. Help:Infoboxes and MOS:INFOBOX explain how infoboxes are supposed to work. Essentially they are there to summarise the main facts from the article. They should not be there to accumulate trivia. The contents of boxes should be balanced and proportionate per WP:UNDUE, a policy that applies to boxes, and other ancillary material, as well as article text. Kleinzach 14:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the infobox in the development of {{infobox opera}}. It exists since 2008, well before I even started at Wikipedia, so I took for granted that it is known. I added only a few fields such as catalogue number which I find essential. Not all fields will be used. - The template appears in Messiah structure, that article had more than 2000 views in the last 30 days, I noticed no complaints ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] A cursory examination of the infoboxes history will show that it has existed since 2008. It contains no trivia; and does not have "too many fields". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such metadata in the lede is not machine-readable. Once in an infobox, it is; and can thus be queried programatically. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the infobox duplicates info is ALWAYS invalid. In fact ideally there shouldn't be info in an infobox that ISN'T duplicated in the article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The argument that the infobox duplicates info is ALWAYS invalid." "Citation needed", I fear. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:INFOBOX: "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Melodia, I don't think that's necessarily always true. Check out song infoboxes, or, to use a totally different example, geographical infoboxes with metadata that doesn't merit repetition in the article. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A related discussion is taking place at Talk:Sparrow Mass, I'm about to alert the users there to this wider discussion. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well even if they don't strive to the ideal (of only including info in the article), saying they are bad /because/ of it is contrary of the whole point of them in the first place, as Andy notes about in MOS:INFOBOX. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The norm in Wikipedia articles is to provide a very brief summary of key items in an infobox in the top right of an article. This provides a consistent framework element for re-users like Google to automatically extract information - see Intelligence in Wikipedia. It also marks up many items with standard classes that can be recognised by others who scan our articles to collect information in microformats. For the casual reader, an infobox has the same relationship to a well-written lead as that lead has to the rest of the article: if a lead provides a 2-minute summary of the article, then an infobox provides a 20-second overview of the lead. Redundancy is necessarily built in to an infobox, just as it is in the lead.

There are, of course, many reasons why either an infobox or some of its contents may not be appropriate in a particular article, but each needs to be examined on an individual basis: sometimes the précis will oversimplify and mislead; sometimes the amount of information in the infobox overwhelms a short article; but the case needs to be made. The same reasons for an infobox exist in every article; while the reasons against will vary and often do not exist. It is true that the weight of argument will be against an infobox in many cases, but the onus is on the person wanting to remove an infobox to make that case.

Trying to generalise these issues is a laudable, but ultimately doomed endeavour. Only consensus on an article-by-article basis can replace the general guidance that infoboxes are neither required nor forbidden. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the infobox for Mass No. 5 (Schubert), which initiated this thread, I am bound to say that it appears to be completely pointless. The reader who knows nothing about this type of music will be baffled by the contents, the reader who does will find it entirely superfluous. The lead of the article by the way is atrocious - it is quite arrogant to use terms like 'SATB soloists' here which will just mystify the uninitiated - but the infobox will hardly help here as it uses the same abbreviations. This indeedserves to underline the argument that time would be better spent on improving articles than on creating decorative upper-right hand corners. The waffle above by User talk:RexxS about 'Intelligence in Wikipedia' is of course totally irrelevant to editors - it relates to some concept of WP as a structural experiment for geeks, not to (what the general majority of editors in this project are concerned with) making available useful, evidence-based, knowledge.--Smerus (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the infobox isn't much of a thing for that article, you're way off base about the SATB thing. The issue isn't the use of the term -- which is Wikilinked so anyone can see what it means if they are "mystified" -- but that the instrumentation simply shouldn't be in the lead. I imagine this is a result of an older version of the article not having sections. Calling it arrogent to use a commonly accepted term though? Talk about things that drive editors away. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree about instrumentation. But things that are 'accepted' by you and me and other cognoscenti aren't necessarily comprehensible to the uninitiated. That is what I was getting at. I am more concerned about driving readers away than driving editors away; after all we editors are of course all sane, wise and reasonable fellows :-}. --Smerus (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

aren't necessarily comprehensible to the uninitiated...which is why wikilinks exist. If someone doesn't know what it means, they click and find out. Just because some people may not know a perfectly valid term doesn't mean should dumb things down, especially when there's really nothing better. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The breakdown of Mass No. 5 (Schubert) is totally detracting from the actual point of my original question, but okay, I'll bite. What's wrong with having the instrumentation in the lede? The orchestration of these masses is necessarily small and doesn't justify its own section. Precedent exists in, say, Requiem (Mozart), another piece with a fairly small orchestration. It makes sense to give the orchestra its own section when it's a massive component - think Requiem (Berlioz)#Instrumentation, but otherwise it's not important on its own. I could move it into the "structure" section to form a "structure and instrumentation" section but the instruments are often discussed in the background sections, so they need to be mentioned at some point beforehand. I question where either of you would put it. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments on the lede, Smerus. As a person unaccustomed to regular article-writing, it's most encouraging to me. I suppose the irony and hypocrisy of calling something "arrogant" in the same breath as passing your judgement on it being "atrocious" is lost on you? At the very least, I now know not to bring my articles to this talk page. I realise it's far easier to snicker at something behind the relatively closed doors of this WikiProject than to click over to the article and fix a minor problem.

As to the "arrogance" of using an apparently misleading term in the lede (which, by the way, is perfectly appropriate usage in the context of what you are reading - an article about religious music) - guess what your average Wikipedia reader does when they are confronted with a wikilinked term they don't know? They click it. It's kind of the point of this place. Could it be that you're the one who has become unfamiliar with reader behaviour in favour of passing editorial judgement on articles? ~ Riana ⁂ 05:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring

We discussed an infobox on Bach's works in great length (archived). There we arrived at a solution to list the instruments he used - highly important because he assigned special meaning to specific instruments - by abbreviations, that are at present listed in the list of Bach cantatas. Growing to more general: is there an article on the two-letter-abbreviations used for instruments in later scoring? Can we develop something that explains that a Tr meant a different trumpet for Bach than for Wagner? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Bach trumpet? (Although, I have no idea if that's the trumpet you're talking about.) Voceditenore (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about abbreviations in the scoring section of an infobox, no link there, just an explanation of the abbreviation, but depending on the period, it will mean a different instrument, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there's an article for the particular kind of trumpet used in a particular piece, e.g. natural trumpet, piccolo trumpet, etc. then use that name in the {{abbr}}, template for that particular piece. e.g.

{{abbr|Tr|natural trumpet}} which produces Tr

If the reader is mystified, they can look it up later. Am I missing something about what you want to do in the box that you couldn't accomplish that way? I suppose you could write a whole essay about the different kinds of trumpets, e.g. Tr. Voceditenore (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably have a language problem. KISS: I am looking for a list of the two-letter-abbreviations that musical publishers use. Do we have such a thing? - We have it for Bach, see above. Should we make it a separate article, because it doesn't only apply to the cantatas?

ps: I do/did use the fashion you describe above, but see the talk of St Matthew Passion structure and Mass in B minor structure, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you're getting at, I thiiiink. ;-) There's certainly a precedent for creating one. See List of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions, List of abbreviations in photography, List of medieval abbreviations, etc. It could be a useful page to have. I notice those musical score abbreviations appear in some opera articles too. They're quite off-putting and I suspect totally mystifying to the general reader. When I have the time, I tend to go through and convert them to real words: "2 flutes". Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out there is already an article for scoring, Shorthand for orchestra instrumentation. - Voceditenore (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you got it! In an article, consider "two flutes" ;) In an article, I always use the complete names of the instrument. But in an infobox (and in a list of movements) we have limited space, there (!) I think to offer the "natural trumpet" as you suggested above is a good compromise, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to raise the following issue at the Village Pump here, but have met only with the obtuse comments of an apparently offended Russian editor - so I raise the issue here for comments/advice.

In summary: there seems to have arisen a convention, in giving names in Russian Cyrillic script in English WP, of clarifying stress in words by placing accents on the Cyrillic syllables, (rather than relying on the IPA transcription, or providing an accented English version). In articles on e.g. English subjects (e.g. Churchill) or French subjects (e.g. Honoré de Balzac) no guide on accent is provided, save where this may be indicated by IPA pronunciation. These accents do not exist in normal written or printed Russian; however, Russian WP does provide guide to stressing names in the first line of the lead: thus the Russian article on Tchaikovsky, which is titled 'Чайковский, Пётр Ильич' (i.e. without stress accents), begins ' Пётр Ильи́ч Чайко́вский....'

The English WP guidelines are quite clear: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia) gives the example correctly, without stress accents:

1. Example: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (Russian: Пётр Ильич Чайковский)

However the English WP article begins:' Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (/[invalid input: 'icon']ˈpjɔːtər ɪˈliɪtʃ tʃaɪˈkɒfski/; Russian: Пётр Ильи́ч Чайко́вский....' (I have added the bold face to the accented vowels). And thus with virtually all other English WP articles on Russian composers and musicians (and indeed all other Russians).

This is highly misleading to English WP readers, not familiar with Cyrillic, who might wish for some reason to transcribe the name in Cyrillic and will be receving incorrect information from the articles, as these stress marks are not part of the spelling. (To be explicit, it is as if Russians were to give the orthography of Churchill's English name as 'Wínston Léonard Spéncer-Chúrchill').

I suspect this situation has come about both from English editors transcribing direct from Russian WP, and from over-zealous Russian editors of English WP seeking to export Russian WP conventions.

If we do wish to indicate where stress lies (and that seems a perfectly worthy objective if people like it), the convention should be to provide a stressed version in English (or IPA) script, and to take the stresses off the Cyrillic names. Whateverone's attitude on this question, the use of stresses on Cyrillic names in English WP is unencyclopaedic (and indeed pointless, as those who can't read Cyrllic make no sense of it, and those who do gain no information from it).

As this seems to be a virus which has infected English WP wholesale, I am at a loss as to where I can raise it where I can get some attention, so all comments would be welcome. But can I propose anyway that we include in the WP Classical Music guidelines that such stress-marks , where they are not part of the standard orthography, should not be included where names are given in foreign scripts, and that we should adhere to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia)? --Smerus (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments, in random order.

• As a Russian speaker, I have often been helped by discovering the stress in a particular name is not where I always assumed it was.
• Russian WP uses them extensively (but like English WP, only to show how a name is pronounced, not all the way through the text)
• I have seen little to no evidence that anyone believes the stress marks are part of the standard spelling, apart from the umlaut in ё.
• Stress marks are widely used throughout WP's articles on Russians, and we should not have a different policy for classical musicians than applies generally. This discussion should really be taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Russia). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have nothing against stress marks - but surely in English WP they should come on English text, rather than on Cyrillic text which most English users will not be able to comprehend? I will move this discussion as you suggest to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Russia). --Smerus (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ihave moved it - but am not greatly hopeful of any response, since the last posting there was October 2011 - and, as I have pointed out above, the guideline standard is already without stress accents - still, let's see............--Smerus (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Can I anyway propose that this project should adopt as a guideline something as follows, which would obviate the need for a stressed version of Cyrillic (or any other language):

Where the stress in a foreign name is not obvious, this should be indicated in the lead section by a stressed version of the name in English.

Thus the first line of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky might then read:

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (stressed Pyótr Ilyích Tchaikóvsky, /[invalid input: 'icon']ˈpjɔːtər ɪˈliɪtʃ tʃaɪˈkɒfski/; Russian: Пётр Ильич Чайковский;)....

--Smerus (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I'm not wedded to that idea. It's one thing to indicate how the Russian is stressed, but there's a lot more to the pronunciation than just the stress. I mean, how many English speakers say the -ch- correctly in Rachmaninoff; or Bach, for that matter? We don't get into telling them that it's not supposed to be like a hard -k-, which is how most say it. And then there's Chopin (not show-pan), Saint-Saëns (not sant-song), Strauss (not strows) and so on forever. I like the sentiment behind your idea, but I don't think it will float. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The (mousable) phonetic transcription already contains the stress marks for the Russian-language pronunciation which, as Jack points out, generally differs from the commonly used English-language pronunciation/s. 86.164.171.247 (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orchestral Suites (Bach), really? I was told that it is masses, not Masses. Then it should be suites, not Suites, like Brandenburg concertos, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- kosboot (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as the word 'suites' is generic, lowercase is the way to go. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First link is to the move request, sort of, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there possibly some confusion here? Generic titles (according to WP:Manual of Style/Music) are not to be italicized, but nevertheless are capitalized, like any other title. Do I understand correctly that all generic titles should be lowercased? In that case, should it be Beethoven's symphony no. 5, or Brahms's horn trio in E-flat major? I would find this very strange indeed. As to the Brandenburg concertos, doesn't that qualify as a true title or, at least, the "Brandenburg" part (as in Ives's Concord Sonata—whoops, I mean sonata)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Orchestral suites" is not the title of any piece by Bach. Is that the source of confusion? Toccata quarta (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if there were four separate articles, they'd be capitalized as they are at IMSLP? [12]. And what about these? Orchestral Suite No. 1 (Tchaikovsky)? What problem are we trying to solve here?DavidRF (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Orchestral Suite No. 1" is a piece, "orchestral suites" is not. See for example [13]. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. So we have articles for Mozart piano concertos and Piano Concerto No. 23 (Mozart). Makes sense.DavidRF (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, I can see the logic. MelodiaChaconne's explanation that "the word 'suites' is generic" is simply confusing (in my mind) the concept of "generic title" with something less specific. I still wonder about "Brandenburg concertos", though. Is this also "generic" in the sense that "suites" are? Are there many Brandenburg concertos written by various composers, or just the set of six composed by Bach? If this is generic, then what of sets by other composers, such as the Strathclyde Concertos or the Naxos Quartets by Peter Maxwell Davies?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. There's one Hamburg Concerto, playing with the Brandenburg, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "concerto" part of the title is generic, or would be if it were appropriate to divide it up and analyse each word individually. But we don't do that. "Brandenburg" is not a descriptor such as appears in "Paris symphonies" or "the London Bach". "Brandenburg" doesn't refer to a place at all, but to a person. It may not be the title Bach gave them, but we should no more be talking of the "Brandenburg concertos" than we would talk of the "Warsaw concerto". "Warsaw Concerto" is a true title and every word is capitalised. Same is true for "Brandenburg Concerto No. 2", and same is true for "Brandenburg Concertos". But to return to the topic, it should be "Orchestral suites". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Glass primarily a composer, or should he be described as a “composer and performer of contemporary classical music”. Please see the discussion on the talk page here. --Kleinzach 05:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to say "primarily"? Bach was a composer, but also a performer, conductor, educator, organ expert ... - why limit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was at my local Meetup this weekend where I got into a discussion with a WP administrator. In short, I espoused the opinion that creation of an article should have at least a paragraph's worth of information in addition to sources. This administrator, as one of those who is responsible for deleting AfDs, felt that (assuming notability) all an article needs is a sentence and source to justify creation. I'm wondering how this project feels about the issue. -- kosboot (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kosboot. There seems to be a long-standing (perhaps sentimental?) idea at WP that an article that starts out extremely modestly can, with tender loving care, eventually blossom into something worthwhile. I think your approach is actually more sensible, and would fit in well with ongoing efforts by our project to emphasize scholarly quality. However, I worry that a project-specific policy is likely to create conflict, especially with non-project members. A ban on very short articles might end up being more trouble than it's worth. Opus33 (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think many of the stubs we'd be worried about creating already exist. There is certainly no shortage of classical music stubs. See Category:Classical composition stubs. Kosboot, did you have particular articles in mind or was it more of a hypothetical question?DavidRF (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was more hypothetical. If I let myself create 1-sentence stubs, I could create dozens of articles in a single day. But ever since childhood, I've been haunted by the aphorism: "If we learn a little about a lot, we will soon know nothing about everything." So I'm the type that would rather do more to one article than create little stubs (although at times, having a even just stub would be helpful). -- kosboot (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For an actual example of such a stub article Oboe quartet was created in February of 2009 as a stub article and has not been seriously updated since then, compare that with the equivalent article for String quartet or even the article for Oboe quintet.Graham1973 (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very short stub can be of value if it links to something substantial in a different language, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it can't, Gerda. This is English Wikipedia. We should assume that it is for readers of English who may not be able to deal with other languages. Such stubs might have value for you (or even me) but that doesn't in itself justify them.--Smerus (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth creating a category or categories for "Settings of works by author"? What brought this to mind was my trying to find song and choral settings of Whitman poems. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea. I'm intrigued when I encounter different settings of the same poem by different composers. Opus33 (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made Category:Musical settings of poems by author and started work on the Whitman category. Immediately of course I had a dilemma over what to do about Shakespeare... some musical settings aren't of "poems" (eg. Serenade to Music), and oh my god operas, most Shakespeare operas just adapt his story and don't set his text but... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a cat for Heinrich Heine.Smerus (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following up - what do you think of settings where the original text is translated, some times more loosely than others? I'm thinking of "None but the lonely heart" (Goethe, but in Russian) or "The Bells" (Poe, Russian). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been creating a lot of templates of late. One of my most recent is {{Faust navbox}}. I have been encouraged to invite all the relevant projects to participate in the two discussions going on about this template. Please come participate at Template talk:Faust navbox#Requested move and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#The_most_complicated_template_yet_.28Faust.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking if we should implement a Class scale for classical music related articles since this particular project doesn't have any yet. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This question comes up every year or two. Its a lot of work to rate all the articles and maintain the ratings over time. The editors here haven't had the time for that in the past, but its been a while since this was last asked.DavidRF (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think things have changed much -- it seems a lot of work for not much benefit. Opus33 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the project had lots of people sharing the responsibility of ratings, it might be a good idea. But since we don't have that mass, any rating would be a reflection of just a few people - which I don't believe is a good idea. I'd much rather create/edit articles than rate them. -- kosboot (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we mean assessments? We have a page about this here. The total number of articles under this project is 16,523 according to this cat. The Composers Project, which is a 'daughter project' of this one does do assessments, see here, though after the disruption of the project by the infobox wars, I don't think anybody has been working on assessments recently. --Kleinzach 11:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Czech Republic has nominated 2014 as Year of Czech Music (artistic patrons, Magdalena Kožená and Simon Rattle) [14]. Currently [15], Czech music redirects to Music of the Czech Republic, which begins, By the article Music of the Czech Republic must be taken to mean the music, that has been created in the Czech Republic since January 1, 1993.

This is as an issue I couldn't begin to fix myself (beyond copyediting that sentence), but I thought it might perhaps be of some topical interest to this project. 86.164.171.247 (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, the redirect for Czech music is surely wrong - any suggestions on how to fix that at least? 86.164.171.247 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • And the article Music of the Czech Republic to which it redirects is a complete disgrace - no references or citations, entirely about music before the Republic, except for a set of links to WP articles about Czech pop music/musicians. There is clearly a need for a drastic edit (or deletion) of this shameful article and for the creation of articles e.g. Music of Czechoslovakia, Music of Bohemia, Music of Moravia, ( or maybe better Music of the Czech Lands) - compare existing Music of Slovakia, which, if of only mediocre quality, at least addresses its topic. For want of any better alternative, I have changes the redirect under Czech music to Category:Czech music which at least lists relevant articles.--Smerus (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Smerus - a good move, imo. The broader issue obviously remains; as you note, it's by no means a clear-cut one (cf Russian music, French music, Italian music, and German music, Spanish music, Portuguese music etc). 86.164.171.247 (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made a start in sorting these out, on the principle of WP:BOLD, but I will not myself be able to do much work on the contents of the articles.--Smerus (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a significant undertaking, but one I thought it was worth raising here. Regards, 86.151.103.141 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should abbreviations be used in infoboxes? For example this comes from Ihr werdet weinen und heulen, BWV 103:

• Solo voices S T B
• Choir SATB
• Instruments Tr Fp 2Oa 2Vl Va Bc

Any opinions? --Kleinzach 12:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed here before. Each abbreviation comes with a link to what it abbreviates, and "scoring" comes with a link to the list of voices and instruments Bach used:

• scoring
• solo voices = S T B
• choir = SATB
• instruments = Tr Fp 2Oa 2Vl Va Bc

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps: you may also want to compare a similar discussion on several composition talk pages, for example St Matthew Passion structure --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know it has been discussed here beofre, but I repeat my earlier comments: we all know what these things mean, but less informed WP users don't necessarily know. And the fact that individual letters may be linked to articles doesn't prevent these abbreviations looking confusing to non-experts. In my opinion to use these abbreviations is an arrogance. If infoboxes are there to help people, as we are repeatedly assured, they and their contents should be 100% user friendly.--Smerus (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't know what '20a', for example, means! IMO this goes against one of the most basic rules of publishing — that you should define abbreviations first before using them. Kleinzach 15:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we say "Scoring (abbreviations explained)" or something like this? "Scoring" - including the explanation - comes before they are used, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you hover over Oa it tells you that it stands for Oboe d'amore, if you click on scoring, you get links to the instruments. - If you have problems, we can hide the section with a label: "caution, abbreviations". The articles have all instruments in full, but that would blow up the infobox, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps: BWV 22 recently passed as GA with an infobox like that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would making it more intimidating be the solution? Better to keep it simple in the infobox and omit these abbreviations. We can explain the instrumentation in the article where we have more room to work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "more intimidating"? - I see the abbreviations as an offer to those people who are able to see at a glance who's playing, like in orchestral publications. I didn't "invent" them, I found them on the German Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Gerda, taking ideas which may (or may not as far as I know) be consensus on other WPs and blandly introducing them into English WP is exactly "inventing" custom on English WP. These abbreviations seems to me to be baffling and annoying to to novices, and as such they are off-putting - when we are supposed to be finding means of making information attractive. If there is no agreed protocol for using them, you should put the topic to the test and debate it as a WP ClassicalMusic guideline. Otherwise you are just carrying out intellectual spamming. For what it is worth, I would, and will, (as is obvious) oppose any such proposal in a discussion.Smerus (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I politely say that I did not introduce them without a long discussion, linked above? What other "protocol" do you think we need? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to this discussion, Gerda, I would point out that there are only two mentions of these abbreviations: yourself, and someone saying "I don't think using abbreviations is very helpful in infoboxes". It would seem that consensus here is against their use. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I linked to the examples, rather than copying them to here, and "my" articles had these abbreviations - to which I was used from the German Wikipedia - from the beginning, December 2012, - the example above is taken from BWV 103--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"SATB" is a very common abbreviation known to anyone with a smattering of musical training, the instrumentation ones a bet less well-known, but also widespread. Infoboxes need to use common abbreviations, and technical language is often unavoidable. Really, should all the music articles also have to add "soprano" (the section with the highest notes) upon every first use of that word as well? I'm exaggerating a bit, but how is SATB truly any different from abbreviations like MPG or MPH (for "miles per gallon"/ "hour") which may be an abbreviation unfamiliar to people who use the metric system? Montanabw^(talk) 21:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our readers, by and large, do not have a "smattering of musical training". IMO MPG/MPH is widely, if not universally, understood in countries that still use traditional measurements, whereas SATB ("what does the 'A' stand for?") is only understood by a minority of people who have some kind of choral music performance experience. --Kleinzach 16:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bach composition infoboxes

Gerda: Do these abbreviations only appear in boxes that use your Template:Infobox Bach composition, or are they used on other templates? Kleinzach 16:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They appear at present only in works by Bach that have many instruments, - typically right next to the section "Scoring" which has them in full. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps: They appear in the list of all Bach cantatas, of course, where they are explained, and where they come from for the single work, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My two cents. The SATB abbreviation can be linked and its a common description for a chorus so I don't have a problem with that. The instrument abbreviations are far too cryptic and I'd prefer they weren't used. If this section of the box was made collapsible, then the instruments could be spelled out.DavidRF (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The SATB abbreviation IS linked, see my example above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also wondering why the instruments and voice types (apart from a linked SATB chorus) cannot simply be written in full. The extra space used would be very minimal, and it would be much clearer to our readers. The current version is not user-friendly at all despite the "hovering text". This is leaving aside the issue of whether the scoring belongs in the box in the first place. Voceditenore (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define "belongs". I see it as an offer for those who know, at the bottom of the box. It was discussed. Abbreviations are only used where a full list would be (too?) long. It is important that Bach used 2 violas in Weimar, but only one in Weimar, - much easier to see if abbreviated, if you ask me. Every single instrument had a meaning for Bach, therefore I would prefer not to simply say "strings", for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt: Surely this kind of thing is too technical to have a place in an infobox which should be summarising the article, not going into minutiae? Kleinzach 11:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree, the sound of a cantata is captured there, which is to my understanding about the most valuable information we can supply. Whether a piece is scored modestly for a lone oboe, two violins, viola and continuo (BWV 22), or festively for trumpet, oboes, oboe d'amore, two violins, viola, viola da gamba and continuo (BWV 76), makes such a difference to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, if the information is so crucial and belongs in the infobox, then it should be transparent to all readers, of every level of expertise, both in terms of the music itself, and in terms of their expertise with computers and their ability to manipulate and access what's on the screen. The instruments should be spelled out and linked. They should not given in cryptic abbreviations which require hovering the cursor over them, which even then fails to provide any explanation as to the meaning of the term, e.g. 2Co. Even if the hapless non-expert reader figured out the hovering mechanism and could cope with it, they will be mystified by "corno". I don't know why you keep saying this has been discussed as if it were settled. The few times you've mentioned it, the responses have been that the abbreviations were not the optimal way to present this information. You have consistently argued for infoboxes on the basis that they help people who cannot read English, who are dyslexic, or have other disabilities (e.g. mobility or vision problems). If you truly want to help them, as well as people who can read OK but are not music experts, then don't use these kinds of abbreviations. I don't understand why you have such a resistance to simply spelling them out. Voceditenore (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also note MOS:ABBR: "Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation. Remember that Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper." --Kleinzach 04:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One editor here is taking a lone stand on a topic which I think every other editor takes an opposing view. The conclusion is therefore obvious and this should be the end of the discussion. See WP:LISTEN.--Smerus (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WIkipedia is not a democracy. Nor is it "one editor." I see a Green Cheese discussion here Montanabw^(talk) 21:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between an article and an infobox. See below Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of Infobox Bach composition

Based on the discussion above, I have revised the Infobox Bach composition here. I hope that's satisfactory to everybody. (N.B. I'd personally prefer to see SATB spelt out, but I've left that abbreviation in the documentation.) This change doesn't affect the articles directly, where the abbreviations will need to be removed by hand. Kleinzach 08:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is open there, because we need to discuss what to do instead. Simple "removing" is no improvement of the articles, the information needs to be replaced, but how? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no universal consensus against technical abbreviations in infoboxes. Wikilinks are a beautiful thing, allowNote Template:Infobox mineral where there are some things spelled out, but also a LOT of highly technical abbreviations I don't understand. Learning about those things is part of what makes an encyclopedia educational. Dumbing down things is of no help, and I see that being advocated here. Montanabw^(talk) 21:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:ABBREV quoted above. Abbreviations used sensibly are useful. Used unnecessarily, and potentially even misleadingly, they are a bad thing. If each of us, working in our own individual (music) fields, started devising our own sets of abbreviations (e.g. for Monteverdi or Vivaldi works, 19th century French opera genres, early 20th century French piano music, 2nd Vienna School or whatever) the articles would soon end up being unintelligible. --Kleinzach 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, but here I see two debates; one over the "look" of the infobox and the need to keep things concise (favors abbreviations) versus the need for accuracy, which favors inclusion of instruments by name without abbreviations, or at least relatively standard abreviations with wikilinks for the uninitiated, and that the historical changes in instrumentation complicate matters (whereas voices have been pretty much standardized with SATB, etc...) . Does that sum up the situation? Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. The point that I and others have been making about abbreviations is a general editorial one per MOS:ABBREV. Kleinzach 11:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the slightest problem with spelling full names of instruments (for example), as long as they are not treated as "(too) long lists". They should show, uncollapsed. I used the abbreviations for two reasons: brevity and similarity to other Wikipedias (compare BWV 76 and de:BWV 76). If that is not wanted, fine with me (although I don't understand why it would not be wanted). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is a Catch-22 here, use no abbrvs and people complain that the infobox is too big, use abbrevs and then we have whines about WP:ABBR. Feels like Cinderella's stepsisters are at work here, trying to be sure that any progress and hard work will simply not be tolerated? Clearly, where there ARE standard abbrevs (SATB for example), they really should be used in an Infobox. Montanabw^(talk) 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SATB is fine as an abbrev, I think, it's fairly broadly recognized and is even the title of an article. Other abbreviations are much less standardized and recognized. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, something is agreed upon! It's a start. Montanabw^(talk) 19:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Score !!:

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T2189

After many years, one of the most voted and oldest feature requests has been solved. As of today, Wikipedia finally has a renderer for music notation. See Mark's sandbox for an example. Congrats to the original filer xmlizer ! And a thank you to all who helped write the various generations of the extension and those that reviewed the code. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

More at Help:Wiki markup#Musical notation. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

-- kosboot (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed quite a step forward; notation examples can now be generated much easier (not necessarily simpler). Howver, there's also a downside: anyone care to proofread these three edits? Are we going to see {{Citation needed}} templates for score examples? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't need to cite music examples any more than a movie plot needs to be cited. And if someone finds something wrong it's SO much easier to change it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just set an upload running on Commons - commons:Category:British Library musical manuscripts - for a collection of ~400 musical manuscripts (all pre-1850, I think) sourced from the British Library. The collection is fairly patchy - it's mostly two or three pages per named composer or known copyist, as it was originally intended to be a sampler so that people could compare handwriting. (I've had this collection sitting around for months, but I was having real trouble getting the metadata together)

Hope they're of interest! They may be quite useful when writing about the pieces, or about the composers; I uploaded a few examples some months back to help illustrate certain composers when we didn't have images of them (eg John Hilton the younger). Andrew Gray (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is great Andrew, thanks! Any chance of putting up the string quartet fragment of Charles Valentin Alkan which is hanging around the BL somewhere? - - as it's his bicentenary year and I'm trying to get the WP article up to scratch.--Smerus (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, Andrew! -- kosboot (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give Alkan a shot tomorrow (but can't promise anything - I got these because we'd digitised them already for a separate cataloguing project). And thanks both! Andrew Gray (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:-} Smerus (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found out about a digital copy yet, but at least I've identified it - Hirsch IV.1455. f. 10v; "Charles-Valentin Alkan, composer: Opening of string quartet in F minor by Charles-Valentin Alkan: 1846: Signed: Autogr.". It's an interesting-looking volume - all these fragments signed and dedicated to the former owner of the book. A musical festschrift? Andrew Gray (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BL has a few of these sorts of albums knocking around, and I think none of them properly researched. Take a look for example at the autograph albums of the Moscheles family, which have musical extracts (some of them very extensive) in the hands of Liszt, Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, and numerous other big names. (Including Meyerbeer's only 'string quartet' - a joke arrangment of 'God Save the Queen'). You could do huge projects based on any of these..........--Smerus (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I've heard back and they're not digitised! Andrew Gray (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curses!! What does one do to persuade powers-that-be to undertake digitisation?--Smerus (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry, missed the reply). I fear the answer is "pay for it"... Andrew Gray (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows, I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well. I will only be back to work on certain articles. Till then, adios. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how relevant to this project it is, but a few hours ago I came across the new article Buddha oratorio karuna nadee. It is a bit of a disaster, so any efforts to improve it are welcome. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article by the same editor who prepared the equally disastrous article on the piece's composer....looks like some commercial promotion is being attempted here.....--Smerus (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toccata quarta and I have pretty much whacked it into shape. It was loaded with copyvio, amongst other issues. It appears to have already been deleted once at Articles for Creation [16] but promptly re-created directly to article space. I also moved it to Karuna Nadee and left a warning on the talk page. Smerus is right, the composer's article, Dinesh Subasinghe, is a nightmare, but they may be the products of a friend or or hyper-active fan, not necessarily the composer himself. Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Berlin Philharmonic Requested move and Vienna Philharmonic Requested move. --Kleinzach 02:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Vienna Philharmonic Requested move has been deleted [17] (twice) and the user involved has insisted that the discussion, for both orchestras, takes place at Berlin Philharmonic Requested move.

This discussion could have wide repercussions. Should we use proper names (for article titles) taken from 'reliable sources' (i.e. books and newspapers), or use official names (as used on institution publications)? Should we use English or native language? --Kleinzach 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the related Berliner Philharmonie discussion. --Kleinzach 01:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article titles for (non-English) orchestras, companies etc. have not been a particular problem in the past, but our usual approach (of using an English name if it already exists, otherwise the original language version) has recently been challenged, first in connection with the Infobox orchestra [18], and now explicitly by the move requests for the Berlin Philharmonic and Vienna Philharmonic (see above).

There is no guideline for the proper names of institutions and organizations connected to music. We don't have one here, nor is there one at Manual of Style/Music. Manual of Style/Proper names is largely concerned with geographical/place names and personal names, so that is not directly helpful either, although the principle explained there (‘’”This is an English-language encyclopedia, so established English names are preferred if they exist . . . .”’‘) should be generally applicable. ('Established - in terms of our articles — can be regarded as meaning the same thing as 'official'.)

So should we draft a guideline (for eventual upward migration) to obviate future problems? It could be quite short. --Kleinzach 06:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second this proposal as clarity is needed in this area.Graham1973 (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Here is my draft:

Titles of organisations and institutions (e.g. orchestras, musical ensembles and groups, concert halls, festivals, schools etc.) should follow official usage (i.e. the spelling, punctuation etc. used by the organisation’s own publications). In the case of non-English names, we use official English versions if established by the organisation itself. If not, we use the native name. Original English names, translated from other languages, should not be created.

Please suggest improvements. Kleinzach 10:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Would you want to suggest that editors consult other sources for verification, especially the Library of Congress's name authority database (which is also used by the British Library), or in the case of foreign names, VIAF? -- kosboot (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This gets my vote in principle. Kosboot's proposal is a good one, to forestall fruitless debate.--Smerus (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been looking at the Congress and VIAF sites and wondering about integrating them in the guideline, but I do find them a bit complicated to use. Say we use them to check Sächsische Staatskapelle Dresden, how do you interpret the results? Isn't it easier to simply use the official website? Or am I missing something? --Kleinzach 12:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno - I get this: http://lccn.loc.gov/n81147504. Took me longer to figure out how to do short footnotes than to figure out this database. ;) -- kosboot (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I guess we should call the orchestra the Staatskapelle Dresden . . . but would you then like to draft a guideline about using Congress/VIAF? This looks sufficiently important to have its own text.

Sure - I'll adapt it from the arguments used to pass the VIAFbot - tho I'm kinda busy today - may not get to it until this afternoon. -- kosboot (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this (I find it a bit wordy) -- or maybe just from the words "When choosing":

Authority control is a system primarily used in libraries and other metadata services where a single entity is given a canonical unique identifier. This allows clear disambiguation between different entities with similar names, while also allowing the use of a single identifier for those with multiple variant names. When choosing a name for an article, it is highly recommended that users consult the Library of Congress name authority file to see if such a name has already been established. For names not in the Library of Congress file (primarily foreign), users should consult VIAF, which contains the authority files for numerous countries.

-- kosboot (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about this as a shortened version? Is it still clear and accurate?

Naming using an authority control system

When choosing a name for an article, the Library of Congress name authority file should be consulted to see if there is an established name. For names not listed there (primarily foreign), users should go to VIAF, which contains international authority files. (These systems allocate canonical unique identifiers to single entities, allowing clear disambiguation between different entities with similar names, while allocating single identifiers for multiple variant names.)

Kleinzach 22:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in your eloquent phrasing. :) -- kosboot (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a great idea. Going with the pros is (almost) always the best policy. Opus33 (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LC originally did extensive research in establishing names; for at least the last 30 years, it has simply taken the names as they appear on the first work they catalog. The work they use for it is normally shown in the file itself. It is a standard identifier, but it is not intellectually authoritative. It should certainly not be used for non-US authors for whom there is a different name in their own national bibliographies. The virtue of VIAF is that it gives them also. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of this. It's important information. Should we change the wording of the guideline? Any other opinions on this? --Kleinzach 12:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to DGG, this might have been true a number of years ago, but I don't believe it's true today. It certainly has not been true at all for names or corporations related to the world of music - the people who do this kind of work are quite conscientious and really try to identify alternative forms of name and then try to determine which is the best (confession: I'm one of them). For people or organizations where there's a doubt as to what the correct name is, the entries list the possibilities found, the rule being that the preponderance of the name generally wins. People should look at a couple of entries and see for themselves. -- kosboot (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finished

Thanks. I've added both texts to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. I'll propose them for MOS:MUSIC later. Kleinzach 23:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'organisations and institutions' text is now in the MOS and it has a shortcut WP:MUSORG. Thanks. Kleinzach 05:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to two other classical music articles I am working on I'm planning to do a stub article on the Oboe Concerto in C-Major attributed to Joseph Haydn, Ignaz Malzat, J A Kozeluh and even Ludwig Van Beethoven. Online material seems thin on the ground a search so far has only bought up one program note that focusses more on the speculation surrounding who wrote it rather than the work itself and many youtube videos such as the one below.

If anyone can point me to information on this work either offline or online I would be very greatful.

YOUTUBE:Colin performing Haydn Oboe Concerto in C Major, 1st movement

Graham1973 (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is a help or a confusion, but there is/was a Beethoven Oboe Concerto, written about 1793 or earlier. See Forbes's edition of Thayer's Life of Beethoven, 126-7 and 144-5. Fragments exist and it was also mentioned in a letter by Haydn to the Elector in Bonn.--Smerus (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven's known mostly lost oboe concerto (that he wrote under Haydn's tutelage) has nothing to do with the piece commonly known as Haydn's oboe concerto. I'm honestly surprised there's no article about it already, as it's a pretty popular piece. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found at least one forum thread from 2009 that speculating that Beethoven wrote the C Major concerto. I'd class that as unuseable. My 'minimum article' would have to include, where (& when) the score/parts were found and the year of publication (IMSLP is confusing, printing a score dated to 1926, but later giving first publication as 1954). Reviews of CDs featuring the piece seem to be all over the map as to what the reviewer thinks of the work.Graham1973 (talk)

A review in Music and Letters (vol 45 no. 4, 1964) of a piano and oboe arrangement of the concerto edited by Evelyn Rothwell, published by Oxford University Press (as "Haydn (?) Concerto in C major") in 1964, makes it clear that the Haydn authority H. C. Robbins Landon expressly rejects that the piece is by Haydn. The reviewer says that 'there can be little doubt on musical evidence alone that this concerto is not by Haydn... it is much too Italianate to be an early work, and no one could claim it for his maturity' , although he concedes that 'it does, nevertheless have considerable charm.' I think that in any article it should be made clear that there are absolutely no documentary or stylistic grounds for attributing it to Haydn.--Smerus (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Graham, a bit more from my bookshelf. (1) Oxford Composer Companions: Haydn (which is very thorough) omits discussion of the concerto entirely; the only hint of its existence is a notation on their list of concertos, saying they're not bothering with the spurious ones. (2) Webster and Feder's New Grove Haydn (a spinoff from the encyclopedia) has a list of "doubtful and spurious [concerto]s"; the entry there says: Hoboken number VIIg:C1, Oboe concerto; C; instrumentation 2 ob, 2 hn, 2 tpt, timp, str; date "?1800", "orig. attrib. 'H...r'; Haydn's name added later". (3) Karl Geiringer (1989 Haydn: A creative life in music) flat-out calls the work "spurious". In sum, three firm negatives on Haydn authorship (and nothing about the work itself). Opus33 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't get to Hoboken by today I'll check it tomorrow morning. Remember that publishers and recording companies, in seeking to maximize profits, often market works under composers' names even after musicologists express strong doubt. -- kosboot (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest - what title would one give to this article? To call it even (e.g.) 'Oboe Concerto attributed to Haydn' would be very wrong, since no scholarly source attributes it as such. 'Oboe Concerto in C (Anon.)'? .--Smerus (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Anon.) always feels a bit strange in titles to me, though it might be the only suitable option here. Perhaps adopt the approach we use for manuscripts, and use a reference number - Oboe Concerto in C (Hoboken VIIg:C1)? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Library of Congress has it under Haydn, although I bet that's to colocate the concertos based on medium and Hoboken number: http://lccn.loc.gov/n81072643 -- kosboot (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say that I like (Anon.); it has no power to differentiate from other oboe concerti whose authorship is doubtful, whereas this one has a pedigree of sorts, dubious though it may be--in other words, at least some listeners out there know this specific work and think of it as "attributed to," or even "by," Haydn, and the title should in some way reflect that. Of course, saying "nay" is always easier than coming up with a positive suggestion, but I'd float something along these lines (not necessarily exactly this wording): Oboe Concerto in C ("Haydn"—spurious). Then the opening line of the text could make clear that the work's popular association with Haydn, despite the assignment of a Hoboken no., is almost certainly incorrect and that other claimants advanced for authorship, dubiously or not, include the worthies listed at the beginning of this discussion. We'd also want a redirect from Oboe Concerto in C (Haydn). Drhoehl (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable with that title of "Haydn"-spurious, or other similar suggestions. "Attib. Haydn" I could get behind, as it's still commonly said to be by him Some examples are the Chwialkowski multi-composer catalog from 1996 which always gives even "possibly spurious" if he had a question (though granted there's lots of errors in the book), the recording I have -- and most others based on the covers I've looked at, and student performances, etc -- despite scholarship. The only other clear name is Ignaz Malzat (see here in a book from 1999, as well as mention at the IMSLP), but there's not enough of a widespread belief to let it be attributed to him in the title (certainly in the article itself, however!). Which is why I think "Attrib. Haydn" for this moment in time is the way to go. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a name, I like Andrew's suggestion: Oboe Concerto in C (Hoboken VIIg:C1). The sparse entry in Hoboken gives the scoring (2 violin [sections], violas, bass, 2 oboes, 2 horns, 2 trumpets and timpani), and describes the copy as having the name "Haydn" added in a later hand over earlier faded writing. (Grove says "H...r"). In the notes, van Hoboken says: that Pohl believed the work was inauthentic. (Van Hoboken, Anthony, Joseph Haydn Thematisch-bibliographisches Werverzeichnis (Mainz: B. Schott's Söhne, 1957), vol. 1, p. 538). In the introduction to the concerto section (p. 524), Van Hoboken adds that the work's non-inclusion in previous complete or comprehensive editions is an indication that those editors also believed it was inauthentic. I also checked Robbins-Landon's 5-volume biography and he doesn't mention it. It was first published in 1926 by Breitkopf & Härtel, edited by Alexander Wunderer .-- kosboot (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMSLP had a scan of the manuscript, which proved useful. Noted that the 1926 publication changes the tempo of the second movement from Romance poco Adagio to Andante. I like the idea of using the name Oboe Concerto in C (Hoboken VIIg:C1). I've found a letter on the International Double Reed Society website (Letters from Salzberg]) which claims that Robbins-Landon made the suggestion that Beethoven wrote the work in Bonn, presumably before he took up his studies with Hayden, the writer of the letter rejects this on stylistic grounds, but gives no clue as to where/when Robbins-Landon made the claim.Graham1973 (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for the 'Hoboken' version of the title as well, seems to be the least controversial option. But as DrHoehl has commented, it would be appropriate to do a redirect from 'Oboe Concerto (Haydn)'.--Smerus (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ProQuest is offering free access to International Index to Performing Arts Full Text from now until the end of May, according to their blog discovermorecorps. Access to the archives of 310 journals . All you need to do is sign up with an email address and password. (although I think you can get in with this link). Please pass on to other performing arts projects. -- kosboot (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the structure presented here is overly detailed. In my opinion, the waltz is no more than a rather compact sonata-rondo with an introduction (I-A-B-A-C-A-B-A), and separating the introduction like that is needlessly confusing. One problem is that both my assertion and what's in this article is original research; I can't find reliable sources on this topic.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the Chopin waltzes are all very feeble, seriously content-lite: do they deserve separate articles ? (except maybe the 'Minute Waltz'.....?)--Smerus (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have good reference materials for Schubert? If so the (fragmentary) Symphony No. 7 (Schubert) might be worth looking at. It's been extensively referenced recently. --Kleinzach 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Reviews by Amazon.com users are not adequate sources here, and neither are YouTube videos. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

could also be interesting to have an article on the Gastein symphony btw.--Smerus (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are welcome at Talk:List of oratorios#Question. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone interested in working on orchestra discographies? Up to now we've only had three of these: Oregon Symphony discography (a featured list), Cleveland Orchestra discography (also good), and Los Angeles Philharmonic discography. I've just created Vienna Philharmonic discography, partly to reduce the length of the parent article Vienna Philharmonic. This could be turned into a useful page, though it's a big subject and would take some work — likewise discographies for other leading orchestras. --Kleinzach 03:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping fairly shortly to submit Charles-Valentin Alkan for GA. The article has for a long time contained the following quote attributed to Marc-André Hamelin: "The aspect of Alkan that is most apparent when people who don't know him listen to him for the first time is that his music is difficult to play...But in a way, I wish that it did not take a formidable technique...the great musical worth of Alkan's music makes it worthwhile to master those difficulties." It would be nice to keep this quote, (if genuine), but it has no source, nor have I found one - in fact the quote appears quite widely on the net, apparently taken from the article. Can anyone by chance supply a source? Other comments on the article are of course also welcome. --Smerus (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An infobox has been placed on the talk page of the Richard Wagner article see here. This was done by Gerda Arendt, who also unsuccessfully suggested an infobox for Johann Sebastian Bach, see here.

Some of us may want to express an opinion on the Richard Wagner box, but perhaps we should also think about whether Gerda Arendt is disrupting Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point, see [19]. --Kleinzach 23:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations of "disruption" against a strong content contributor raising a simple talk page discussion in completely good faith is inappropriate. Discuss the topic, Kleinzach, not the contributor. All she did was put it up on the talk page for discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 00:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I placed that infobox on the talk under the heading "no infobox" and meant it, believe it or not, following a recommendation of notable editors Nikkimaria and Newyorkbrad. Obviously I have a different understanding of "disruptive", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where and when was this recommendation given? Why did you select the Richard Wagner article, when you are not even a minor contributor to that article. The principal editor there is well known to be against biographical infoboxes. I don't understand what you are trying to do. Can you explain? --Kleinzach 07:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that only now, think I explained on the talk, but will repeat: I was involved in the FA review of Richard Wagner, beginning in January 2013, please study (!) Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Richard Wagner/archive2. The nominator accepted many of my comments, as you can see, but was strongly (quotes: "entirely", "I am certain that an infobox would damage the article", "resolutely") against an infobox, which I had started to create immediately. He was afraid it would be in the way of promotion, believe it or not. I did not "select Wagner", I had a first design ready for a long time, as the nominator knew, but waited until I returned refreshed from vacation to put it on the talk page, as recommended by Newyorkbrad. When and where he recommended that, sorry I don't know, I trusted Nikkimaria, - and, repeating, I still think it's a valid solution when powers and forces are against an infobox in an article. How that can be termed a disruption, can you explain? - I am certain that an infobox would not damage the article but improve it, - is that disruption? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See 'Explaining disruption' in the subsection below. --Kleinzach 14:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The preference of the "principal editor" (however that might be measured) counts for no more than Gerda's views, nor yours, mine, or any other editor's. That is core Wikipedia policy. You should know that, as I've pointed it out to you, more than once, previously. as to your first question, that is already eplained in discussion on the article's talk page, in which you have been involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But for some reason you did not complain about that argument when it was used in favour of keeping an infobox in an article ([20]). Toccata quarta (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Came to ask the same question, the link goes to a contribution by Moxy. - Toccata quarta, could you please edit a section, not the whole page, for clarity on the watchlist? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there was no denunciation of that post. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Why would anyone with any sense denounce an editor for saying that other editors should be listened to? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment there is "listen to the main editors". I have never suggested that any editors not be listened to. On the contrary. And unlike some posting on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, then, in the light of Mr. Mabbett's condescension, the opinion of this editor may be listened to, as a major contributor to the present content of the Wagner article, as the editor who proposed it for GA and then FA and responded to all the consequent discussions, and who more recently proposed it for the WP front page next Wednesday - in none of which actions Mr. Mabbett took any conspicuous part: I am entirely opposed to the use of an infobox in the main article, and I cannot see any use or point in parking a specious 'quasi' infobox, which does not have the consensus of the community, on its talkpage.--Smerus (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining disruption

According to WP:DISRUPT:

Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that . . . disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. . . . Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia.

That's an accurate description of our experience here following Gerda Arendt's action in putting an infobox on the Richard Wagner talk page. Kleinzach 14:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively" Get the beam out of your own eye, Kleinzach. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to depart from minor composers such as Richard Wagner...I have nominated his coeval Charles-Valentin Alkan for GA, with the medium-term hope of getting it up to FA as soon as possible and nominating it for the front page for Alkan's own bicentennial in November. If anyone is willing to initiate the GA review I should be very grateful - and of course I look forward to any comments. --Smerus (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new orchestra infobox (agreed above) has been removed from City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra and replaced by the old pop music box.[21]. (It's likely that other articles have also had orchestra infoboxes removed.) See also here. All the fields that editors here wanted removed have been restored. --Kleinzach 15:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]