Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

I’ve nominated

22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn)

I've put this article up for GA nomination. Given the massive backlog, I think I can address most issues before the backlog clears.

Please could people review the article and tell me if there's anything that needs improving. Also if can find references for some of things in the article that would be great.

Centy 22:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay! It passed...my first Good Article. Centy 11:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Seen at

:

I observe that there are two competing articles:

• List of compositions for keyboard and orchestra
• List of compositions for piano and orchestra

Do we really need both? These lists are hard enough to maintain as it is and I suggest one should be merged into the other w/ a redirect? (I am guessing that may have been the implicit intention of the author of the newer, but more generically titled, keyboard list.) Thoughts? Eusebeus 13:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we they have a point. Centy 16:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eusebeus. Opus33 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What should merge with what though? I would suggest we take the one that's more polished and redirect the other, and I think the piano and orchestra list is more thorough, although I may be wrong. Eusebeus 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't particularly matter which ends up being the base article, as it were. All the good info from both should be kept. My opinion is to call it ...keyboard..., and divide them up by instrument (piano, organ, celesta, pedal piano, harsichord, generic keyboard markeing as in Bach, etc). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the title "keyboard and orchestra" is more accurate, because of all of the works by Bach, Handel, etc. that predate the piano. Perhaps each entry in the list can have a little note about its customary instrument, keeping in mind the obvious exceptions. --Kyoko 22:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, so unless there are objections, List of compositions for piano and orchestra will be merged and redirected to List of compositions for keyboard and orchestra. Eusebeus 23:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, check the two pages' historiess. There's a major edit war going on and I think the pages have already been merged for us. Centy 16:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Help! I am having trouble with a particular editor who is acting without any regard to others' opinions. I combined the harpsichord concerto and piano concerto pages into keyboard concerto, but he has been reverting it. What do you guys think? Separate or combined? Please look at the discussion pages for more. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would vote to keep them separate. It just sounds silly to think that Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff wrote "keyboard concertos". I don't like overlap though. Here is what I would do:

• List of compositions for piano and orchestra Pieces specifically written for the piano or pianoforte. Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Rachmaninoff, etc.
• List of compositions for keyboard and orchestra Pieces either written for other keyboard instruments (organ, harpsichord, etc) or those that actually written generically for any keyboard. This would include older works (Bach, Sons of Bach, Haydn) as well as newer ones (Falla, Glass, Gorecki). Yes, many of the older works by the Bachs and Haydn are regularly performed on the modern piano, but I like listing them under "keyboard" to acknowledge their origins.

Each list would prominently link to the other list at the top of their page. There might be a few works from around the 1770s that would be difficult to classify as "keyboard" or "piano" but I think for 95% of the pieces there should be a clear distinction. That's my two cents. DavidRF 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive feedback. This is exactly what I was looking for when I started this, not a rampaging bull in a china shop. Anyway, your idea makes sense, but what about ambiguous music? How would we decide where they go? Do we really know if some of Mozart's works were composed for harpsichord or piano (or both)? Would we list works like that twice? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 22:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In most other cases, the ambiguity itself would imply it should belong on the keyboard list, although I guess I'd prefer not to split up composers' works. I would "grandfather" Mozart's early concerti onto the piano list just for the convenience of not having his list split up. Conversely, Haydn's wrote enough organ & harpsichord works that I might stick all of his in the keyboard list. (Of course, this rule would only apply to this transitional era. Phillip Glass composed concerti for both piano and harpsichord, so his list would (and should) be split up.)

If a few works appear on both lists it wouldn't be that big of a deal and the edit wars would be fairly minor. The important thing is to make sure the Bach's, Vivaldi's & Falla's are on one list and the Tchaikovsky's and Brahms's are on the other. DavidRF 23:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd you bring up Falla's. It's called a concerto, but IIRC it's really a chamber piece, for something like 7 (or 9? whatever) players. Now Poulenc, that's a much better example.♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just scanned the keyboard list for modern harpsichord concerti and I guess I picked an odd one. I'm actually unfamiliar with the Falla piece. Just pretend I said Poulenc.  :-) DavidRF 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, this reverting has led to some major double redirects to Keyboard concerto. I haven't had time to go through and change them yet. Could someone do that? (If not, I'll do them tomorrow) Centy 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Given there are no collaborations listed in the newsletter may I suggest a page to collaborate on.

Looking through the To-do list the one page that really stands out in Dvořák's 9th Symphony which I would argue is one of the most well known symphonies in the repertoire. And yet its article page is a mess and needs serious cleanup.

There's been a few people who have said they were intending to do something about the article, but as of yet the changes are only cosmetic. The lead needs a total write up, the rather tiresome and redundant use in popular culture needs to be trimmed, and there needs to be more on the actual piece itself.

Hopefully these issues will be addressed soon.

Centy 21:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I was one of the ones who said I would start up a cleaner and more detailed section on the formal structure of the piece, and I apologize that I haven't gotten around to it yet. I still intend to do so. maestro 17:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello from the Opera Project. I notice that the above Bot has been putting your banner on some talk pages for operas (e.g. Pelléas et Mélisande (opera)). It says: "Pelléas et Mélisande (opera) is part of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other projects...." (my emphasis). Is there some way in which the Bot can ignore articles on operas and other opera-related matters? --GuillaumeTell 15:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot is adding a banner to any page that is within Compositions by composer but not Opera by composer. For example in that case, the article should only be in the category Operas by Claude Debussy, and not Compositions by... So if an opera is mistagged, just remove it and redo its categories. At the moment, the number of badly tagged operas is small enough for manually removal. Centy 17:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Any catagory for Operas by Debussy should be deleted if it actually existed. There's only like, four, and all but one are incomplete. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is there's so many categories as such. And I'd rather they stayed. This way it makes life easier for any bot helping WP:CM. Heck look here Category:Operas by Ludwig van Beethoven

My point is, if we keep such categories, any time we need to run a bot again, we can tell the bot to avoid anything classed under Operas by ... So what if the categories are small, it saves a lot of hassle. Oh, and I'm assuming WP:opera covers operettas too? Centy 18:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello from another Opera person - yes the Opera Project covers operetta. -- Kleinzach 02:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out

WP:OCAT -- it DOES matter if categories "are small". Even if there were articles on all four (I havn't looked, and I have my doubts there'd be more than two). Specifically from the second link, it says "Avoid categories that will never have more than two or three members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." Now, I can understand the 'problem' here, but going against guidelines because it makes less bot mistakes is really tacky. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫

19:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

They're only guidelines - (

WP:IAR). Guidelines do not come before common sense. Categories are not there to follow Wikipedia guidelines, they are there to make organisation of articles easier. By keeping Operas and Compositions separate, we make it easier to organise classical music articles. Please note unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. This is an accepted sub-categorization scheme. If you don't believe me, check the history of Operas by Beethoven. Note it survived a CfD vote. Centy

19:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi (says another opera project member). I think that these small categories get in the way of useful navigation by Wiki users. (We're already haveing a discussion on operas by year categories in opera where there are similar issues being raised.) It can also cause potential problems in other ways. I notice, for example, that there are two articles

Große Fuge listed in Category:String quartets by Ludwig van Beethoven and Fugue for String Quintet, Op. 137 (Beethoven) listed in Category:Compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven. Would this duplicated effort have happenned, if the categories were not so fragmented? --Peter cohen

21:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, they're not duplicates. One is the Op 133 Fugue which was originally the finale of the Op. 130 string quartet. The other is Op. 137 fugue for string quintet. Centy 21:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, given its the Operas by COMPOSER X category that will end up being deleted under this proposal, I guess the final say is WikiProject Opera's. I just think that by having Operas by X and Compositions by X separate, it helps the WikiProjects to distinguish scope and work together. But if there is consensus to remove these small categories, then so be it. Centy 21:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake, as you point out. But on the substantive point, I still think there has to be a critical mass to make the Operas by Composer X worthwhile to a user. I think it's easy navigation to a list of compositions such as List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven that I, as a user, would want. Maybe it could be reachable from all levels of the composer work tree. --Peter cohen 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter, we actually did consider this on the Opera Projet some time ago. The idea of critical mass seems simple, but in practice it's almost impossible to define (see below). Regards. -- Kleinzach 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Outdent

Hmm, all pages like that should be in Category:Compositions by composer. I think the problem with any removal of categories is that as we stand the categories by composer is quite well organised, and I'd rather like it to stay that way. But as I say, it's really up to the Opera WikiProject to decide. Centy 00:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have been trying to make sense of the Opera Project category system for the last two years and it's been a tough job!

WP:IAR

and using common sense.

Some time ago we did consider whether or not to delete small, underpopulated, 'Operas by X' categories but found it was more practical to include them regardless, because (1) it was impossible to decide what number of items would be viable, (b) readers have a legitimate interest in the operas of Beethoven if they don't know there is only one, and (c) it makes procedures like that of the bot, easier.

As far as I know these small categories do still exist, although we might check Haydn (and perhaps Handel and Vivaldi) to see if the categorization is complete and consistent. Regards. -- Kleinzach 03:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now fixed Haydn etc. Hope there are no more anomalies. -- Kleinzach 07:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been through Handel, where masses of operas and oratorios were also incorrectly categorised in Category:Compositions by George Frideric Handel. There are still some oddities (is L'Allegro, il Penseroso ed il Moderato really an oratorio?), though. --GuillaumeTell 14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, there seems growing consensus at WikiProject Opera that the Opera categories should stay even if they are only 1 article. So I think the categories stay. What needs to be done now is to organise any anomalies within Category:Compositions by composer. What this entails is that all lists of compositions by composer X should appear in Category:Compositions by composer and Category:Compositions by X. Someone should also look in Category:Symphonies by composer and standardise that as well. Also if there's a composer who currently does not have a Compositions by X category - make one and categorise it appropriately. Also, check if it's been tagged with {{Classical}} or {{Opera}} and tag it appropriately if not.

Finally Category:Pieces is a mess. It seems very similar to Compositions. I'm tempted just to empty most of its subcategories altogether. Centy 16:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just created Category:Operas by Judith Weir. There appears to be no compositions category for her, and a search indicates no articles apart form the operas. I'll leave it up to you CM project peopel to decide whether you want one.

I'm creating one anyway as Operas is a subcategory of Compositions. Centy 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I spotted it while trying to sort things out so that the opera category appeared in the right place alphabetically in the operas by composers categories. I've sorted it for the compositions category too. --Peter cohen 18:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you categorise a page as [[:Category:BLAH|{{PAGENAME}}]] with the PAGENAME tag, it should do it for you, unless for example Étude which sends the E with accent after Z in the A-Z. Those have to be dealt with separately.

Also, after having the bot do all those tags, I've started where the WikiProject overlaps other projects. It tagged during its run everything in

WP:G&S. However, it seems to me things like Cello Concerto (Sullivan) which came before the G&S colloboration are more Classical music than Gilbert & Sullivan. Other areas of overlap are of course the Handel oratorios (WP:Opera or WP:CM?) and ballets. With ballets, it seems to me the WP:Ballet focuses far more on the dance side of it, meaning we can reasonable argue the music in not covered and falls under our scope. With this mind, so you think we should change our aims slightly to allow overlap with other music projects? Centy

20:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The general consensus on the Opera Project, fairly recently, was that it doesn't cover Handel's oratorios - except for those that are staged, notably Semele (written to a text that was intended for an opera), Hercules and Theodora - but even then, I think, they ought to be counted as part of both projects. I saw quite a good semi-staging of Saul not long ago, too. --GuillaumeTell 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey all, quite the discussion happening here... I like the

WP:IAR

idea and the focus on creating expressive categories that really help organize all the articles well. Bravo. Since there's been some discussion of Handel oratorios I thought I should weigh in -- I've been working a lot on the Handel oratorios a lot lately. We've made a lot of progress on them lately and I'm presently working on creating the articles for the last 5 or so oratorios that don't have pages yet.

As far as project-ownership, they're not really opera, but sometimes they are and on the whole most of the work on them had been done by WP:opera (except for Messiah, which is popular enough otherwise). I agree with GT that the staged operas have lives as both operas and oratorios and right now some good well-thought-out, well-referenced/researched work needs to be done to create balanced articles that honor their conception by Handel as oratorios AND their performance practice as operas. It's on my list of things to do, but I won't get to it for a month or two. I think the articles will be strengthened by having both the perspectives of WP:Opera and WP:CM contributing to the articles.

Someone also asked about categorization -- there are some tricky ones like L'Allegro and Acis which are english-language dramatic works but not quite oratorios. It depends on how narrowly you define "oratorios by handel" and creating a good definition that works and makes sense across the whole body of Handel's work is also on my todo. So in that regard I'm open to detailed discussions of how to categorize these pieces, but I think it's a conversation that shouldn't be had too lightly. Certainly Semele and others that can "belong" to both projects (as above) can be dual-categorized without too much trouble (it may make bot work troublesome, but nothing a watchful editor can't take care of). Also keep in mind that Handel's output basically breaks into three major categories: Italian Operas (which he composed as London's rising star of an impressario between roughly 1720 and 1735), English Oratorios (which he composed as London's most famous living musician between roughly 1735 and the end of his career around 1750), and "other works" like Water Music, Anthems, and *maybe* those hard-to-categorize serenatas, etc... So right now I feel that, in a certain sense, if it's like an oratorio it makes sense to group it with the oratorios as a funny oratorio than to group it with anthems and orchestral pieces where it's just a very hodge-podge group.

None-the-less, the bigger question about project management stands -- for Handel oratorios that don't have operatic performance lives... does WP:CM want to take the lead or is WP:Opera a better choice? I don't know much about how these things work yet and I'm happy to continue doing my work on these through either forum. The opera folks have been helpful sofar, for what that's worth, but I've not yet worked with WP:CM. Cheers! Fred 04:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Satyrbot undid the category Oratorios by G.F. Handel a day or two ago... not sure why this happened, but I'm going to investigate now...

Outdent 2

OK the SatyrBot thing has been cleared up. The only category requiring cleanup now is Category:Bach Cantatas which should be renamed to Category:Cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. Alas, this means having to change the category on all those pages. Does anyone have some free time? Centy 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I cleaned up Category:Pieces quite a bit. Often very generic categories are tacked on by wiki-editors writing new articles when a more specific category is warranted... so its good to sweep those cat's from time to time. Among these mis-cat's is often the occasional article that is really "uncategorized". In this sweep, I found Category:Compositions by Johann Pachelbel and Category:Compositions by Tomaso Albinoni had not existed before today and that the famous Pachelbel's Canon was pretty much "uncategorized" except for mis-cat and a slew of maintenance tags. There is not much left of Category:Pieces, we should probably finish recategorizing all of it, but I couldn't think of obvious homes for what was left so I stopped. DavidRF 17:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Westminster Quarters to Category:Anonymous musical compositions perhaps? And Duetto buffo di due gatti to Compositions by Rossini even though it's not by him? I guess if you didn't know that it is only wrongly attributed, that may the first place you would look. Centy 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of its music was originally by Rossini. --GuillaumeTell 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this category be renamed Category:Instrumental musical compositions? "Piece" is vague and can refer to visual art too, not to mention that a musical piece isn't necessarily instrumental (a song is still a piece). -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't our WikiProject also have one of these like {{

}}. We could then ask a bot to add the box to all the pages in the Classical music category. (Although it seems to me that a more apporpiate name for us would be the WikiProject Classical music composition).

Centy 17:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I gone and made one {{

}}. We'll need a bot probably to tag everything under this WikiProject's scope. Could someone look into that. Thanks! Centy 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I've also reworded the banner slightly, to allow ballets under our scope even though they're already under WP:Ballet's scope. Ballet choreography and music are very different, and as long as we make it clear it is only the music that falls under WP:CM, I think it should be fine. Centy 20:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot has finished its run and we know have nearly all articles within our scope tagged. Centy 13:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a cool new extra to {{

Template:Classical

}}. If you include the condition attention=yes then this banner shows up instead:

{{Classical|attention=yes}}

This way we can keep all those articles needing the most urgent attention in one category. Centy 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm cross-posting this here to solicit more opinion/help. Please don't respond here; rather post any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Proposed new infobox. Thanks

There's been extensive discussion at

}} rarely add much to these articles and are often actively harmful (conducive to anachronisms, overgeneralizations and other inaccuracies). However there's been some passionate discussion and even a little edit-warring.

Since infoboxes seem to be in the ascendancy on most of WP, and since I think the general concept is a useful one, I've "

" taken a shot at designing a "New, Improved" infobox specifically for composer bios, trying to maximize the potential benefit to articles while minimizing the potential harm. The "beta" version is here:

User:Turangalila/sandbox/Infobox composer

The page includes a draft "template-documentation" page with cut-and-paste markup & instructions, plus a few hypothetical examples of the template "in action." I've tried to leave almost all the paramters optional, and to emphasize in both the markup and the instructions that they should be deleted if not applicable, oversimple, etc. Obviously if folks actually want to use it in articles it should be moved to the Template namespace.

Please have a look and comment/criticize/suggest improvements — please leave comments at the WPComposers talkpage, unless they're purely technical, in which case a comment on my sandbox page might be better.

Thanks, —Turangalila talk 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just some numbers for those who are interested. Now we have our banner, we can keep track of all the articles within our scope. Altogther, we have within WikiProject Classical music's scope current 2039 articles with:

• 1 Featured Article (Sylvia (ballet))
• 2 Good Articles (The Rite of Spring and Violin Concerto (Mendelssohn))
• 717 Stub Articles (35%)

I think we need to sort some of these stub articles out! Centy 10:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

For those interested in how musicians are classified, but who do not have the WikiProject Musicians/Categorization talk page on your watch list, I have started a discussion

22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm not following this project for a long time, so maybe the following has been discussed before. Are there any directions on the categorisation of a musical work article? The links on the project page don't lead to categories. I have the following proposition to include each work in at least two or three categories:

• Category:Compositions by composer
• Category:Compositions by instrument - on the discussion page I have proposed renaming to Compositions by instrumentation.
• Category:Compositions by musical form
• maybe also one for Compositions by musical genre?

I hope we can produce a guideline for categorisation. Dr. Friendly 19:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather have just Category by composer and Category by musical form which is what we have mostly at the moment. Category by instrument just gets messy. Something like Mahler's 3rd would have to classed as Orchestral and Choral. And mostly the instrument in question is a piano or a stringed instrument which can then be classed under musical forms (such as Violin sonatas).

If you look around our articles, you'll see most are already classed under some composer, and those categories recently had a clean up so I don't think they really need to be touched. The problem is I guess Category by musical form. If we clean that up, we should be fine. Centy – reply• contribs – 16:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed a considerable overlap between instrumentation and musical form. Most musical form categories are also subcategory of the instrumentation category. But in my opinion we should keep the instrumentation category because some combinations do not articulate with a standard musical form. It is not my intention to categorize all complex and exotic orchestra or chamber combinations, but to keep an overview of common instrumentations, i.e. Category:Compositions for piano four-hands or Category:Compositions for harp will not be found in most form categories. So, please keep this cat as an alternative if no satisfying match in the musical form category is found?--Dr. Friendly 12:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This has come up recently - should we italicise the tempo markings or movements? For example when referring to the Moonlight Sonata do we list the movements as:

1. Adagio sostenuto
2. Allegretto
3. Presto agitato

or

1. Adagio sostenuto
2. Allegretto
3. Presto agitato

If one reads the

– 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should italicize the tempo markings in movement names, and I don't see why we would. Neither movement names nor tempo markings are italicized. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In line with discussion a few weeks ago, I have been creating a compositions by X category whenever I notice the corresponding opera category doesn't have a compositions category to belong to. I've been going through operas by composers beginning with A for other reasons and as a result now nine out of the eleven compositions by composers beginning with A have been created by me. If this is anything to go by, there are a lot of categories missing. I wonder whether it is worth checking all the symphonies by composer categories to make sure that they have matching composition categories. --Peter cohen 18:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just been through Category:Symphonies by composer. Apart from Bruckner, everyone else's categorisation is fine. Centy – reply• contribs – 23:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you linked Bax up too. So I didn't waste your time totally. I'm surprised the Bruckner Te Deum doesn't have an article. Actually I now notice Category:Anton Bruckner and have linked the compositions up with it. I wonder whether this is another common gap.--Peter cohen 08:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just revised this section a bit to add the full titles of several abbreviations. Most I pulled from other Wikipedia articles, and it turns out they are inconsistent in their treatment of the original German for all those "WVs" (BWV, HWV, TWV, etc.)--sometimes Blah Werkeverzeichnis, sometimes Blah-Werkeverzeichnis, sometimes Blah-Werke-Verzeichnis. I don't know whether any standard exists, or if so what it is, but, assuming that they don't vary that much in their original forms, perhaps someone with more knowledge or better resources than mine (not least including fluency in German!) could bring them all into line with each other. Once that's done, I suppose it would be nice to spread the corrections back to the other Wikipedia articles, establishing a consistent usage for everyone.

Drhoehl 02:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Bach Werke Verzeichnis" literally translates as "Bach Works Listing". I'm not aware of any particular standard, but I'm not too literate on this particular issue. It stands fine as three separate words, and if you hypenate it it becomes clean that it's "one thing". Anyone want to check what grove does? Cheers! Fred 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Grove has the whole term hyphenated: "Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis". Also if anyone is going to bother going through it, make sure all the "Werke" have the final "e"--I noticed a couple missing. maestro 14:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a list of missing topics related to music. I wonder if any of you could have a good look at it? - Skysmith 10:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Starting to look over those articles, some of them already have articles under different names (for example, I've never heard the term "Vullton" before, but if it is indeed just head voice, then see the article

head register). Do you mind if I just redirect those articles and remove them from your list, or would you prefer if I just redirect and leave them on the list? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs}

06:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Create redirects, please; I'd rather remove them myself to keep track of the progress when I'll update the page. Thank you. - Skysmith 11:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Following the

07:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I was bold and just make Bartok the Composer of the Month for this month, and I placed the template on the main page. Once I get home and back to my materials on Bartok, I will start working on his article and his Concerto for Orchestra article. Hopefully others will follow in suit. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the Concerto, I assume we should italicize it, per

05:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I really don't like it. We have trouble trying to get people to collaborate on single articles let alone lots of them. You should probably adopt an article yourself. I'll move the CotM to the talk page for now. Centy – reply• contribs – 09:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just adopt an article of the month? Would that make people more likely to collaborate? From what I've seen, there have been very few attempts at collaboration at all lately. I feel like we should at least open a dialogue here. Anyway, the idea of CotM was that we'd focus just on the composer's article and one of his works that needs attention, and then also create stubs for his works that do not have articles at all. If we all start to work, maybe that would encourage others to join in? Or maybe my hopes are too high. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I guess we could do this, but it wouldn't fit with my preferred editing strategy. My practice is to read a book; for example, right now I'm (re-)reading Frank Hubbard's wonderful book Three Centuries of Harpsichord Making. When I read a good book I find stuff that deserves being put into articles, and I do that in my major weekend editing session. (During the week I just do trivia and quarrel with other editors : =).) I like doing research "from the book" because I think it gets you the best quality and most interesting material. If I participated in a "composer of the month" project, I wouldn't have the time to do book-based research; I'd have to rely just on the New Grove or other quick-but-less-detailed sources. Opus33 20:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm wondering if there is any way at all to start some sort of collaboration, or if we should just edit our own separate articles. It seems like that's one of the main purposes of a WikiProject, to collaborate, right? I understand your edit strategy of course, and it doesn't seem to jive with CotM, so that's understandable. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 20:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cielo, Actually I think that these Talk pages are a good form of collaboration--both this one and the one at Wikiproject Composers. It's good to talk with other classical music editors, try to reach consensus on important policy matters, see what's up, etc. And perhaps other editors have a working style that lends itself better to collaboration than mine does. Sorry if I sounded like a curmudgeon, I didn't mean to. Opus33 22:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know that this talk page is still useful. I was just hoping to have some collaboration on a specific article or set of articles. Hopefully if I just start, some other editors will follow suit. You didn't sound like a curmudgeon at all, no worries! -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. As in any volunteer job, people will do what they want to do; we're better off that way, since then people do what makes them happy. I see the "composer of the month" as a suggestion for people who are looking for something to do. My own way is -- "what do I feel like working on today?" -- and if a collaboration fits in with that, I'll help; if I'm feeling power-mad I'll go and swat vandals and trolls for a while, or perhaps I'll go and write more biographies of obscure Renaissance composers, and then grit my teeth in anticipation of the inevitable "start-class" tag left by one of the WikiProject Biography assessment drive "contestants" -- who, of course, are also doing what they want to do. There's plenty of room for all editing, interaction, and collaboration styles. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know why "Category:Chamber music" has been changed to "Category:Chamber music, other" (sic) on some articles (see

21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The editor User:Classickol is acting unilaterally and doing sweeping changes to the category system. Centy – reply• contribs – 00:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that Category:Chamber music, other should be deleted at CfD, and all its contents just merged into Category:Chamber music? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 01:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he was trying to separate the miscellaneous compositions from the rest of the miscellaneous stuff in Category:Chamber music. Its noble intention, I suppose, but a category with a comma in it like that looks very strange and its probably better to clean up the rest of the miscellaneous junk instead. These generic top level categories need periodic cleanup because lots of stuff tends gets dumped into them by new and occasional editors who don't know about the more specific categories. Chamber music is especially troublesome because people also confuse it with chamber orchestras (which is not chamber music). I moved a bunch of the ensembles to Category:Chamber music groups. Looks like we might need a Category:Chamber music festivals. Oh, and I'll vote for deletion of the other group and reparenting of its member articles. DavidRF 01:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's no reason for the other catagories. Nothing wrong with having a bunch of them in the parent catagory, it's what they exist for. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put up a CfD, see here. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 23:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion currently taking place

06:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained to

WT:MUSICIANS to vote in a poll he has set up here. -- Kleinzach

07:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the issie of infoboxes for opera singers or composers. Many editors are "enthusiastic" (as you put it) about using them. Ongoing and wider discussion is necessary. Andy Mabbett 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that editor Clavecin removed "S." as an alternative for BWV, explaining, "S is not in general use, if it ever war, for Bach's compositions - Schmieder himself was against its use." I don't want to launch a reversion war, but I have frequently seen "S." used on older record labels, and, at least within not-too-distant memory, I often heard it on the radio. Therefore, I'm inclined to think that it would be useful to retain it here for those who come across an old reference and wonder about it, perhaps with a note along the line of Clavecin's explanation. In the grand tradition of seeking consensus, however, I'll just throw the matter open for discussion. Any thoughts? Drhoehl 20:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen "S." on old record labels, too. And I've certainly heard classical DJ's say "Schmieder listing" a lot. My suggestion is: note the existence of "S." on the WikiProject page (so all editors will be able to identify it), and then say that purposes of for writing articles, one should use BWV. Opus33 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone with any thoughts can give them at the AfD here [1] Nick mallory 12:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that someone created an article with the name

. Note that the phrase "The Nutcracker Suite" normally refers to the actual, original suite of music used in The Nutcracker ballet and does not commonly refer to this 1992 recording.

I therefore recommend either renaming, merging or possibly deleting the article

? Or should the album article be merged/deleted into the main Nutcracker article as it is simply a particular recording of an individual performance of that music? The answer to that would depend in part on whether the album meets the notability standards for music albums to have its own article.

So I'm putting the question to your project. How do you folks think this should be handled? Dugwiki 23:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For now, do the move and redirect. Then possibly challenge the album article's notability. If it is notable, we may need a short article

The Nutcracker Suite about the composition by Tchaikovsky, with a "see also" template at the head, "For the 1992 album, see:"... -- Rob C. alias Alarob

23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky himself organized the suite for orchestra. There is a section on it in the article for the ballet: (

The Nutcracker Suite should redirect there with no mention of Tim Sparks. Most wiki-editors don't realize that this is really not a Tchaikovsky link. See: Special:Whatlinkshere/The_Nutcracker_Suite A "see also" note could be added at the bottom of the Tchaikovsky article, but not at the top. DavidRF

00:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, per the suggestions above I renamed the Tim Sparks album article to

14:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)