Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

Help welcome

If anyone is interested in helping, the article Jean-Philippe Tremblay needs some cleanup and referencing work. 11 maintenance templates in such a short article is not something one sees every day. The article used to be a stub, until this happened. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted it to a stub, as it was copied from two external sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I must say, this is one of the most impressive tag-bombings I've ever seen. Anyhow, I've re-expanded the stub slightly and added a reference to a rather lengthy article about him in La Presse which can be used to expand it further. Judging from the other contributions of the editor who added the copyvio, I'm virtually positive this wasn't a COI edit, just an ordinary editor who thought they were "helping" expand the article and didn't have a clue about copyvio, or chose to to ignore it. Voceditenore (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Another article with copyright issues: Josep Vicent. At least part of it comes from http://www.theworldorchestra.org/the-conductor/. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Stubbed and note left on Talk:Josep Vicent. This article has been deleted twice from the Spanish Wikipedia, once for blatant copyvio, and again for blatant promotion [1]. He is notable enough for an article, however. Voceditenore (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Piero Niro

Dear classical music experts: The above article is about to be deleted as a stale draft. It seems to me that there should be sources available, but they would not be in English so I can't find them. If anyone knows where to look, please feel free to edit the article, which will prevent its deletion for six months while it is improved. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Cleaned up, trimmed, referenced, and moved into article space. He has an entry in Enciclopedia italiana dei compositori contemporanei (Italian Encyclopedia of Contemporary Composers). Voceditenore (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Voceditenore, I figured that he was notable, but I didn't know enough to fix it up myself. I am digging through the old drafts, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue, but there are so many! —Anne Delong (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel W. McCarthy, Composer

Hello again, classical music experts! This article was submitted last year at AfC without any references at all. Since this man appears to be a notable composer, I have found and added a few references, but with 43,000 more old drafts in need of checking, I don't have time to edit it into shape. Would someone like to take this on? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I've formatted it a bit, especially the references, added a couple of inline cites and authority control. I've moved it to article space and tagged for further clean up. It would probably survive an AfD, if not c'est la vie. In my view, AfC drafts shouldn't hang about until they're perfect, just good enough. BestVoceditenore (talk) 10:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks once more, Voceditenore, I agree. Articles are more likely to be improved once in the main encyclopedia where everyone can see them. I've been adding general references to these types of submissions, but biographies really should have inline citations, and that is better done by someone with a little subject knowledge. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mario Marzi

Dear classical music experts: This submission at AfC will soon be deleted as a stale draft. According to the text, this musician has won multiple awards, but the references are poor. Is this indeed a notable musician, and, if so, can someone with more knowledge of Italian classical sources find some so that the article can be improved? Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I've formatted this to save it from speedy. I'm sure he'd pass on the recordings alone, but it will take some time to reference it properly and hunt up the exact titles and labels of the CDs. Give another ping when the next 6 months expiry is due if it has't been improved by then. Vest, Voceditenore (talk)

German comment

Help from German-speaking editors would be welcome at Talk:Gerald Barry (composer). Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul McGrath (conductor)

Dear classical music experts: Here's an old draft that was never submitted to Afc. Is this a notable conductor? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Cleaned up and moved to article space. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I'm sure it won't be the last one I'll find, since we've only checked about 10% of the queue so far. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Hugi Gudmundsson - composer

Dear classical music enthusiasts: Is this a notable composer? This old Afc submission has some promotional links which could be easily removed. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

New Quartet Article String Quartet (Jadassohn) and a query about the Verdi Quartet article.

I've just uploaded a stub article on the only string quartet composed by Salomon Jadassohn. I had very little to go on so it just includes the very basic information, composer, publication date, dedication, structure. I've left a note on the talk page outlining what I think needs to be added.

On to the second topic, I've noticed in the case of composers who only composed one quartet (Elgar, Debussy, Faure) the standard format is String Quartet (Composer Name) the exception is the Verdi Quartet article which gives the key as part of the article name. Does anyone have any objections if I rename the article to conform what appears to be the standard format. Graham1973 (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No objection. -- kosboot (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like toccata quarta beat me to it. Also if anyone could have a look at String Quartet (Fitzenhagen) and find some references other than the Edition Silvertrust website.Graham1973 (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if an unrecorded piece meets WP:N. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just given the Verdi Quartet Article a quick once over and there's a Reference improve tag dating back to mid 2013 on it. The actual references are to three books, two of which date to the early 2000's and the third dates to 1895, however there are no internal citations and at least one quote. This one might be a worthwhile clean-up project.Graham1973 (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

New article

Ruben Sargsyan – new article, may need some improvement. Its creator also appears to have a WP:COI. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Montreal Women's Symphony Orchestra and Montreal Women's Symphony Orchestra

Dear fellow music lovers: These two articles are about the same subject. The first will soon be deleted as an abandoned stale draft. However, it has considerable cited information that is not in the mainspace article. I happened to be listening when the CBC documentary about this orchestra was broadcast last year and I guess that's why this article caught my attention. Is there a way to merge some of the information from the draft into the mainspace article without attribution problems? —Anne Delong (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Never mind; the draft is gone now. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne, I suggest you ask User:DGG (or another admin) to restore the page. Then, after the material has been manually added to Montreal Women's Symphony Orchestra, move Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Montreal Women's Symphony Orchestra to The Montreal Women's Symphony Orchestra. Delete the text and make it a redirect to Montreal Women's Symphony Orchestra. Then, place Template:Copied on Talk:Montreal Women's Symphony Orchestra. I think this is probably the only way to preserve the history of the deleted draft and thus attribution for any material copied from it to Montreal Women's Symphony Orchestra. A straight WP:history merge can't be done because the two pages have parallel histories. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I restored it as requested DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. There seem to be too many articles to be rescued for me to keep up with them all. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have moved some information and redirected the newer article. There is more information that I didn't move because it wasn't directly cited, but which may be of interest if anyone wants to take the time to add citations. Someone who knows about orchestras may want to check my work. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Renaming Quartettsatz in C minor (Schubert)

I've just created this article and someone has queried the form of name I used for the article. The two sources actually used different names. The Naxos liner notes used the name in the form I used to title the article. The other article from the Chamber Music Journal refered to the piece as the "Grave-Allegro in C minor, D.103". A google search on that specific title bought up only one reference to that title. Searching for "Quartettsatz in C minor, D.103" on google brings up about 40 results including the article I created.

I'd prefer to keep the title I created the article with, but am willing to discuss changing the name, perhaps to "String Quartet Movement in C minor (Schubert)".Graham1973 (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I note the Library of Congress call this work "Quartets, strings, D. 703, C minor" -- I gather because the work is longer than the single movement - apparently a fragment exists of the 2nd movement. By just referring to the one movement, one would be excluding the other existing part of the work. -- kosboot (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe there are two different pieces here. The C minor movement D. 103 is an early work, and also literally a 'Quartettsatz', but the later, more famous work D. 703 is the one traditionally called the 'Quartettsatz'. They're both in C minor. The earlier is 1814, the later 1820. To avoid confusion I'd suggest not naming the current article 'Quartettsatz', or at least clarifying in the lede that there is another more famous piece of that name. Antandrus (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

(By the way, we have an article on the other -- Quartettsatz (Schubert)) Antandrus (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Already aware of the other Quatettsatz article as I cleaned it up last year.Graham1973 (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Anthony Plog

I'm not very good at determining whether Wikipedia is copying another site or is being copied. The page http://www.dublinbrassweek.com/faculty.html contains a portion of Wikipedia's article on Mr Plog. Help from more experienced editors would be welcome. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Stubbed. Blatant copyvio. All the text apart from the first 2 sentences is actually from http://anthonyplog.com/about-me/biography. The infringing material pre-existed its addition to Anthony Plog in 2011 as a single block. See Talk:Anthony Plog for sleuthing details. Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

More copyvio: [2], (much of it) taken from http://gerhard-staebler.de/pages/en/biography/short-biography.php and http://gerhard-staebler.de/pages/en/works.php. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverted text to last clean version. A simple list of works without analysis or commentary isn't normally considered copyvio, so I left that. Voceditenore (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Note also the copyvio at Roger Steptoe, with material taken from an (apparently) older version of http://www.rogersteptoe.com/biography.shtml. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Stubbed. Voceditenore (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the works list here, I have never heard of, much less heard, a single composition by Anthony Plog, but to my eye the list is buggy. For instance, it includes "Double Concerto for Two Trumpets for 2 trumpets and chamber orchestra (2001)" under "Solo and Orchestra" and also "Double Concerto for Two Trumpets for 2 solo trumpets and wind ensemble (2001)" under "Solo and Wind Ensemble." Under "Chamber Music" we have both "Short Meditation for 12 euphoniums or trombones (2010)" and "Short Meditation for 12 violoncelli (2010)." Are these actually just two works, each in alternate scorings? Why are there at least two "Concerto No. 2" entries with no corresponding "Concerto no. 1"? And more generally, given the composer's apparent obscurity, why are we propounding such a lengthy, detailed list that may well be misleading in appearing comprehensive? I'm usually the first to prefer more detail to less, but in this case I'm wondering if we might better server our readers by replacing this extended listing with a summary sentence or two along these lines: Among Anthony Plog's compositions are pedigogical works; numerous works for winds, particularly brasses, in various combinations or with wind or symphonic ensembles; and a few works for orchestra. They date from the 1970s through the 2010s, with around half dating to the 1990s. Drhoehl (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Toccata quarta, do you mean definitely do not summarize his compositions this way? If so, I disagree. Drhoehl's proposal is entirely appropriate (much better than the current list and more informative). Publications can be referenced from his authority control. It is also acceptable to simply note that his music is published by Editions BIM. They are a well-known Swiss music publisher specialising in music for brass instruments. We don't "punish" COI editors by removing useful information. All that does is punish the reader. Plog also has several recordings [3] (predominantly with Crystal Records) which could be usefully added to the article, and his Concerto no. 1 for solo trumpet, brass ensemble, and percussion has been the subject of a PhD. dissertation [4]. Voceditenore (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Burkard Schliessmann

I'm slightly out of steam at the moment, so, for what it's worth, this article lacks [[MOS:]] compliance, while not lacking a promotional tone. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If you think this version is bad, you should have seen the struggles I had with the creator at Articles for Creation, including having to blank the original versions for blatant copyvio. The author works for his management (surprise, surprise): "The artist is on concert-tour next week, so it would be good if the article would appear on Wiki". It does need more clean up, but I'm out of steam too. I've tagged it for copyediting. The WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors folk are pretty good at taking care of this kind of stuff, and often clean up an article shortly after I've tagged it. Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:A Boy was Born

Discussion of move request is still ongoing. Comment there while it lasts. --George Ho (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow! --Ravpapa (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin - peer review

I've asked for a peer review of the article because its seems to risk at present gettng bogged down in side issues and needs a lot of work on some major aspects. Comments could help develop a consensus to assist editors concentration on the most important aspects. All opinons welcomed. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

just when we thought the Schubert symphony numbering issue was sort of resolved

I've recently seen a YouTube video with Newbould's completion of the D.708a fragment (which really should be listened to), where it was labelled as Schubert's "7th". I suppose this recreates Grove's original system where the Great is #10 and the Unfinished is #9, but the last thing we needed here was even more numbering confusion. Hopefully that number will not be copied around too much... Double sharp (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

New editor

An enthusiastic new editor, Tal Brenev (talk · contribs), has created two articles for this project, about the first prelude of the WTC and slow movements in sonatas. I've had a bash at the former article but don't really have the time or energy to work on the latter page. Any help with either of them would be appreciated. Graham87 04:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Kudos to any new editor. BWV 846 however, is a big fish - there's a lot of information about this piece (and would take a lot of work to get it up to something appropriate). -- kosboot (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Hello there! Here's a submission which needs reviewing. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Another new editor

Here's a small project for someone who knows what they are doing. Alfred Stelzner invented a musical instrument called the cellone. However, this link goes to an article on a phone service provider. It probably needs a disambiguation page and a stub, but since this edit is my first I don't feel that bold. Alternately, if this rarely used instrument is not noteworthy, I guess it could just be unlinked. Thoughts? Markelf (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright, WP:COI and WP:UNDUE issue

I've been rather busy recently, so I hope others find time and interest in looking at this edit. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Further spamming may be found here. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I read Toccata quarta's above comment about spamming by Cedriclee (talk · contribs), I reverted much of the spam; some had already been remediated by Toccata quarta ([5]) and User:DemocraticLuntz ([6]). In response, Cedriclee left me a note asserting that it's not spam (characterizing them as "references") and asking them to be reinstated. He also notes that in one case, he didn't add the initial link, he just updated it.

My take is that these links are all spam, just links to a commercial site in order to sell product. The one from Johann Christoph Pepusch was located in a "Notes" section, but I don't see any indication that it was really being used as a reference, and in any event, the site appears to be self-published and does not qualify as a WP:RS in any event; the fact that it's not a blog and exists to sell product doesn't change its self-published nature.

Since this is not about one article or just my edits, and Toccata quarta had already started a discussion here, I am pointing Cedriclee here. My take is that these ELs do not belong here, but if there's a consensus that they do indeed belong, I'll go along with that consensus. TJRC (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi TJRC. These clearly do not belong as references (or notes) as they were not used to source any of the articles to which he added them. It's typical "citation spam". As external links they are possible in very restricted cases. The complete scores themselves are available free from the IMSLP (already in the articles' external links), thus any sample page images from that site are redundant. Any text on the Green Man Press pages which has information not already in the article and which is freely accessible without buying the scores, may be useful to add as an external link per the guidelines on external links. Note that Cedric Lee's forewords to two scores by William Croft are listed as references in Music and Ceremonial at British Coronations: From James I to Elizabeth II published by Cambridge University Press, so I would suggest they are a reliable source. Given Mr. Lee's obvious conflict of interest as the owner of the publishing company and our guidelines on editing under those circumstances, he should suggest these links on the talk pages of the articles concerned or here rather than adding them himself. He might also like to expand and improve those articles rather than simply using them to link to his commercial site. Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Lord bless you and keep you

Move request under discussion. --George Ho (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Is Magnificat a song?

There is a discussion at Talk:Magnificat#Italics about whether or not the Magnificat is a song as described in the Manual of Style, and as such should be in quote marks. The same question seems to apply to Benedictus, Nunc dimittis, Te Deum, and probably others. Opinions would be appreciated. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 21:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick tour through encyclopedias and reference books in my library, and then through JSTOR. The New Grove italicizes it. Many books give the word in upper case, when discussing it generally, unless they refer to a specific Magnificat by an individual composer, in which case it is italicized. In no case have I been able to find it in quotes, certainly never when discussed generally. I suppose if there were a popular song called "Magnificat" it would make sense to do it with quotes. Antandrus (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I replied where the discussion started and see no need for a separate discussion here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

24 Preludes and Fugues (Shostakovich)

I have noticed that in the article "24 Preludes and Fugues (Shostakovich)", the "The pieces" section consists mostly of just headings, and has two cleanup tags: a tone tag from 2012, and an expansion tag from 2008. Since no one has expanded the section since 2008 (that's six years!), I think it would be best to delete the section, but I don't want to do that without community consensus. Thoughts? Tal Brenev (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've trimmed the presentation a bit, without removing a word. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

City Scape (Higdon) - Cleanup needed, Help wanted

I found this neglected article while in the planning stages of writing stub articles for three of the composers compositions for string quartet. The article was uploaded in 2011 by a user calling themselves Ttktran who was only active between the 22nd and 24th of April 2011. The article history shows that after Ttktran stopped working on the article no one else has attempted any large scale editing. I don't think that the article is laid out properly and there is at least one unattributed quotation in the text. If anyone wants to join me in cleaning this article up and can help with reliable sources please add your comments below mine. Graham1973 (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

When is an overture a symphonic poem?

I'm not disputing this edit by User:Grutness, but it does raise an interesting issue. How many other works titled "Overture" (and other works in Category:Overtures) should also be categorised in Category:Symphonic poems? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I was unsure of adding The Hebrides to that list and category for those very reasons - it seemed... if not a contradiction in terms, then certainly an odd combination. There were quite a large number of sites around the web, though, which gave the piece as a classic (if you'll pardon the pun) example of a symphonic poem. I think the clue might be found in a comment in our article on The Hebrides, though - The music, though labelled as an overture, is intended to stand as a complete work. I'd suggest this might be the difference. It may well be that if a work is a stand-alone piece rather than part of a larger work, it is more likely to be seen as a tone poem. If an "overture" (or "intermezzo", for that matter) is in reality designed as a complete piece in its own right, it may be more appropriate to consider whether it is a tone poem. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Titles are funny things. Mendelssohn could very easily have called it a symphonic or tone poem, and the world would have accepted that immediately. Mind you, that terminology hadn't been invented yet - but that never stopped him coming up with Songs without Words all by himself. We tend to dismiss Tchaikovsky's Manfred as not in the same class as his 6 numbered symphonies and not worthy of inclusion in a performed or recorded cycle. But he did call it a symphony; he just chose not to give it a number. Same with Mahler's The Song of the Earth. It is a symphony, Mahler himself said so. There are many miscellaneous and relatively short orchestral pieces that are not symphonies, overtures etc, that are not called "tone poem" but could easily have been so called, except they weren't. I just wonder whether it's up to us or anyone else to decide that they are tone poems, without the imprimatur of the composer. Is there a standard form for a symphonic or tone poem that they neatly fit into? If Sibelius had called The Swan of Tuonela an overture, would we nevertheless be classifying it as a tone poem? Just thinking aloud here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

So much is in the intent of the composer, but - as you say - if the terminology didn't exist, it's difficult to tell. We do get into difficult territory, even with multiple movement works (I could quite easily see Antonin Dvořák's New World as a series of four symphonic poems, although the intention to present them as movements of one piece is clear). I suppose the logical thing to do is to go by the "no OR" route - if we can find reputable sources which claim a piece is a tone poem, then it qualifies. If not, it doesn't. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Belatedly, I agree with that approach. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC).

Sydney Symphony Orchestra page needs updating

Dear Classical Music experts, I wanted to bring to your attention that the Sydney Symphony Orchestra page needs updating. An update about 2013/2014 is needed. The orchestra's current chief conductor is no longer Vladimir Ashkenazy, but David Robertson. I would also like to alert you to the availability of an updated logo, which can be found on the SSO's website [7]. Thanks Sydney Symphony (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I've updated the information and done a considerable amount of copyediting per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. The puffery and use of "current" everywhere was inappropriate and made the article read like an an alternative version of the SSO's website rather than an encyclopedia article. The article is still extremely poorly referenced. The SSO and the Sydney Opera House section is an appalling example of personal commentary/soapboxing devoid of any citations and possibly out of date as well. The history section also needs much better sourcing and I've fact tagged this one about Eugene Goossens: "His tenure was abruptly cut short in March 1956 under personal circumstances deemed 'scandalous' at the time, and he was forced to return to England in disgrace." Hopefully some of our Australia-based editors can help remedy some of these problems. Re the logo, I'll see what I can do, but it might take a few days.Voceditenore (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Update I've now uploaded the new logo and replaced the old one in the infobox. It was easier than I thought. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Goossens story was pretty much exactly as in the quote above. It wouldn't raise an eyebrow these days, but he was apprehended arriving at Sydney Airport with a pile of porn in his luggage. This was 1956, when we were a much more straight-laced society than now. He was dismissed from the SSO and the Sydney Con and had to leave the country abruptly. There's more detail in his own article. (Personal note: The senior Customs official who arrested him was my uncle, Nat Craig. All before my time: I was all of 5 years old at the time and knew nothing of these events till decades later.) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew it was true. :) But we can't have a rather extraordinary statement like that in article without some sort of inline citation. I've now snaffled one from the Goossens article and added to the SSO article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enuf. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleting conductors

There seems to be a bit of a spate of nominating conductors for deletion at the moment. Markku Laakso is already deleted and Sasha Mäkilä and Leonid Korchmar are under discussion. Does anyone have any opinions? --Deskford (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete. -- kosboot (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hold on, Kosboot and Deskford. The place for discussing whether Mäkilä or Korchmar or anyone else should be deleted is their own AfD entries. I don't quite see the purpose of Deskford's question, except maybe to ask whether someone is being too trigger-happy about deletions in general. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my purpose was to make sure people were aware of these deletion nominations, not for individual cases to be discussed here. --Deskford (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for assenting to being to trigger-happy. Perhaps someone is going around and judging articles by their citations (I know what's one way things get to AfD). -- kosboot (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carlos Damas (2)

Dear classical music experts: Here's another one of those old Afc submissions which now is slated for deletion as a stale draft. Is this a notable musician, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne. This chap scrapes notability on the basis of his recordings for Naxos Records and Brilliant Classics. However, the article is utterly dreadful and needs a complete re-write. I'll see what I can do. Voceditenore (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Follow-up for Anne—now cleaned up, referenced, and moved to Carlos Damas. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Krka wind orchestra

Dear classical music enthusiasts: This old Afc submission, now slated for deletion as a stale draft, mentions unreferenced achievements. Is this worth saving and fixing up? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd let this one go, Anne. It's an amateur orchestra/band, who appear to have won some rather obscure competitions in Slovenia. If the creators don't care enough to work on it, neither should we. If it is deleted, they can always get a WP:REFUND and work on it some more. Voceditenore (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again - it's gone. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Andre Khamasmie

Dear music experts: I found this abandoned Afc submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. I didn't find any reviews in English, but I don't really know where to look. Is this a notable singer, or should the article be let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd let this one go, Anne. He's at the start of his career with no significant coverage in the German press. He is active only in Germany at the moment, singing primarily in churches. The "leading opera roles" listed are in student productions. The closest he seems to have come in a real production is the relatively small role of Spoletta in Tosca. The VIAF link on the draft leads to Diana Damrau! His article was deleted from the German Wikipedia for similar reasons. [8]. Besides, the article is pretty much cribbed from his web site, so it's not as if the text will be lost forever. I hope he makes it big some day. He has a lovely voice, at least from what I saw on his YouTube videos. Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Advice taken. One more off my list. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

List of compositions for piano duo

It looks like this article was an attempt to list all the (presumably original) works composed for piano duo (4 hands at either one or two pianos). Only someone who doesn't know the literature would think they could create such a list; a near-complete list would probably include hundreds of works, each one of which would need to be annotated (in keeping with WP's preference for lists). I'd say this article should be deleted. -- kosboot (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it was meant to be exhaustive. Maybe if we insert the word "notable" after "of"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Notable according to whom? or based on what criteria? -- kosboot (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The French horn crusader

Many of you will have observed, as I have, an anonymous editor with various IP addresses beginning 72.223... making repeated edits to articles changing "horn" to "French horn". Curiosity led me to investigate this a bit further, and I have discovered that there was a user CameronPG (talk · contribs), blocked indefinitely in 2010, who exhibited some very similar behaviour. Editing patterns common to both include:

• changing [[horn (instrument)|horn]] to [[horn (instrument)|French horn]]
• changing [[clarinet]] to [[soprano clarinet|clarinet]]
• changing [[contrabassoon]] to [[contrabassoon|contrabassoon or double bassoon]]
• an interest in editing Disney-related articles

A note on CameronPG's user page, apparently from his mother, indicates that he has been diagnosed with autism. This may explain his unwillingness to communicate on talk pages. I don't know if any of this helps us deal with the problem, but I thought I should at least share my findings. --Deskford (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

IP addresses suspected of being used to avoid a block (WP:IPSOCK) can be reported at WP:SPI. On the other hand, I did observe these changes in some articles and I can find no egregious error, or worse, in using those instrument names. In fact, calling a French Horn merely a Horn can be seen as misleading. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm so late to this. I think the problem here isn't just the rightness or wrongness of the edits, but the editor's crusading zeal and unwillingness or inability to discuss what they are doing. Yes, there is an issue to discuss about horn vs. French horn and indeed some of this editor's other changes are more problematical. But what I object to is this sort of edit campaign with no consensus behind it. Surely if one wants to do a crusade like this then the way to approach it is to bring it here or somewhere and get consensus for it - then you've got something to fall back on when you start going off editing swathes of the encyclopaedia. Whether French horn or soprano clarinet are good edits is almost a red herring - the problem is that they are not wholly uncontentious edits and it's disruptive to go on making them without discussion when there's obvious opposition. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

PS - have a look at Talk:Horn (instrument) for some worryingly lengthy discussion of the naming business. I had a quick look and just went aaaargh. :) DBaK (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

What are Wikipedia's policies on "Reviews" sections in articles? I have just found one in the article Gediminas Gelgotas. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it more frequently called "Reception." In this case it looks suspiciously as if the subject selected them himself. -- kosboot (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Reviews section in that article is not a proper "Critical reception" section. It is a series of cherry-picked quotes/blurbs, copied verbatim from his publisher's site [9] with no context and fake sourcing used in the WP article. The whole section should be removed per WP:NPOV (and WP:VERIFY). The COI there is pretty obvious. Take a look at the initial version of the article—quite a magnum opus. Voceditenore (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elena Ruehr

Hello classical music experts! Here's another old Afc submission that has some references and a long list of compositions. Is this a notable composer? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne. She's not hugely notable, but she probably just scrapes it. Her one-act opera Toussaint Before the Spirits, got a bit of coverage (quite favourable) and two of her works have been recorded for Albany Records (a reasonably notable label for contemporary classical music). She also has received a fair amount of coverage in the Boston Globe, mainly because she's based at MIT, and the paper tends to cover the university music scene in Boston. I'm not sure I want to spend the time working on it in the near future (at the moment it's a one-sentence stub which doesn't even assert her notability), but it's worth holding it over for a while. Perhaps Pkeets would like to have a go?. He/she has done quite a few articles on contemporary women composers. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's done. A search didn't bring up the stub, so I started a new article. Check at Elena Ruehr.Pkeets (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, now I'm not sure what to do with the Afc draft linked above. I had expected that someone would just improve it and move it into mainspace. Pkeets, did you use any material from it (in which case I can make it into a redirect to save attribution), or should it just be thrown away? —Anne Delong (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne. You could ask for a history merge. There shouldn't be a problem since there's no overlap in the edits, and it would preserve the references you added and the works list in the article's history. The 3 current ones in the article could use a lot of improvement. It needs page numbers for what I presume to be a book. The LastFM ref is inappropriate as it is user-generated content, and the third one is her bio on the website of the PR company of whom she is a client. Voceditenore (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't use anything from the Afc draft--didn't notice the link. I've had a look now. The list of references isn't especially useful for a bio, as mostly they are music reviews that talk about this work or that, but not her. Do you think this list of works should be included in the article? It's a bit long, and not complete. Pkeets (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, since neither of you mentioned preserving the list of compositions, and the references were added by me, I just moved them myself to the new article. The draft will hang around for a while, and if anyone actually uses any of the content we can ask for a merge; otherwise it will fade away. Thanks for your efforts - Wikipedia now has one more article! —Anne Delong (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks good. I was going to try to fit the references in, but this is likely a better job that I would have done. Any comments on the "works"? If the list in the Afc was meant to be complete, it's badly out of date. Pkeets (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing at Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Please note that this article is under attack by a POV pusher, who has even removed mention of Tchaikovsky's homosexuality from the lead, claimed that Tchaikovsky having been homosexual is "unproven" and that the article has "no source [for it]", and has marked his content edits as "minor". There's also plenty of nonsense floating around on the article's talk page. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have time to open a sockpuppet investigation? There are four accounts that are obviously the same person (Major Torp, Pgarret, Septimus Wilkinson, and Koldewe) -- if you have any doubt, look at the first few edits for each account after its creation. Preceding the first account (SW) you will find an IP which traces to Tallinn, Estonia. You'll also find vote stacking at AFD. I'm tempted to banhammer them all but I'm WP:INVOLVED since I reverted him a couple of times at Rimsky-Korsakoff (he also pushes an anti-atheist POV). I'm going out of town and will have limited time the next four days or so. If nothing happens by then I'll open the investigation. Antandrus (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

same thing happening at Nadezhda von Meck... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "Pau" Casals from all articles

Please someone have a look at Talk:Pablo Casals. An IP has been removing all use of the Catalan name of Pau/Pablo Casals because the Spanish name is more common than the Catalan name in English sources (it is, by a ratio of 3:1), but I was under the impression that in articles specifically about Catalan culture we use Catalan not Spanish names if that is what English sources do - at least that is what I've seen. Unfortunately neither WP:ESMOS nor WP:CAMOS exist (or rather only as drafts we left on the shelf years ago) so I'd think asking at WP Classical music constitutes neutral ground. Guidance please. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to provide some information here. I am the IP user and I changed the names in good faith, not realising that it could be considered to be problematic by some. From the links that In ictu oculi has provided and the searches I have made, English sources do not appear to prefer Pau in relation to the song or to Catalan culture generally. I have given more information on Pablo Casals that you can read. There is a further mention of this on El cant dels ocells, where In ictu oculi has claimed that Pau is far more common. His assertion is a Google Books search for ' "el cant dels ocells" "pau casals" song ' , which will inevitably suggest Pau is more common, because the user has included Pau in the search. If we change Pau to Pablo, more than twice as many sources are found, which indicates that Pablo is preferred. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Another good example showing why users should register - so that others can communicate with them. -- kosboot (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Our IP friend has now been putting in a new variant, for example in Music of Catalonia article from "cellist Pau Casals is admired" to "Cellist Pablo (known in Catalonia by his Catalan name, Pau Casals) is admired". This seems to me to be (a) WP:POINTY and (b) not true, since Casals is known as both Pablo and Pau in Catalonia depending on what language the speaker is speaking, and also the same in English books which are not "in Catalonia" but 3:1 use Pau. FWIW Talk:Pablo Casals#Survey. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Initially, you said you opposed my exclusion of Pau from these articles. This is why I restored Pau alongside Pablo, as given in your above edit, yet you still oppose this, since it appears as if you do not want Pablo in any Catalan-related article. Perhaps it might be better, instead of opposing any mention of Pablo, to help think of a better wording that maintains Pau but lets the reader know that Pau is Pablo. I would be more than happy to work with you.

Your unsupported assertion that Pau is used by a ratio of three to one goes completely against the evidence given at Talk:Pablo Casals#Survey. Both of the two links you have previously given actually suggest that Pablo is preferred to Pau. Please support your assertions.

For those who have not read the full discussion, I have manually gone through the first few pages of various search results to consider usage. I shall summarise these results here. In general books where Casals is mentioned, Pablo is preferred 17 to 0. In audio recordings by Casals, Pablo is preferred 34 to 1. In a books search for mentions of Casals and the El cant dels ocells, which is the article where this dispute began, Pablo is preferred 11 to 2. In the very specific field of books written English about Catalan music, Pablo and Pau were used equally: 2 to 2. This is all discussed fully at Talk:Pablo Casals#Survey, which includes relevant links and descriptions of the methodology. Please take the time to study the evidence properly, rather than believing the above user's unjustified and unsupported assertions. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Update. The request for comments has been closed and it has been judged by an administrator that Pablo should be used. 86.131.145.4 (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as 131.111.185.66 (talk), who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Claremont Symphony Orchestra

Dear classical music experts: Here's another one of those old abandoned Afc submissions. Is this a notable organization, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd let this one go, Anne. It's a non-professional community orchestra. On rare occasions these can be notable if they have won awards for adventurous programming or have premiered notable works. My research indicates neither. It appears to have been written to coincide with their 60th anniversary and to pay tribute to one of their recently deceased members. They can always add a brief referenced mention of the orchestra to Claremont, California. But as a stand-alone article, it's a non-starter. Voceditenore (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That was my initial reaction as well - but I noticed this had a couple of decent footnotes. In searching "volunteer orchestras," I didn't find an article under that heading, but it revealed that there are plenty of articles on individual volunteer orchestras in WP. Maybe let it stand on that basis? -- kosboot (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there may already be articles on equally non-notable amateur orchestras here (almost invariably written by the orchestras themselves as self-promotion) is no reason to add to them. The only reference that would count towards notabilty is the Los Angeles Times article, and that's basically "local news". The others are college newspapers and local throw-aways. I don't think it merits a stand-alone article, but if it is moved to article space, it needs to be completely re-written. Voceditenore (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that an article about a volunteer orchestra should be deleted just because the musicians aren't paid, but it would have to pass WP:GNG, and have quite a bit of coverage in several publications. An orchestra that has been around for 60 years has had time to attract reviews if its concerts were attended by a lot of people outside its local neighbourhood. I also agree with Voceditenore that the article isn't written in a neutral way. About local news: When the newspaper publishing the news has a large circulation and covers an area with millions of people, its local news should count toward notability. After all, there were likely thousands of topics the reporter could have chosen to write about that day, and the resulting article would be read by more people than many a publication whose readership is spread throughout the world. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

PS- I spent some time looking for online reviews or reports written after concerts, even by local papers, and didn't find anything. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kosboot: that's covered by WP:OSE. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tocc. -- kosboot (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luka Okrostsvaridze

Dear classical music experts: This Afc page was never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. Is this a notable pianist? He seems to have won some prizes, but I don't know if they are important competitions or not. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Dvorak symphonies sub-titles

Over the last few weeks, I've seen a slow edit-war by IPs trying to place unsourced sub-titles on Dvorak symphonies, for example calling No 8 in G major "Czechoslovak". This has extended to the Template:Dvořák symphonies as can be seen from its history to February 2014:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Dvo%C5%99%C3%A1k_symphonies&action=history&offset=201403

Although the articles seem well-watched, I'm not sure the template is, so I'm considering asking for semi-protection for the template. Before I do, I thought I'd better ask if there is any validity in the appellations and I hope this is a good place to enquire. Thanks in advance for any insights. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem - I just reverted a couple more new changes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There may be some mention in the literature of sub-titles other than for the 1st and the 9th, but if so, they would be so obscure and unknown as to be meaningless. Never once in over 50 years of Dvorak appreciation have I ever heard No. 8 called the "Czechoslovak". We had a similar problem with all 24 of the Chopin Preludes. A small handful have epithets, the rest do not; but will that satisfy some people? No way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Pablo Casals

I am writing to inform you that there is currently a request for comments on Talk:Pablo Casals in which some users of this project might wish to participate. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

See my added comment above regarding the latest variant among the 30 articles affected. For comparison I note we have Jiří Antonín Benda as WP:AT but no blanket ban on Georg Benda redirect with 20 incoming links from other articles. There must be many other German/Czech, German/Hungarian/ Latin/French, Latin/Italian, French/Occitan etc. cases in the article corpus where we are applying (a sort of) WP:ENGVAR. I don't see a reason to make a special case out of Casals. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference with Benda: Jiří Antonín and Georg are both used commonly in English. See the below links (be warned that some of the Amazon results are for an unrelated conductor called Benda):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?rh=n%3A229816%2Cn%3A697386%2Ck%3Abenda&keywords=benda&ie=UTF8&qid=1393773858&rnid=520920

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/c/Benda%252C%2BG/all/1

On the first three pages of Amazon, Jiří Antonín is preferred to Georg 8 to 6. On the three pages of Presto Classical, Jiří Antonín and George are used 6 times each. In other words, both names are used commonly in English. Compare this to Casals, where Pablo is preferred 17 to 0 in books (Google Books) and 34 to 2 in recordings (Amazon) (sources are provided at Talk:Pablo Casals#Survey). We cannot presume that English readers will recognise such an obscure name.

Also, please note the advice given at WP:EN: 'If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources.' 131.111.185.66 (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Amazon is a web retailer.

While we're on the subject of Amazon This however is a CD cover of the Sony Pau Casals edition with Casal's signature "Pau Casals" over printed name "Pablo Casals" ...not that Amazon is relevant... In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Amazon is a web retailer that gives results for recordings that indicate that Pablo is vastly more common that Pau (34 to 2). I have already responded to the comment about Casals' signatures (which he regularly signed as both Pablo and Pau) on Talk:Pablo Casals. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Update. The request for comments has been closed and it has been judged by an administrator that Pablo should be used. 86.131.145.4 (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC) This is the same user as 131.111.185.66 (talk), who has relocated since the beginning of this dispute.

Capella multi-move

FYI There is a multi-move discussion in progress on Talk:Capella (star) which also will move Latin Capella to Capella (disambiguation) which is not showing up on Classical music alerts. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible WP:COI

If anyone's interested, there has been some edit warring at Karel Mark Chichon. Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That article was a mess! I've taken my red pencil to it and left a note on the talk page. The subject and another editor who is obviously his PR helper were editwarring to remove all references to Gibraltar. "I have made further changes regarding my association with Gibraltar to keep this information inline with my webpage www.karelmarkchichon.com" It reached a bizarre height when these editors tried to remove the fact that his OBE was for services to music and culture in Gibraltar, and ultimately tried to removed the supporting reference from the The London Gazette as well. Voceditenore (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Jakob Lindberg

Perhaps one of you could think of a good DYK hook for Jakob Lindberg, the first article by new user Avebury67307. The article is four days old now and needs to be nominated soon or the five-day window will expire. --Hegvald (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Should be easy: "....that Jakob Lindberg, a lutenist specializing in Baroque music, was inspired by The Beatles?" -- kosboot (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William David Smith

This article has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions would be appreciated. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Members who enjoy hanging out in the Augean Stables, might want to have a go at cleaning up the associated article: Yaroslav Senyshyn. - Voceditenore (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bearsden Choir

Dear classical music experts: This old abandoned Afc submission has a lot of references, but they were hidden by bad formatting. Now that they are revealed, is this a notable choir? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks as though Voceditenore has decided to work on this one. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, for my sins, I've cleaned it up and moved it to article space. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Category renaming proposals

Proposals have been made to rename

• Category:Classical music by nationality to Category:Classical music by country

and

• Category:Opera by nationality to Category:Opera by country.

Interested editors can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 15. --Deskford (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

French-language texts

Somebody has just been adding a fair amount of texts in French to the article Ivry Gitlis. Any suggestions on what to do about it? Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The only ones seem to be to his autobiography in French which is verifying some of the information added. Are you talking about all the links in that massive "Recordings" section? They are to material at the Institut national de l'audiovisuel, which is OK, but they ought to be formatted better. And frankly, that whole section out to be hived off to a separate article and maybe pruned (especially the "Live, private, radio TV archives, uncommercial" sub-section which is pretty obviously original research). Voceditenore (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the some of the content of the section "Filmography". Toccata quarta (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a sub-section of Recordings and all those links are to material at the Institut national de l'audiovisuel, so OK but technically they should be formatted as citations/footnotes instead of using that column for (badly formatted) external links. Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the external links, but about some of the content of the column "Gitlis role / content" in the table in that section. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

DOH! How could I have missed that?! It all has to go. Apart from being in French, it's all pasted verbatim from the web pages in the info/note column and is a copyright infringement. Ditto the three lengthy entries in English: Legends Interview Series - Ivry Gitlis pasted from [10]; The Soul of The Violin pasted from [11]; and Ruggiero Ricci - Life is a Violin pasted from [12] – Voceditenore (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think TQ is referring to this sequence of edits done on 16 March. Not only is it in French, but it's copy-pasted from various pages on www.ina.fr. I think this may be a good-faith attempt to contribute by someone who doesn't yet know how we work. I've posted a gentle warning on the IP's talk page. If it continues, it may be necessary to seek intervention by the copyright team, but we should AGF for one round of this. --Stfg (talk) 10:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we can assume good faith, but the material has to go. Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I've removed it. Some of the English-language material was copyvio too, and has gone with the rest. It was gushy editorializing anyway. --Stfg (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just now an IP added back some of the copyvio from one of the entries. A different IP, but both of them geolocate to Padua. I've placed a {{uw-copyright}} on that one's talk page, for what it's worth on an IP's talk. If this goes on, I believe we'll need admin intervention. --Stfg (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Categorisation of symphonies needs restructuring

Please see the short discussion at User talk:Stfg #Symphony categorisation. I hope it speaks for itself.

I'd love to hear from anyone who can explain why symphony categories are currently structured the way they are, and can convince us they should stay that way. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking closer at the current categories, for period we have:

• Category:20th-century symphonies‎
• Category:21st-century symphonies‎
• Category:Classical-period symphonies‎
• Category:Romantic symphonies‎

and for forces we already have:

• Category:Symphonies for string orchestra

as well as the article List of organ symphonies. If we want to change this set (as opposed to simply adding to it), we have a big job. But we could keep all these and then, if wanted, add new categories for the 18th and 19th centuries and for symphonies for chamber orchestra and full orchestra. In the latter case, though, we need to be clear what we mean, since perceptions of the boundary between chamber and full orchestra vary according to period. --Stfg (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Need eyes on Joseph Kerman

He may well have died (he was nearly 90). However, two IPs keep adding that he died yesterday. They provide no published source, and I cannot find one either. I'm at 2 reverts so could other editors keep an eye on this. We simply cannot publish this without a reference. Wikipedia is not a source of "breaking news". Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

AOK. Reference found. Voceditenore (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sharon Ruchman

This article may need a bit of cleanup, especially as regards WP:DUE. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Holy Cow! I've chopped out at least half of that promotional mess, This was one of those drafts that got approved at Articles for Creation in the bad old days. The editor started reviewing and accepting articles after making about 50 edits minor edits to Wikipedia. All of the articles he approved where later deleted, some as blatant copvio and/or promotion. This was the only one that survived and the notability is extremely marginal. So much so, that I'm strongly tempted to take it to AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Maxim Rysanov

Dear classical music editors: This old draft was never submitted to be added to the encyclopedia. I had no trouble finding news and reviews for this musician. It needs a little work - anyone interested in improving it? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne. I'll do it in a couple of days and move it into article space. He's definitely notable, although the article needs a bit of... er... work. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ettore Causa

Dear classical music experts: Here's another one of those abandoned Afc submissions. Is this a notable musician? Could there be references in Italian? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne. Frankly, I'd let this one die a death. He's not remotely in the same league as Maxim Rysanov (above), despite the way he describes himself all over the place. The article is so full of puffery, that it's not worth rescuing. He might scrape a pass because of his two recordings with Claves Records, although they are a far-from-frontline label. He has no major concert career, and there's no coverage of him as a person. Despite going on about the Lionel Tertis International Viola Competition, he did not win 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place—just two of the small prizes and I cannot even find verification for that. Voceditenore (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay; if no one edits it. it should disappear in a month or so. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

References sections

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#References calls for "the use of the semi-colon to provide bold-face (without the item cluttering the table of contents)". This directly violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Headings, which states: "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings. If you want to reduce the size of the table of contents (TOC), use {{TOC limit}} instead." Guideline#References also seeks to restrict the use of options in WP:LAYOUT, and as such is a case of instruction creep. The archives of this talk page and the Guidelines talk page show no indication of these matters having been discussed. Is there any reason to retain the Guideline#References section? --Stfg (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

For some time, it has been the practice of several editors to follow the MoS you mention and replace semicolons with Wiki markup to bold those lines; the guideline just hasn't been updated and it should be. I would not call the section Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#References "instruction creep" but "helpful guidance" which, if followed, creates a consistent appearance. I don't think anyone would try to enforce that scheme against editors who use other recognised layout options. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tatiana Shebanova

Dear classical music experts: Does this old Afc draft have any information which should be added to the mainspace article Tatiana Shebanova? Or should be just let it go under db-g13? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

No opinion here, so I have gone ahead and done it. Someone may wish to check my work. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael Kemp

Dear editors: This may not be the right place to report this old Afc submission. Is there a project for choral music? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Pupils and pupils of pupils of X"

See also: Category talk:Pupils of Heinrich Schütz

Hello, maybe I'm just not with the program and if so let me know. But I just noticed this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_music_pupils_by_teacher

The categories this page lists are not the (normal-seeming) "Pupils of X" but something that is called "Pupils and pupils of pupils of X". This seems terribly awkward to me (indeed my first thought was that it was a joke or vandalism). This very complicatedly-named category type includes information that would be readily deducible from a simpler category type "Pupils of X". If someone can explain what is going on here, please do. Regards, Opus33 (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If not a joke, it's certainly bizarre. I noticed those categories' original version at Category:Pupils of Heinrich Schütz and left my observations there. However, I sense that my reasoning will not be met with rational arguments by the categories' creator, User:Hyacinth, so I'll let it be. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What is your reasoning? Hyacinth (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, here is a bit of reasoning. It's really more interesting and important to know who a composer's pupils were than to know who the pupils of the pupils were. But mixing them up in one category makes it impossible to make this distinction without looking up each individual article. Opus33 (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello.

Are there any pupils of a pupil of a teacher in the "pupils and pupils of pupils of" category for that teacher?

I did not object to the "pupils of" format (such as "Category:Pupils of Giovanni Gabrieli"), and the creation of the "pupils and pupils of pupils of" format was my response to another editors complaint about the "pupils of" format. Hyacinth (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, Hyacinth. Given that you don't actually object, do you think you could change these categories back to "Pupils of"? I think the category would be helpful in this format and people would enjoy checking who studied with who. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

History: On 4 April, I noticed that Hyacinth added the category:Pupils of Giovanni Gabrieli (now deleted) to Category:Pupils of Heinrich Schütz. I removed that category with the edit summary "Schütz was, his pupils not." Two edits later, Hyacinth added the category:Pupils and pupils of pupils of Giovanni Gabrieli and commented at Category talk:Pupils of Heinrich Schütz: "I believe I have solved the problem."

As it now stands, the category:Pupils of Heinrich Schütz is undiscoverable unless one already knows that Schütz was a pupil of Gabrieli and is listed at Category:Pupils and pupils of pupils of Giovanni Gabrieli; however, that category is also undiscoverable unless one already knows that Gabrieli was a pupil of Orlando and is listed at Category:Pupils and pupils of pupils of Orlande de Lassus. That category is discoverable because it's listed at Category:Music pupils by teacher where Schütz and Gabrieli are not. There is a category:All music pupils by teacher, but it's hidden and thus of little value; it also does not include Category:Pupils of Heinrich Schütz.

Having categories "Music pupils by teacher" is useful, but it's wrong to add a "Category:Pupils of Giovanni Gabrieli" to a "Category:Pupils of Heinrich Schütz" because, althought Schütz was Gabrieli's pupil, Schütz's pupils were not. Naming all these categories "Pupil and pupils of ..." in order to create a cascade of categories creates a meaningless morass, impossible to navigate. That theses categories are sorted by "first name, last name" in the hidden category:All music pupils by teacher only compounds the problem. Many of these categories are empty or contain other empty categories. Consider this subtree:

Category Pupils and pupils of pupils of Aaron Copland not found

which contains no articles but five empty categories. The Copeland category itself is categorised as Category:Pupils and pupils of pupils of Nadia Boulanger and Category:Pupils and pupils of pupils of Isidor Philipp and Category:Pupils and pupils of pupils of Paul Vidal and Category:Pupils and pupils of pupils of Rubin Goldmark and is thus not directly discoverable. I believe most of the categories in Category:All music pupils by teacher are empty.

This whole exercise is an elaborate, but misguided attempt to display a large set of relationships which might be suited to a list, a table, or most probably to a set of family tree displays. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. To continue the Copland example, the article Leonard Bernstein, for example, doesn't seem to be in any pupils-of category at all, and it's hard to see the point of this tree of article-less categories. Sometimes in the music literature one sees statements that some pianist was a pupil of someone who claimed (not always truthfully) to be a pupil of Liszt, Chopin or Clara Schumann (usually those three). But on the whole, I'd have thought that who someone was a pupil of is enough information. --Stfg (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

In any event, isn't the term "grandpupil" (and "great-grandpupil" etc) pretty standard these days? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 13:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Would User:Michael Bednarek and others prefer that I move these categories back to their original format: "pupils of X"? Hyacinth (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And perhaps in the future you might want to discuss such modifications before implementing them. -- kosboot (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I hate loading work on anyone, but yes, if you're willing to, I think that would be better. --Stfg (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I would appreciate your doing this. Opus33 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In response to the change from "pupils and pupils of pupils of" to "pupils of", a user has complained at Category talk:Pupils of Heinrich Schütz#Categories for this category. Hyacinth (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your understanding of how categories work is deficient. If you don't understand that adding the category:Pupils of Nicola Porpora to the category:Joseph Haydn makes the indentation on Mercury, Haydn (crater), a pupil of Porpora, I can't do much more than roll my eyes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Aside from reasoning, I would also appreciate if we could quote polices/guidelines. Hyacinth (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
We have solved the question of whether the categories should be titled "pupil and pupil of pupil of X" or "pupil of X". There is still another question, posed by Michael Bednarek, as to whether it should exist at all. Hyacinth (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I never said that; I said the opposite: "Having categories 'Music pupils by teacher' is useful" (just as I think List of music students by teacher is useful). My disagreement is with your placement of these categories. The categories "Pupils of ..." must never be applied to any other category "Pupils of ...", only to the article of the pupils. Example: Category:Pupils of Aaron Copland (which should not be a hidden category) must not be applied to any of the categories Pupils of Samuel Adler (composer), Pupils of Leonard Bernstein, Pupils of Mario Davidovsky, Pupils of Jacob Druckman and Pupils of Alvin Lucier, but to the articles on Samuel Adler (composer), Leonard Bernstein, Mario Davidovsky, Jacob Druckman, and Alvin Lucier. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Michael is right. Things in a subcategory could also have been in the parent category, but for the desire for greater precision. Thus for example, Category:Symphonies has Category:Choral symphonies as a subcategory, and this works because we're saying that Beethoven's 9th is a choral symphony, and by virtue of that, is also a symphony. In general, if we make SC to be a subcategory of C, we are claiming that everything that is an SC is by definition also a C.

But it is not the case that everyone who was a pupil of Aaron Copland was a pupil of Nadia Boulanger: some of his pupils definitely weren't. For this reason, the article Aaron Copland should be placed in Category:Pupils of Nadia Boulanger, but the category Category:Pupils of Aaron Copland shouldn't.

We would have the right structure if every pupils-of category were a subcategory of Category:All music pupils by teacher and not of any other pupils-of category, and if these categories were to be populated with the articles of those composers who actually studied with that teacher (and not with the teacher's "grandpupils", etc).

Sorry if that's a lot of work. Ping me if you want some gnoming done. --Stfg (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hyacinth, you asked that we quote polices/guidelines. The one we need is probably the guideline WP:SUBCAT, where it says: "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also." --Stfg (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clear explanation, Stfg, this seems totally right to me. Opus33 (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, sorry to change the subject but: I only noticed just now (when I started editing the Haydn pupil category) that these categories are hidden (except to users who specify they want to see hidden categories). Is this what we want? I feel that a "Pupils of X" category would be at least as useful as many of the other non-hidden categories we already have. So I'm curious what people think about this issue. Opus33 (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hidden categories are used for certain administrative categories which these are not, and I've argued above against hiding them. The technical reason that they're hidden is the template {{Music pupils by teacher}} which is applied to each category under discussion, including the parent categories Music pupils by teacher and All music pupils by teacher. The term {{Hidden category}} needs to be removed from that template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem unnecessarily complicated. I suggest removing Category Music pupils by teacher and the template altogether and unhiding all the subcategories of All music pupils by teacher. It's a pity to hide those, since the information in them has good surfing potential. --Stfg (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Rats, I've tried to implement the unhiding but the change doesn't seem to be effective. If someone more wiki-handy than me wants to take this on I would be grateful. Opus33 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Free access to Grove online for Library Week, April 13-19

In honor of National Library Week in the US, Oxford University Press is offering free access to all online OUP products during the week of 13-19 April. The official blurb is at: http://global.oup.com/academic/librarians/national-library-week/?cc=us&lang=en& Username & password are the same: libraryweek -- kosboot (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Symphony_No._7_(Mahler)

I'm thinking of suggesting Symphony No. 7 (Mahler) as a Good Article. Do you think it's ready? If not, what remains to be done? --Leptictidium (mt) 12:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It needs quite a lot of work before going there:

• There are cleanup tags calling for better citations and less promotional tone. The Background, Structure, 3rd movement, 4th movement, Critical analysis, Premieres, Recordings and Other appearances sections are completely uncited.
• Much of the text is to be found on this page of the Philharmonia Orchestra's web site, and also on a Youtube page and a couple of other probable clones. None of them credit Wikipedia -- that doesn't mean it isn't ours, but we should make sure it really is.
• There are some words-to-watch issues, such as the use of "pointed out" in the lede.
• There is lots of WP:OR and some of it is appallingly gushing. For example: "Scampering woodwind pass off into the distance as the horns introduce a rich, somewhat bucolic theme, surrounded by dancing strings."
• The Other appearances section is trivia.
• The list of recordings, apart from being uncited, contains no useful information. It's just a list of conductors and orchestras.

So I think it would need quite a lot of work to get it to GA standard. --Stfg (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Page move

Just wondering, what do you all think of this page move? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating! I suppose it must be the primary topic by quite a large margin, but I think the move is unhelpful, because many readers won't know that. The justification claimed is WP:PRECISION. That section of the AT policy says "Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects ..." So I wonder if we'd like to have a rule stating that when an article's title just mentions the genre and the number, then the composer should always be named in the article title, regardless of whether this work is the primary topic. (Don't you just know that someone will come along and argue that Symphony No. 5 has a primary topic too ;) --Stfg (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• (Reluctant to appear here at all:) I wouldn't say the composer should always be named, but yes if there's a series, such as the Mozart's piano concertos or Beethoven's piano sonatas. Remember No. 14, in 2012? Many thoughts about series can be found among the rubbish of Moonlight, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Gerda. Although it's too late for Mozart now (as well as Beethoven sonatas), I never would have used consecutive numbers when more distinctive numbers (in this case, Köchel) would have been more succinct and unambiguous. -- kosboot (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) @kosboot: If not there yet, make redirects, such as K. 220 and Missa, K. 220. Once in that article, I highly doubt that "No. 10" and the key should be bolded. It is "Mass", better "Missa", and has no title, just a nickname. The talk shows ways how that could easily be sorted out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BRD I've moved it back – the next stage in the process is discussion. Personally I agree with Kosboot that Köchel numbers might be more helpful that these sequential numbers... but that's a different issue! --Deskford (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Deskford. A good criterion is what happens in the real world. No radio announcer would ever say "We hear now the Nineteenth Piano Concerto, performed by Malcolm Bilson with John Eliot Gardiner leading the English Baroque Soloists." Ditto for CD covers, published scores, etc. etc.. Opus33 (talk)

Invitation to Participate in a User Study - Final Reminder

Would you be interested in participating in a user study of a new tool to support editor involvement in WikiProjects? We are a team at the University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within WikiProjects, and we are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visual exploration tool for Wikipedia. Given your interest in this Wikiproject, we would welcome your participation in our study. To participate, you will be given access to our new visualization tool and will interact with us via Google Hangout so that we can solicit your thoughts about the tool. To use Google Hangout, you will need a laptop/desktop, a web camera, and a speaker for video communication during the study. We will provide you with an Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC).

Cleanup needed

The article Idin Samimi Mofakham needs massive cleanup. Help in fixing the article is welcome. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tigran Maytesian

Dear classical music experts: Here's another one of those old Afc submissions soon to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable subject. and should the article be improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reviews for him, just lots of promotional material. -- kosboot (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same experience. It'll soon be gone unless someone else finds reliable sources. Thanks for taking time to look. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Article needing improvement

Please take note: the article Musethica contains no references and does not comply with WP:NPV. The topic of the article may not even be notable. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)