Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65Archive 66→Archive 70

Student articles

This college class has been editing Wikipedia as an assignment. Could members take a look at the products, especially:

I have already have merged and redirected the following other duplicates but members might also want to look the targets over:

Here are the rest of the articles they've created or expanded. Some are very good, especially for beginners. Others, well they need a good going over:

Existing articles expanded in situ
New articles created in situ

Voceditenore (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

As someone who has been an "ambassador" (before the WikiEd Foundation came about), I highly recommend that, when occasions occur, that members of this project -- or this project as a whole -- welcome and develop relationships with students so as to make their Wikipedia experiences all the more positive, and so they can learn that editing articles is only a part of being involved with Wikipedia. Perhaps we could even introduce our project as one who would welcome mentorship of students. - kosboot (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hope this was welcoming enough: Talk:Six Sonatas for Violin and Harpsichord, BWV 1014–1019#Class assignement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't say that was particularly welcoming. If I was the student, I'd be defeated by the language you use which almost says: "I did the work; now you do something." - kosboot (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, the notification came a little late. The Bach violin-sonatas article came up on my radar the day it was created, and I began working on its many defects, without being aware that it was a class project. At least one other editor had gotten to it before Francis started making the really important changes, and it was only at this point that the "class project" banner was put on the Talk page. At that point, everything suddenly made sense (record-jacket liner notes and out-of-date dictionaries as the only sources, gushing about one particular 40-year-old recording, etc.).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree that the class assignement notice should've been up from the start. Also, why didn't these articles start in draft space? Seems like the logical thing to do for such endeavours (which I totally support, but there has to be a way to do this with less ruffled feathers student-side and regular-editor-side). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Re.:

In fact no, there's no duplication I moved Bach Prelude and Fugue No. 16 to Prelude and Fugue in G minor, BWV 861. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I also hope this was a bit more welcoming: Talk:Prelude and Fugue in G minor, BWV 861#Suggestions --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Francis, thanks for sorting out what I mistakenly thought was a duplicate. Good thing I didn't monkey with it. The instructor had put up three education assignment banners back in September and then seems to have stopped. I was the one who added all the rest yesterday. I agree that it really would have helped if he had done that more diligently and had reached out to the classical music projects at the beginning of the assignment. I only discovered the project last week when one of the assignments showed up on the Opera Project new article bot. I started investigating and managed to find all the 23 of the assignments. Their class page was no help at all, as they had few accurate links to the articles they were actually working on. I had to check the contributions of each student listed. The students did all work on their stuff in sandboxes. Draft space isn't suitable for expansions to existing articles, and it's sub-optimal for new articles from students as well. Firstly, there's a lengthy backlog waiting for review. Secondly, the reviewers are often not familiar at all with the subject matter and reject out of hand reasonably referenced drafts on notable subjects (I've rescued quite a few from oblivion there). Anyhow, I've left this message on the instructor's talk page re possible improvements for when he next runs the course. Voceditenore (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually Frances, although I came down hard on you, when I've introduced Wikipedia to people, I strongly emphasize that before anyone edits anything, they have to get to know the social network behind Wikipedia -- meaning introducing themselves to the appropriate WikiProjects. I emphasized this when I met with the WikiEdu people at the WikiConferenceUSA during the Columbus Day weekend. I'm going to write to them and emphasize this again - I would strongly suggest others do similarly (in a kind and helpful manner). - kosboot (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Re. "...I strongly emphasize that before anyone edits anything, they have to get to know the social network behind Wikipedia..." – I suppose that came out a bit the wrong way: for individual editors, no, there's no prerequisite "to get to know (whatever) social network behind (whatever)", the Wikipedia system is "anyone can edit'; project-level (one project inviting itself to another project) is different, and even there I don't think it is about the "social network" behind whatever. It's rather about when setting up an (external) project that invites to perform edits in Wikipedia, you don't put the editors you're inviting to edit on a wrong track, e.g. suggesting article titles for new articles that don't conform to WP:AT, and the like. And indeed, like you suggest, put up some project-to-project communication, precisely to avoid directing people towards dead-end alleys. Claiming WP:OWNership of a Wikipedia project namespace page by an external project went down the wrong alley for me too, the page should be a platform for project-to-project communication, not something with a "we own this page" sign set up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess we speak in different ways. All the things you suggest means that the potential user is best off if he/she makes contact with Wikipedians before they start serious editing. If you've ever attended a Wiki conference or Wikimania, most experienced Wikipedians groan at the motto "any one can edit" - recognizing that while it is a good hook for the inexperienced, it ultimately creates more issues for the new user unless that person first makes contacts with Wikipedians to learn how to work within the system. - kosboot (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Disagree, have been to wikimeets of various kinds, and this is a straw man argument.
What we need now is project-to-project communication, not someone saying all the individual members of the project "should have" set up their own private communication channel. It's the external project's managment that didn't take due precaution, I don't think putting the blame on the project members that were essentially just doing what they were told is on any level helpful at this point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Update

One of the students left an essay regarding their experience at User:ShannaGabrielle#Reflective Essay.

Unsuccessful/reverted/never started merges (that is: the sandbox page still contains material not used in the mainspace article, leaving it up to editors whether any of it will be used in the future):

not merged
Sandbox page Mainspace article
User:Clasenpiano/sandbox Piano Sonata No. 12 (Mozart)
User:OBGlynn/sandbox Symphony No. 20 (Haydn)
User:FredducineAlfredo/sandbox Renaissance dance
User:Lizanns/sandbox Gideon (Handel)
User:SKM 14181230/sandbox Flute Concerto No. 1 (Mozart)

All other merges seem to have been handled properly (sandbox empty), many of these with some help of Voceditenore and others:

  1. Prelude in C minor, BWV 999
  2. Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142
  3. The Harmonious Blacksmith
  4. Alexander Balus (still requires some layout cleanup)
  5. Aure soavi e lieti (Handel)
  6. Scylla et Glaucus
  7. Apollo et Hyacinthus
  8. Joshua (Handel)
  9. Circé (Desmarets)
  10. Judith (oratorio)
  11. Prophetiae Sibyllarum
  12. Die Schuldigkeit des ersten Gebots

The remainder are new creations, in two varieties ("copy-paste" and "page move") – most of these articles may still need some attention, although a lot of work has already been done by many editors:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the update, Francis. Just a couple of points...
  1. It's OK to do a cut/paste move from a personal sandbox as long as all the edits were by the same editor who also did the cut/paste. See #Where attribution is not needed. In those cases a history merge isn't necessary.
  2. I think we should leave it up to the students whether they want to transfer any remaining non-duplicated material into articles. e.g. User:Lizanns/sandbox→Gideon (Handel).
  3. Re the student's reflective essay, she had thought I was the creator of Aure soavi e lieti (Handel) jealously guarding my work and rejecting hers. I explained to her that I didn't create the article and had never edited it before her additions. I suspect that none of the students realized that classical music is such an actively edited and curated subject area before they started and assumed no one would touch their work.
  4. Number 3. illustrates how imperative it is for course instructors to thoroughly familiarize themselves with relevant WikiProjects, and... er... find out what a WikiProject actually is, and... er... actually edit articles in their area before they force their students to. Observe the contributions to article space from the instructor of the class we've been discussing. While I agree with you that asking the individual students to make contact here, is not reasonable, the instructors in this area certainly should. If nothing else, out of common courtesy, especially to explain what the course is about and when the deadline is. Students always do things at the very last minute, and of course all at the same time, resulting in over 20 articles coming in at once, almost all of which required considerable attention. By familiarizing themselves with the relevant WikiProjects, the instructors could also point their students to the detailed guidance they have on how to title, write, reference, and format articles in their area and save the students a lot of time and aggro.
Voceditenore (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Re. #2 maybe I should expand a bit on what I saw yesterday, when going through all these edits:
  • AFAICS the school project is concluded: I didn't encounter a single edit by any of the students (or the tutor) beyond 2 or 3 December (with a definite peak of their activities on 2 December, so I suppose that was the "due date" for the assignement)
  • First remark: such time schedule should have been made explicit at the Wikipedia page for the external project (in this case Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of North Carolina School of the Arts/History of Musical Styles I and II (Fall 2015, Spring 2016)), so as to not leave Wikipedia editors wondering. Definitely lesson learnt, I hope this is taken into account for future projects;
  • Re. "leave it up to the students..." – well, seems nothing much is going to happen any more student-side, so it's up to Wikipedia editors whether they still want to recuperate anything from the five sandboxes listed in the table above. For example, yesterday I reverted Flute Concerto No. 1 (Mozart) to the pre-student assignement version, despite some obvious valuable material had been imported from the student's sandbox, but it had been done somewhat clumsily, erasing some of the standard content of any composition article, etc. Then regular editors had cutted away in the new material, leaving an all but satisfactory result. So I reverted, still thinking there is some meritorious material in the sandbox (but really not having the time to sort it out, check references etc.) So I keep with my invitation to mine these sandboxes for anything worthwile, for those who have the time for it.
Re. #3: didn't really check who the student was talking about, but sure, as you also said in your #4 there is some experience to be drawn from this for the future. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinions on this 3rd-generation colorized photo of Strauss?

I just noticed this TV screenshot of a colorized B&W very poor 1945 photo of Strauss [1] on a new infobox on Four Last Songs. I personally find it jarring and posted my opinion of it on the talk page: Talk:Four_Last_Songs#Infobox_image. I also see the image is used (sans infobox) on Oboe Concerto (Strauss) and Metamorphosen. I personally think it's a particularly poor choice on all three. I'd rather see a decent back and white photo, if a photo of Strauss is desired on those three articles (or anywhere else). Opinions? Softlavender (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC); redacted Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That pic is terrible. I'd rather see the original b/w, or no pic at all, than one so distorted that its use on WP suggests acceptance. - kosboot (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The way I read de:Special Film Project 186, the footage was taken by American soldiers in 1945 using 16 mm Kodachrome stock. There's more at c:Category:Special Film Project 186. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. It's still an incredibly dreadful image, though, in a multitude of ways (and is a screenshot of the 1945 Kodachrome from a 2000 TV show; yikes). Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I concur: it is perfectly frightful. There are better pictures of him in Commons. Tim riley talk 10:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I gather the intention of the use on these three articles was to use a photo from 1945, but the only 1945 (or thereafter) photos on Commons are those: [2] (I guess because of the war and all). But the effect is so ghastly I personally think it best to have no image at all, or an image relating to the music in question, etc., or a generic undated Strauss photo/portrait, than this. Softlavender (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You gathered right. I would happily take a decent black&white photo of him at the time if it existed. 1928 came closest which is 20 years too young. No photo may be better, but not for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
See above (ec), and if we could it would still not be usable for his compositions. Perhaps someone could make a b&w version of the screenshot? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Making the photo black and white, or some other major improvement to the image, may be a good option. There are some places on Commons to request that kind of help: [4], [5]. There are probably some other places that are more active, or places on En-Wiki that I don't know about. There seems to be a growing consensus (from four editors so far) that the image is highly unsuitable as is. If that's the consensus, I think it should be removed from all three articles at present. If it is substantially improved, it can be added back in. Softlavender (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You may not have seen my comment above, but if Adam can't do it, Commons has some places to request that kind of help: [6], [7]. There are probably some other places that are more active or better, or places on En-Wiki that I don't know about. Softlavender (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
In the end, though, this is down to the quality of the reproduction. 1945 filmstock is far, far better than that image would indicate. Compare File:Alfred T. Palmer - Assembling the North American B-25 Mitchell at Kansas City, Kansas (USA).jpg. Step one to getting a better image is to find a better source image, not a really terrible third-hand copy that appears to be a literal photo of a TV broadcast or the like. There's really no point to even touching these. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I have uploaded a new version of the original file with the artificial colorization removed. I also sharpened the image up a bit. Actually, without the idiotic background (is that soft lavender there?) it is actually quite a good photo. (You may not see the new version immediately - sometimes it take time for a new version of media to show up in Wikipedia.) --Ravpapa (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Later: I see that someone named Lewenstein from the German Wikipedia has reverted me, because the original photograph was really in those yucky colors. If editors here think decolorizing the photo is an option, I can upload it as a separate entry in commons, I await responses. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ravpapa, thanks for your effort. Please read or re-read the entirety of the above discussion. The image was evidently taken with 16 mm Kodachrome stock and was therefore in color. The added distortion of the TV transmission, and then the capture of that (however it was captured), resulted in what we have now. As Adam states, the problem with converting it to B&W is the quality of the image as it is -- it's too poor. I've tested the B&W version in thumb or infobox sizes, and Strauss's nearly bald head blends into the sky. It just wasn't well composed or shot in the first place, and then the added lossiness have rendered it pretty unusable even in B&W, I think. (Others may disagree.) Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe whoever made the screencap from the VHS of the TV show (I now notice it was on VHS) can see if there's a better positioning in the 1945 film where Strauss's head is not backgrounded by sky. Also, I found out that the film footage shot by the Special Film Project 186, including the footage of Strauss at Garmisch, is housed at the National Archives and Records Administration (per [8]). Apparently they are steadily putting a lot of their film footage online [9], [10], but I don't see any of the Strauss footage on that YouTube channel yet. Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • For anyone interested, here is the footage from the TV show, Welche Farbe hat der Krieg [11]. This is Part 2, and the Strauss footage is at approximately 34:20 and lasts less than a minute. He is in his garden cutting roses. The quality is poor, and there are no better shots. The TV show is also on iTunes [12] and DVD [13]; the quality might be better on those. Softlavender (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Soldier photos

The copyright license on that image reads: This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain. Strauss's home in Garmisch was under semi-occupation by the U.S. Army for many weeks in 1945 at the end of the war. He experienced a steady flow of visits from soldiers and Army employees. Surely more of them took photos of him in the line of duty that can qualify for PD. Or even off-duty photos that have been or can be personally released to PD. Just a thought. If we can find them/one. Softlavender (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Roud & Zahn

We have a fairly developed Roud Folk Song Index classification (see e.g. Category:Roud Folk Song Index songs, List of folk songs by Roud number,...)

Johannes Zahn developed a similar numbering system for German hymns: how would people feel about using Zahn numbers more often in articles about Lutheran hymns and their derived settings (like List of chorale harmonisations by Johann Sebastian Bach) – or is that a bit far-fetched/exotic for English Wikipedia (afaik only Lutheran hymns, maybe not used all that often in English-language literature)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Are HTI numbers perhaps more common in English-language literature? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

French orchestras - orthography

We seem quite inconsistent in our capitalisation when it comes to the members of Category:French orchestras. Some are exactly as the French spell them (e.g. Orchestre national de Lille), but others have gratuitous capitals (e.g. Orchestre National de Lyon).

Because these things can sometimes attract heated argument, I will list here the articles I plan to move, and seek comments before doing so.

Also, Les Musiciens du Louvre should be moved to reflect its current name, Les Musiciens du Louvre Grenoble.

Over. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We generally follow the ULC practice of the country of origin for untranslated titles of operas (Così fan tutte, not Così Fan Tutte; La vie parisienne, not La Vie Parisienne etc) and it seems logical to follow the same practice for orchestras. There is the separate question of how we decide whether to translate an orchestra's name into English ("Vienna Philharmonic" not "Wiener Philharmoniker", but "Orchestre philharmonique de Strasbourg" not "Strasbourg Philharmonic Orchestra") but for those that we leave in the original language it seems logical that capitalisation should be in the most usual form used in the relevant country. A quick and highly unsystematic dip into French orchestral websites suggests that most (not all) adjectives and common nouns are uncapitalised in their names, and I support Jack's suggestion. – Tim riley talk 10:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Tim. I forgot to mention that the lower case versions I'm proposing are all in accordance with their counterparts at French WP. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 12:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Support the moves as suggested, to the original names, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Support moves as suggested.--Smerus (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't see any reason why time should be spent over questioning WP:CAPM. The guideline exists and can be applied without further ado. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I think that guideline is intended to cover titles of works rather than of orchestras, but it seems to me quite reasonable to extrapolate, though noting that its advice to follow the style in the latest edition of Grove would in fact lead us to write "Orchestre Philharmonique de Strasbourg", capitalised thus. Tim riley talk 19:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • We should adhere to the practice found in Eenglish-language sources, such as popular books and mainstream newspapers. French websites are not English-language sources. In my experience, English sources generally capitalize French proper names like English proper names. Sometimes scholars adopt the French practice, but they also often do not translate French quotes either, so I don't think such books are mainstream. I don't see there is any reason for the Wikipedia not to follow what is standard practice in English. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    • An example: in The New York Times one finds Orchestre National de France, not Orchestre national de France (see this search). The question of whether to use the translated name or not also needs to be answered by searches of English sources. So for instance, a search of Google Books gives about 9 results for "Paris National Orchestra" and many thousands for "Orchestre National de France" (the majority in English and with a capital "N"). IMO, WP:CAPM is not a proper guideline and should probably be deleted. Perhaps it was adopted by a small group of editors. The basic guideline should be to follow common English practice, and that applies to both names and capitalization. This should be true, no matter what the topic. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. So would you support us preferring the spellings La Bohème (or even La Boheme), or La Traviata, on the basis that most English-language sources spell them this way? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 05:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@JackofOz:. Well, the capitalization of those Italian opera titles is mostly based on The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, certainly a well accepted, so-called "authoritative" source (which by the way, capitalizes most French proper names like English proper names, e.g., Centre de Musique Baroque de Versailles, which is written 'Centre de musique baroque de Versailles' on their website at bottom). Even if I didn't think that the way New Grove does it represents the common way, as a matter of practicality, I don't think we should try to change all those titles now, and at least we have an accepted source to turn to settle disagreements. (It is certainly not unusual for editors to disagree, OR to be inconsistent! :>) --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Adherence to English sources often leads not only to using a different name than the subject uses (which is not polite) but even to nonsense such as Evangelical Church in Germany, which is not an evangelical church (but unfortunately it's the subject's fault because they use an ambigouos translation on their website). "A name is a name" (Robert.Allen, not: Robert allen) would be such an easy guideline. A name can only loose in adaptation and translation. Of course a translation (or more) should be provided in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Defensible exceptions can be handled on a case by case basis. After all, these are mainly guidelines, not hard and fast rules. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Re. "(WP:CAPM) is intended to cover titles of works rather than of orchestras...": Maybe take a proper look at WP:CAPM again: immediately under the section header it links to WP:MUSORG as being applicable too. There one finds "...spelling, punctuation, etc. used by the organisation's own publications" – Don't see the difficulty of understanding that as including capitalization, nor the difficulty of applying it. Looking for more general guidance in the MOS I found MOS:INSTITUTIONS, which includes "If you are not sure whether the English translation of a foreign name is exact or not, assume it is rough and use lower case (e.g., the French parliament)" (bolding added) – seems like lower case for French names is even transferable when translated in English.
Re. "IMO, WP:CAPM is not a proper guideline and should probably be deleted" – Yeah sure. Note however that the guidance is dependent from various MOS guidance, so this is not a topic limited to the WikiProject on classical music. I mean, this is not something that can be decided here, but needs a wider consensus. Please direct your query at the appropriate MOS talk page (or WP:VPP, etc.) Other related guidance can be found at WP:MOSTM, which indeed supports changing the capitalization in some instances (but doesn't mention changing capitalization of expressions in foreign languages explicitly).
On the whole, maybe a few of the French-language article titles can be translated to English per WP:ENGLISH (when, for instance, their website has a section in English using an English version of their name). We did (in fact: I did) something similar when it was unclear whether or not to use a hyphen for Bach-Archiv in the article title: the article is now at Bach Archive per the English-language section of their website. Berlin State Library is another example of something often referred to by its German name in English-Language publications (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin), but Wikipedia chose to use the translated name as article title.
Re. Così Fan Tutte and a host of other opera titles cited above: this also is not the topic here: WP:NCOPERA has its own set of rules ("If the opera's title is rendered in its original language, capitalization should follow the usage in the most recent editions of New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and New Grove Dictionary of Opera"), it is neither directly applicable for organizations that have no entry in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera (or the like), nor is it something that would be changed via a local consensus on this talk page (consultation of the WP:OPERA project seems a minimum there). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Francis, for pointing us now to MUSORG as well as CAPM. Unfortunately the two are mutually contradictory: do we follow Grove or the orchestras' own publications? Have a look at the websites of French orchestras: some use ULC for adjectives and common nouns and others don't: Orchestre National de France but de la Société des concerts du Conservatoire. We can't follow both the orchestra site and Grove, as the latter renders it as "Société des Concerts du Conservatoire". Contrariwise you'll find "Orchestre régional de Cannes" in Grove but "Orchestre Régional de Cannes" on the orchestra's website. I agree with you that a site-wide revision of the two guidelines to make them consistent is desirable, but in the interim Jack's specific proposals are practical, consistent and sensible: I support them. – 13:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim_riley (talk • contribs)
Please distinguish:
  • WP:CAPM – Grove only mentioned w.r.t. work titles: "work titles" rules not applicable to orchestras and the like;
  • WP:MUSORG – entirely applicable, however no Grove mentioned in the guidance, instead: "...the spelling, punctuation, etc. used by the organisation's own publications"
    • WP:MUSORG combined with WP:ENGLISH: if the organisation (e.g an orchestra) has publications in English, maybe write the name of the organisation as it is in such English-language publications ("used by the organisation's own publications" as the guidance has it).
  • MOS:INSTITUTIONS has probably little application here, even though technically a state orchestra would fall under its guidance.
  • WP:MOSTM also probably without much applicability here (although technically most of this falls under this guideline)
  • WP:NCOPERA – whatever it says involving Grove is again not applicable to names of orchestras (while an "orchestra" is not an "opera"). Thought I was quite clear about that in my comments above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I must have misunderstood you. When you wrote "Don't see any reason why time should be spent over questioning WP:CAPM. The guideline exists and can be applied without further ado" I assumed you meant CAPM. Tim riley talk 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
(please don't split other people's edits) As said WP:MUSORG it the part of WP:CAPM ("immediately under the section header") you'd be looking for in the context of orchestras. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think we have probably finally established the meaning of your various contributions. I agree with you that the various guidelines need site-wide attention. Tim riley talk 15:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Re. "I agree with you that the various guidelines need site-wide attention." – not what I said, sorry about that. For the time being I'd just follow (apply) the site-wite guidance (without requesting a rewrite or update). For the project-specific guidance (Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines, which includes WP:CAPM) no site-wide attention is needed either, just take care it stays in line with the existing site-wide guidance, per WP:CONLEVEL (i.e. project-specific guidance contradicting site-wide guidance loses it value: "... no more status than an essay" as the WP:CONLEVEL policy has it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC) (PS added another to the list above --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC))
That's very gracious, but you have no need to be sorry, Francis. I'm sure it's just me being dim and everyone else knows what you were trying to convey. Tim riley talk 17:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
As a music librarian, I've never taken Grove seriously with regards to spelling or orthography. (Who on earth spells Rachmaninoff as Rakhmaninov? and there are other cases like that.). Much more authoritative are sources are based on consistent rules: the name authority files established by various national libraries. The Library of Congress (for English-language libraries across the world--yes, including England) has established the name and orthography as: Orchestre national de France. - kosboot (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Kosboot, that is extremely interesting, and seems likely to be of considerable use now and in the future. Could you point us in the direction of a citable source from the Library? Most grateful, if so. Tim riley talk 14:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's a few things: *The Name Authority File of the Library of Congress: http://authorities.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First
  • VIAF - Virtual International Authority File - combination of about 30 international libraries' authority files: http://viaf.org
--and a reminder that this is information that is supposed to go into the {{Authority control}} template at the bottom of each article with a named person or organization - which is then migrated to Wikidata. - kosboot (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Kosboot. Most helpful and clear. Tim riley talk 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
So instead of The Catcher in the Rye, Wikipedia should follow http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/no2013086582.html and use Catcher in the rye? Popcorn! -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
We are talking about names, not titles. Library of Congress practice (in general) is to use the form of the name (for individuals or organizations) that is most frequently found in the language in which the name is most frequently used (so that accounts for people that are born in one place but live most of their lives elsewhere). (The few exceptions are nearly always "grandfathered" names from Cyrillic or Japanese where frequency in English overrules adopting strict transliteration.) As for titles, library practice generally is to capitalize the first word and no others except for proper names, or words that would be capitalized in the respective language (for example, German nouns). We wouldn't do that for Wikipedia, but nevertheless, there are times when it is useful to consult what libraries do to aid in formulating a title on Wikipedia. - kosboot (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kosboot: I think I agree with you, if I am reading you correctly. In any case, I don't think a library subject heading authority file is the best way to decide these things. It's better to use mainstream English-language sources, like books, magazines, and newspapers. As an aside, website translations into English are often done by non-native speakers, so are not always the best sources to rely on. If a name has little coverage in English sources, official websites (or official websites with translations) might in some cases be useful. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#French capitalization rules

Just saw a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#French capitalization rules – seems like the rules aren't as straightforward as we think. Proposing to group the discussion here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems sensible, as this is the better-watched page. The issue raised by Yann (talk) there is whether WP:CAPM should be modified for French to reflect the capitalization rules of the Académie française. The main previous discussions of this issue that I could find are at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 49#French capitalization and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 94#Capitalization of French opera titles. (WP Opera has the same guideline, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines#Operas: capitalization and diacritics, and had it first). Those discussions did not favour switching to the Academie's rules, for WP Opera. - Aegoceras (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the French capitalization rules at the Opera WikiProject "have no more status than an essay" (says WP:CONLEVEL policy). At least this project-specific guidance is superseded by guidelines such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Capitalization of expressions borrowed from other languages, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France and French-related (which, for instance, has Les Misérables as an example, hence, for example Les Misérables (musical)), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) (which has, for example, Prélude, Choral et Fugue (Franck) as an example)
So no there's no reason whatsoever why English Wikipedia would have La bohème while French Wikipedia has fr:La Bohème. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
La bohème isn't a very apt example, Francis. It's an Italian opera, not a French one, although it borrows a French word for its title. If anything, the capitalisation on the French Wikipedia in that case should harmonise with the Italian one,. i.e. La bohème. The only standards that need to be harmonised, if at all, are those with the rest of English Wikipedia, not those on other language projects. A better example is La fille du régiment (a French opera), which according to the Académie rules should be "La Fille du régiment". Having said that, what is the earthly point of changing hundreds and hundreds of article titles with the resultant page move complications when sentence case for titles is also an accepted system in France and used by the BnF? And especially so since the the French Project on English Wikipedia is so inconsistent itself in actual practice, as is the French Wikipedia. Three examples among many:
Even Manual of Style/France and French-related which you are quoting states: "Capitalization of French expressions and titles is currently highly chaotic." By contrast, opera article titles on the English Wikipedia are very consistent, and follow the principle of the capitalisation foreign-language titles used in the major English reference works, ditto the guidelines for the visual arts at Manual of Style/Visual arts#Works of art where it states that the foreign language of titles paintings etc. "should be used in the form used by most art historians writing in English, regardless of whether this is actually correct by the standards of the other language." Those Visual Arts guidelines are not "essays". – Voceditenore (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
As an aside, the titles of works are not the same as the names of orchestras (a much smaller number of articles), which I assume is what this discussion is primarily about. Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. I said "WikiProjects" as in Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera, of course all on en:Wikipedia. So, don't add confusion where there is none (French Wikipedia is not indicated as a "WikiProject" afaik – it can be called a Wikimedia project or whatever, but not a "WikiProject"): FYI the camelcase capitalization was intended exactly the way I wrote it.
  2. If WikiProjects are the stumbling block why we can't get rid of "Capitalization of French expressions and titles is currently highly chaotic" in a MOS guideline, then the WikiProjects yield to guidelines such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). That's a statement of fact per the WP:CONLEVEL policy, not a topic that's open for discussion afaics.
  3. when WP:AT speaks about "reliable English-language sources" (e.g., "...Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)...") it would be against that policy to single out publications (like Grove's) as being the "only" reliable one. Grove's is a good start most of the time, but not the exclusive reliable source when it comes to capitalization. Wikipedia is not a subsidiary to the Grove franchise afaik, maybe somewhat less of the exclusive promotion of that franchise would be beneficial to the Wikipedia project.
  4. Of course this is about harmonization of French capitalization rules across the boundaries of WikiProjects, duh. Somewhat less of the "walled garden" mentality of these WikiProjects (as in we don't care whether we're the cause of Wikipedia-wide chaos with our rules that ignore WP:CONLEVEL) may be beneficial here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you read the banner at the top of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization): It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply (my bolding). Note that the capitalization in the MoS is a guideline not a policy and of course it's open to discussion. The current WikiProject Opera Guidance is based not just of Grove "franchise", but also on the The Oxford Dictionary of Opera, and The Viking Opera Guide, and more generally on the Chicago Manual of Style. And finally, you were the one who said above "So no there's no reason whatsoever why English Wikipedia would have La bohème while French Wikipedia has fr:La Bohème." So please cut the sarcasm and stop unilaterally editing the Opera and Classical Music projects' guidance pages in the middle of a discussion simply to suit your opinions. Voceditenore (talk) 12:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, WP:CONLEVEL is policy. Sorry if some degree of sarcasm blinded you from seeing that. A deviant rule is not an "occasional exception": when there are two incompatible rules (as in written-out "rules", not "occasional" exceptions), and one of them is in WikiProject guidance and the other a naming convention (or other accredited guideline), then the accredited guideline outdoes the WikiProject guidance. That's the WP:CONLEVEL policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Note that Manual of Style/France and French-related and Manual of Style/Visual arts#Works of art disagree with respect to capitalisation of work titles. The former bases theirs entirely on the French Wikipedia and states that explicitly, while the latter bases theirs on a different criteria, which is basically the one used by the Opera and CM projects, i.e. the foreign capitalisation used by major English sources in that area. Both are pages in the "official" Wikipedia Manual of Style. Are you saying that the latter is "deviant"? Perhaps you should start a discussion there too. Or at the WikiProject French guidelines. Voceditenore (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for repeating myself, Manual of Style/Visual arts#Works of art is not compatible with Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines. The first does not name an exclusive set of sources deemed "reliable" in the ontext (as if music historians not writing for these four sources would automatically be less reliable). I'm OK with naming or recommending a few usually deemed reliable in the context, not with limiting, in categorical terms, reliable sources to a few named ones (which is even a policy-level incompatibility with WP:AT). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Further, again, when Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France and French-related#Works of art says English Wikipedia defers to "Imprimerie nationale" capitalization rules for consistency when different reliable sources use different capitalizations for France and French-related Works of art, WikiProject guidance can not "outdo" that with Chicago Manual of Style rules (which may be fine for other languages, but not for "France and French-related"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes it can. WikiProject France has no special status or authority over other projects, which is why WikiProject Visual Arts ignores their pronouncements on capitalisation when they deem it appropriate. Nor does the French Wikipedia have any authority or special status on the English Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Trying the WikiProject guidance vs. Wikipedia guideline confusion again are we? Again, the WP:CONLEVEL policy distinguishes these, so please stop adding comments indicating you're not willing to accept the applicable policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not "tryng" anything, let alone "confusion". Note that Manual of Style/France and French-related and Manual of Style/Visual arts#Works of art are both guidelines. The latter happens to disagree in part with the former. Take it up with them. I have no intention of wasting any more time responding to your sarcasm. Voceditenore (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
No, there's no contradiction between those two MoS guidelines. The second recommends to follow reliable sources, compatible with WP:AT. The first provides a solution when reliable sources in the "France and French-related" domain provide different capitalizations for works of art, in a way that the "prevalent" capitalization in these reliable sources has become unclear (which appears to be the case quite often in that domain, as explained in that guideline). All compatible with policy and with each other. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I'm puzzled as to why you have just made this substantial edit, with no edit summary to the guideline at WP:CAPM, while this discussion is still ongoing? You have removed the mention and examples of using sentence case, which is what this discussion is all about. - Aegoceras (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit summary, I'm usually quite conscientious about that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
But could you explain why you made the edit while the discussion is ongoing please? Thanks - Aegoceras (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Explained above, primarily #3 (a particular naming convention can not override policy by defining an exclusive set of reliable sources); also, linking to the generally applicable naming conventions guideline would be uncontroversial, whether a discussion is going on or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for moving this here. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France and French-related#Works of art says it all. And it is not because some articles are badly capitalized that the rules shouldn't be followed. This strikes me as a typical example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS. BTW I fixed one of the above mentioned articles. The other required admin actions. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear whether the "chaotic" refers to Wikipedia's article naming or to French capitalisation itself. If it's just "chaotic" on Wikipedia, obviously that can be fixed to some extent. However, there is currently fair amount of variation in contemporary French itself with regards to the capitalization of words in titles and even disagreements between some French dictionaries and style guides. Voceditenore (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"Harmonise" or "harmonize"? "Capitalisation" or "capitalization"? As Voceditenore suggests, French capitalisation is just as subject to legitimate variation as English spelling. Does Wikipedia attempt to homogenise English spelling? No, it doesn't. Trying to homogenise French capitalisation would cause an immense amount of disruption (all those thousands and thousands of links to sort out) for no gain that I can see. --Folantin (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You do of course realize that style guidance relating to national varieties of English is harmonized with WP:ENGVAR? And that Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines tries to "homogenise French capitalisation"? I'd be happy to remove that part of that guidance that tries to do that! --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

simple. let's just make this an rfc to render all text on wikipedia in lowercase. this should be an easily adopted compromise, to accommodate people who may object to rendering all text in full caps. alsee (talk) 20:11, 22 december 2015 (utc)

Flute versus Western concert flute

It seems like many articles on compositions (specifically in the instrumentation sections) link to flute when they're referring to the western concert flute. Of course no one calls it a "western concert flute", but that where the article is. It would seem logical to me to have a standard in orchestral instrumentation sections to link to western concert flute just link we link to String section for the strings. Thoughts? "Pepper" @ 05:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Conversely, traverso, flauto traverso, Baroque flute, Traversiere,... all redirect to Western concert flute, while the flute article is adamant: the mechanism of the Western concert flute was only invented in the 19th century, and that mechansism distinguishes it from the "finger holes of its baroque predecessors" (etc). So miraculously visionary composers such as Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, all wrote for an instrument many decades before it existed!
Here's what I propose:
  1. move Western concert flute to "traverse flute"
  2. make incoming redirects arrive at the appropriate subsections
  3. rewrite the first paragraphs of the article so that they are a better introduction to the topic
  4. possibly in time start a separate article about the musical instrument that became more or less standardized as Western concert flute since the 19th century.
Another issue: I'm not sure how this works in English: is the recorder a flute? It seems like colloquially a flute is automatically understood to be a traverse flute, while the defintion of a recorder is that it is a type of flute. As I'm not a native English speaker I have no clue how to deal with this. That the problem is real can be seen from this surprising page move: [14] --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, that move would require discussing - I would say that the arguments from 2007 are all still valid. I think I'm against the specific move you proposed due to "transverse flute" also being a blanket term for the dizi some fues, etc. I guess this is a larger project than just changing links. In terms of the recorder, I'm not too sure either. Though a native English speaker, I'm neither a flute player nor an instrument expert. The article mentions the ambiguity of the term present in many languages but seems to say that it isn't a flute, consistent with Template:Woodwinds having flute and recorder separate. "Pepper" @ 17:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
We also have Members of the western concert flute family. It seems like these issues have already been the subject of much discussion. The current situation maybe the best solution for a difficult issue. Also, we are talking about a LOT of wikilinks. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Not sure that it helps much with the overall problem, but, as I understand it, the recorder is a fipple flute, as is the tin whistle, which means it is a flute (technical), but it is not a flute (colloquial). Clear as mud?
I concur the current status, as outlined above, seems a little strange, and perhaps not aligned with WP:COMMONNAME. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to muddy the waters a little bit more, the article "Western concert flute" has only been changed very recently with this edit by User:Francis Schonken to insist on restricting the term to Theobald Boehm's mechanical contraption and its successors (presumably also excluding the so-called "simple system" flutes that continued in orchestral use until the early 20th century). It originally encompassed everything from medieval flutes onward. This change was made quietly and no one seemed to object at the time, but it did lead to the dubious situation described above (Bach, Vivaldi, Mozart, etc.). User:Pepper is perfectly correct that the expression "Western concert flute" is never used outside Wikipedia, which seems to contravene WP:COMMONNAME.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please check and/or correct

--Opus88888 (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Changes at IMSLP

I believe this could be interesting to some editors working in the classical music related areas: The IMSLP introduced a subscription system. It is discussed here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Rostislav Krimer

This is a copyvio and will probably be deleted in a not too distant future, but could somebody better able to judge this please take a look at this pianist and his article in the Russian Wikipedia (Кример, Ростислав Олегович) and comment on his notability. --Hegvald (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to a virtual editathon on Women in Music

Women in Music
  • 10 to 31 January 2016
  • Please join us in the worldwide virtual edit-a-thon hosted by Women in Red.

--Ipigott (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Tudor Music Editathon, 5 February 2016

In about four weeks' time, Oxford University will be hosting a Wikipedia editathon on the theme of Tudor Music. The venue for the event, on the afternoon of Friday 5 February, is in Oxford's IT Services and the event is supported by the Faculty of Music and the Bodleian Libraries. Dr. Katherine Butler, an academic in the Faculty of Music, has kindly suggested a list of articles for creation or for improvement (see the above link). Many of these are composer biographies, but partbooks are another theme: Dr. Butler is impressed with the Drexel 4180–4185 article and we hope to create articles about other well-documented partbooks. I will be leading the training in my capacity as Wikimedian In Residence at the Bodleian. Feel free to improve the event page or to participate in any other way. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

William Sterndale Bennett up for GAN

What it says on the wrapper :-) All comments welcome. Hoping if it gets through this hurdle to get it up to FA for WSB's 200th birthday in April.--Smerus (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Métaboles

Henri Dutilleux was born 100 years ago today, and according to our article on him, Métaboles is one of his most often played works, so I've made a stub for it. Any contributions to develop it into a decent article would be welcome! --Deskford (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Members may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Bias against notability of artists from early recordings. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Emily Hall

I've flagged this as copyvio as it's a straight cull from her website - however she is clearly notable, and the article therefore needs a rewrite using independent sources.--Smerus (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Help?

I've submitted a draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Feargus_Hetherington and a kind editor suggests I receive some help with it. Your views would be much appreciated. Thank you Balquhidder2013 (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Kanon

There is currently a move discussion over at Talk:Kanon (disambiguation) on what the primary topic for Kanon should be. Since the visual novel is a good article, and has received the most coverage in independent reliable sources I assumed it would be the primary topic. The move proposer though is arguing that Kanon (German for Canon as a liturgy term) would also take prime focus. My take on it is that the sources for Kanon are mostly German but would be willing to go with a Kanon (disamb) if consensus is in favor of that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sterndale Bennett

I've now put this up for FA with the hope of getting it on the front page on WSB's bicentenary birthday (13 April).--Smerus (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiRadio

I thought that everyone here should know about [this link is for the classical station]. It's like a radio station from audio files on commons, you can make your own playlists, and then they all play at the same time for everyone, like a radio station. More here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiradio_(tool) Victor Grigas (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Composers

Smerus pointed out that I should inform this project of a proposal I made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, meant as a compromise between those who love and hate infoboxes (I simply find them useful). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_64&oldid=1136416762"