Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 46

I notice that it has not been advertised either here or on the talk page of

• Piano Quartet Movement in A minor (Mahler) (Updated/Revised)
• String Quartet No. 12 in C minor, D. 703 "Quartettsatz" (Schubert) (Updated/Revised)
• String Quartet Movement in E flat major (Shostakovich)
  (Created)
• String Quartet Movement in B flat major (Tchaikovsky)
  (Created)
• String Quartet Movement in F major (Dvořák)
  (Created)

I've been working from online resources including CD liner notes & concert notes where they are available, but I think that I've hit the limit of those. I'm planning to visit a major library soon to see what I can uncover about any of the above offline. If anyone has access to useful (& citeable) material about any of the above please feel free to add it to the pages. I've added notes in the talk pages of some of the articles to indicate questions I was unable to answer.Graham1973 (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

nice work, thanks! Now what about Anton Webern's 1905 'Langsamer Satz' for quartet?--Smerus (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into that one. I've also got (For anyone interested in a challenge.) three more obscure targets.

Is the Lansamer Satz incomplete? I actually thought he conceived it as a single-movement piece. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• String Quartet Movement in B flat major (
  Griffes
  , 1903) - What appears to be his earliest composition for quartet.
• String Quartet Movement in A minor (Griffes, 1917)
• String Quartet Movement in C minor (Joachim) - Found out about this one while researching the Schubert Quartettsatz, only one recording to my knowledge and the CD liner notes are not available online.

Currently, though I think I'll tackle one piece other of unfinished business, the Second Grieg string quartet (Two movements this time). Graham1973 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I didn’t know {{Infobox musical composition}} existed. It seems to have been recently developed by Pigsonthewing [1] and Gerda Arendt [2] apparently without notifying the project.

The box has too many fields.

WP:UNDUE, a policy that applies to boxes, and other ancillary material, as well as article text. Kleinzach

14:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned the infobox in the development of {{

Messiah structure, that article had more than 2000 views in the last 30 days, I noticed no complaints ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 15:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well even if they don't strive to the ideal (of only including info in the article), saying they are bad /because/ of it is contrary of the whole point of them in the first place, as Andy notes about in

MOS:INFOBOX. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk

) 20:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scoring

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

Link to

Bach trumpet? (Although, I have no idea if that's the trumpet you're talking about.) Voceditenore (talk

) 11:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So if there were four separate articles, they'd be capitalized as they are at IMSLP? [3]. And what about these? Orchestral Suite No. 1 (Tchaikovsky)? What problem are we trying to solve here?DavidRF (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Orchestral Suite No. 1" is a piece, "orchestral suites" is not. See for example [4]. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. So we have articles for

Mozart piano concertos and Piano Concerto No. 23 (Mozart). Makes sense.DavidRF (talk

) 19:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been creating a lot of templates of late. One of my most recent is {{

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T2189

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

More at

Help:Wiki markup#Musical notation. --Redrose64 (talk

) 10:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

In summary: there seems to have arisen a convention, in giving names in Russian Cyrillic script in English WP, of clarifying stress in words by placing accents on the Cyrillic syllables, (rather than relying on the IPA transcription, or providing an accented English version). In articles on e.g. English subjects (e.g.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few comments, in random order.

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (stressed Pyótr Ilyích Tchaikóvsky, /ˈpjɔːtər ɪˈliɪtʃ tʃaɪˈkɒfski/; Russian: Пётр Ильич Чайковский;)....

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

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

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

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

The Czech Republic has nominated 2014 as Year of Czech Music (artistic patrons, Magdalena Kožená and Simon Rattle) [5]. Currently [6],

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

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

• • And the article
    Czech music to Category:Czech music which at least lists relevant articles.--Smerus (talk
    ) 05:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Smerus - a good move, imo. The broader issue obviously remains; as you note, it's by no means a clear-cut one (cf

Portuguese music etc). 86.164.171.247 (talk

) 06:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have now made a start in sorting these out, on the principle of

WP:BOLD, but I will not myself be able to do much work on the contents of the articles.--Smerus (talk

) 12:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure how relevant to this project it is, but a few hours ago I came across the new article

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

Toccata quarta and I have pretty much whacked it into shape. It was loaded with copyvio, amongst other issues. It appears to have already been deleted once at Articles for Creation [7] but promptly re-created directly to article space. I also moved it to

Karuna Nadee and left a warning on the talk page. Smerus is right, the composer's article, Dinesh Subasinghe, is a nightmare, but they may be the products of a friend or or hyper-active fan, not necessarily the composer himself. Voceditenore (talk

) 13:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is great Andrew, thanks! Any chance of putting up the string quartet fragment of

Charles Valentin Alkan which is hanging around the BL somewhere? - - as it's his bicentenary year and I'm trying to get the WP article up to scratch.--Smerus (talk

) 15:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion at Vienna Philharmonic Requested move has been deleted [8] (twice) and the user involved has insisted that the discussion, for both orchestras, takes place at Berlin Philharmonic Requested move.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A review in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ps:

BWV 22 recently passed as GA with an infobox like that, --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 16:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to point out that I linked to the examples, rather than copying them to here, and "my" articles had these abbreviations - to which I was used from the German Wikipedia - from the beginning, December 2012, - the example above is taken from

BWV 103--Gerda Arendt (talk

) 10:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Bach composition infoboxes

Gerda: Do these abbreviations only appear in boxes that use your

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

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

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

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

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

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

minutiae? Kleinzach

11:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree, the sound of a cantata is captured there, which is to my understanding about the most valuable information we can supply. Whether a piece is scored modestly for a lone oboe, two violins, viola and continuo (

BWV 76), makes such a difference to me, --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 11:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I also note

MOS:ABBR: "Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation. Remember that Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper." --Kleinzach

04:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Revision of

Infobox Bach composition

Based on the discussion above, I have revised the

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

There is no universal consensus against

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

21:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

See

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

22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

No, not really. The point that I and others have been making about abbreviations is a general editorial one per

MOS:ABBREV. Kleinzach

11:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the slightest problem with spelling full names of instruments (for example), as long as they are not treated as "(too) long lists". They should show, uncollapsed. I used the abbreviations for two reasons: brevity and similarity to other Wikipedias (compare

BWV 76 and de:BWV 76). If that is not wanted, fine with me (although I don't understand why it would not be wanted). --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 12:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Article titles for (non-English) orchestras, companies etc. have not been a particular problem in the past, but our usual approach (of using an English name if it already exists, otherwise the original language version) has recently been challenged, first in connection with the Infobox orchestra [9], and now explicitly by the move requests for the Berlin Philharmonic and Vienna Philharmonic (see above).

There is no guideline for the proper names of institutions and organizations connected to music. We don't have one here, nor is there one at

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

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

Draft

Here is my draft:

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

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

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

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

Thanks. I've been looking at the Congress and VIAF sites and wondering about integrating them in the guideline, but I do find them a bit complicated to use. Say we use them to check

Sächsische Staatskapelle Dresden, how do you interpret the results? Isn't it easier to simply use the official website? Or am I missing something? --Kleinzach

12:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naming using an authority control system

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

Kleinzach 22:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Finished

Thanks. I've added both texts to

The 'organisations and institutions' text is now in the MOS and it has a shortcut

WP:MUSORG. Thanks. Kleinzach

05:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)