Large changes of content were made recently to Template:Modernism (music), some of which I find questionable and do not appear to have been discussed anywhere or with anyone. Comments from others are welcome. I'm also pinging Smerus, who is behind most of the recent changes. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Basically my deletions were made on the basis that there was no evidence that many of the entries were for representatives of Modernism (music), in which article the term is defined. The term relates to music mostly of the period of c. 1890 - 1925 (but not of ocurse to all composers of that period). Some composers are still included on what seems to me to be a very dubious basis: for example Percy Grainger, although he does not conform to the description of modernism in the article. The article is itself very confused, conflating modernism in art music history with modernism in pop music. Imo no composer should be included in the template unless there is citation somewhere (e.g. in their own article) that they are considered a 'modernist' - thus confirming to Wikipedia standards. Perhaps the real answer here is to clear up the article Modernism (music) and the article List of modernist composers, with all entries in the latter properly cited. Then the template could be appropriately derived from the list.--Smerus (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with all of Smerus' edits and thank him for cleaning up that template. Lots of composers were previously included there that made absolutely no sense. (Barber? Korngold??) Great work so far and I hope he manages to tidy up the Modernism (music) article too. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I've removed Grainger and Martinu. I can find no element in their music which would make them 'modernists'. In the WP article Bohuslav Martinů he is linked to jazz, romaticism and neoclassicism, but not to modernism. As regards Grainger, his music exhibits none of the quailities of modernism listed by Dahlhaus and others in Modernism (music). In the present state of List of modernist composers other Australian composers are listed with Grainger, with evidence a citation from ' Skinner, Graeme. 2015. Australian Musical First Modernism, in The Modernist World, edited by Stephen Ross and Allana C. Lindgren, 273–81. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-84503-8.' I don't have access to this book and no extract is in google books. However I have to say that any categorization of Grainger as a "modernist" must border on the absurd - his music does not exhibit any of the qualities decribed by Dahlhaus etc. in the article Modernism (music). As for the other Australians listed in List of modernist composers I know nothing of them - but its seems prima facie extremely unlikely that they could be considered as modernists. --Smerus (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I think the a main issues here is that we may be missing a {{Contemporary classical music}} template. There are well established figures by now—Boulez, Dutilleux, Crumb, Ligeti, Carter etc.—who are frequently grouped together as the Post WWII generation, but do not have a central template. The issue here, I see, is how easy such a template would be to get overwhelmed; perhaps we could limit it to winners of prestigious prizes, like composers who've won the Ernst von Siemens Music Prize and/or the Grawemeyer Award for Music Composition? Somewhat arbitrary indeed, but I struggle finding another rationale. Aza24 (talk)20:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The problem is how to define "modernism" and "contemporary." The latter, for example, means "today," "happening right now," "current," "modern," "up-to-date," etc. But all those composers you listed are dead and the aesthetic movements they championed in academic music are now history. How could any of them represent "contemporary classical music?"
With "modernism," the problem is that the term is often loosely applied, even by good scholars, with the well-intended, but erroneous intent to ascribe "greatness" to their chosen 20th-century composer. This seems to especially occur when they set out to right some perceived slight to a composer's reputation. For example, Rebecca Mitchell's Sergei Rachmaninoff (Soft Skull Press, 2022) persuasively makes the case that her subject was a better and perhaps more surprising composer than many give him credit for. That may be true, but she goes overboard in her final chapter wherein she argues, based on highly specious ideas about the composer's character that have nothing to do with his music, that he was in reality a "modernist"—a conclusion that is probably making Adorno (re. Prelude in C-sharp minor: "[O]ne long final cadence.") spin in his grave as I type this.
Indeed. But I fear that other major periods, such as Romantic music and to a lesser extent Baroque music are not in great shape either. They, however, have the benefit of much scholarship to make reasonable templates of composers easy. I think it's safe to assume that the modernism template will continue to receive additions of more recent composers, with the only real way to stop this either being continuous reversion or a new template. Aza24 (talk)22:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Afterthought: Gunzenhauser made his British début in 1983 at the Royal Festival Hall, when The Times praised his "taut direction" and "concern for sonority".(Goodwin, Noël. "YMSO/Gunzenhauser", The Times, 5 November 1983, p. 7), which may or may not be of interest. Tim riley talk17:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
In the absence of action by my namesake (no relation as far as I know) or anyone else I have bunged in a lot of referenced material. If anyone looking in thinks the "notability" tag at the head of the page can safely be removed, pray do so. Tim riley talk16:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm planning on writing a page on Symphoria, the Syracuse orchestra. Is there any specialised orchestra notability guidelines. It looks to me that there is enough local coverage on syracuse.com [1] to pass general notability, but I thought I'd ask the experts before starting. Newystats (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Lots of stuff on Newspapers.com, including hundreds of mentions in papers published in New York State and a few from Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Missouri. If I were contemplating writing an article I'd feel happier if there were mentions of the orchestra from outside the US, but I'd say there's enough American coverage to justify an article. Tim riley talk18:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Coronation march
Having borrowed or adapted the Shakespearian phrases Crown Imperial for the coronation of George VI and Orb and Sceptre for that of Elizabeth II, William Walton said that he was reserving another phrase from Henry V - "Bed Majestical" - for the coronation of Charles III. As Sir William is no longer with us, perhaps members of this project might suggest how his idea might be realised, and by whom. Forgive the frivolity, but it's been a bit heavy in here recently, and I thought it might be good to lighten the mood briefly. Tim riley talk15:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm, when I think of leading British composers at the moment, Adés comes to mind (particularly because of his established Shakespeare association), but I fear that the relentless modernism of his style would probably resurrect the dead rather than celebrate the living. Who else? Ferneyhough is perhaps more American than English at this point; Birtwistle and Maxwell Davis have passed; doesn't seem up George Benjamin's alley. Maybe Judith Weir?
Excellent! And thank you for the link to the Clyne piece - new to me and well worth hearing. (I thought I heard echoes of Holst, and why not?) 14:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Sticking with the bard: somebody might set "Beetle-headed flap-ear’d knave" from The Taming of the Shrew (The Taming of the Shrew 4.1/154) to music. He also used "pitchers" and "ears" in that play and in Richard III which became "small (or little) pitchers have big ears". SCNR. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Mozart has already set "Beetle-headed flap-ear'd knave" as "Welche Wonne, welche Lust". The translation, I grant you, is a little free, but you can't gainsay the scansion. Tim riley talk15:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As a few have mentioned below, this is (charitably) an "oddly" formed RfC. But that said, taking it as it is:
There first seems to Binary question of whether WP:TNT should come into play here, as noted by the RfC creator. This is apparently reflected in Option 1. This was Opposed by the discussion.
And on the converse, Option 3, taken to its extreme, was Opposed as well
Reading through the discussion and the "criteria" subsections (reminder: a consensual discussion is not about counting bulleted "votes"), the consensus for inclusion criteria would seem to fall somewhere between option 2 and 3, but there is No Consensus (yet) where that dividing line should be. As some noted in the discussion, this can apparently vary due to various things for each article. There was also a suggestion that for some of these, use of the categorisation system might be more appropriate. I might suggest a followup discussion to see if a consensus on usage/criteria can be found. - jc3713:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Recently, I have been looking through Wikipedia's lists of instrumental repertoire and have found that some do not comply with the project's guidelines. As such, I have either merged the article to its parent page or started an AfD discussion depending on what I best felt was needed for the article. However, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flute repertoire, some editors thought it'd be best to start a wider discussion on how to move forward with these lists.
So how should lists of instrumental repertoire be treated on Wikipedia?
Option 1: No lists of repertoire
Option 2: Lists of notable repertoire based on sources and the existence of Wikipedia pages
Option 3: Lists of compositions that try to include every piece for that instrument
Option 1 as the nominator. After I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions for viola: A to B, it was kept. However, several of the comments said that they felt it was a notable subject if only it was well sourced and improved. So in the spirit of being bold, I merged the pages to the newly created Viola repertoire to only include notable pieces (including those that have a Wikipedia page or are well sourced by literature) rather than keeping the over ten thousand pieces that were listed. My issue is that the pages tried to list every piece written for the viola ever (as seen in this "comprehensive" page [2]). I believe that Wikipedia is not an index for viola pieces nor a place for violists to discover new music. I also believe that WP:CSC agrees with these changes. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 for me - because the other two just don't seem to me feasible or 'encyclopaedic'. Option 2 is covered anyway by Category:Compositions for solo piano and the like....Option 3 is just not on - "every piece" for an instrument? - without citations? - how about the Trombone Sonata I wrote for my friend when I was 15?.....--Smerus (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Smerus: You said Option 2 is covered by... what? Personally, I think categories can fill the role of lists, but there's always some notable pieces that are mentioned in the literature yet don't have pages. As for Option 3, this seems to be an actual option a couple users have wanted for the list of viola compositions (which, as I mentioned, consisted of 10,000 entries across eight pages). Why? I Ask (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Not sure. The idea of a 'Piano repertoire' list is a thoroughly cohesive topic in which there are numerous studies on. As I understand it—these studies, however, do not simply list the works. I would assume such a Wikipedia article would cover the subject with lengthy prose, rather than simple lists, which would be vastly more helpful anyways. At the moment, not a single one of these lists does so in this fashion, so at this point I would say Weak Option 1. If someone wants to create an appropriate repertoire overview, sure, but otherwise none of these should exist. Aza24 (talk)22:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Option 2 hybrid-I agree with your comment about the Euphonium Repertoire page. I hadn't found it, but it's a good article that discusses not just repertoire, but how the solo and orchestral repertoires have changed and come to form. For instruments, I think there's a bit too much to talk about for all of this to be included on the instrument's main page itself, so I certainly think the overhauling of these repertoire pages to be more "encyclopedic" would be good. For piano, it might be the history of the instrument, its origins as a solo instrument, its place in orchestras (both for concertos and just in the orchestra in general,) and how it's been a pioneer of many different styles of music, all along the way including 'examples' so that it still has some repertoire. If that's not a project that can be done, the articles should probably be deleted (they shouldn't exist in their list forms.) It would be a long project, with lots of difficulties (like,what about Percussion Repertoire? All the instruments? Drum kit? Parts in how many orchestras? Its presence in so many genres? Lots of questions.) It wouldn't be a quick thing. Aven1315:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
That's why I've opted for this for now: WP:TNT. Until someone wants to put in the work, there's not really a reason to let such large uncited lists stay. Focus on adding information to the instrument's sections first (e.g., Marimba#Repertoire is something I'm working on expanding and sourcing). And if those get too big, then finally split. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I was happy with List of compositions for viola: A to B as it was, and am unhappy with List of compositions for viola: A to B listing only compositions with an article, which could indeed be found by looking at a category. The more interesting/informative pieces are those without an article, each one an invitation to research and write that article. I explained my disappointment in greater detail in the linked discussion, and on the talk pages of Ritchie333 who closed keep, and of Why? I Ask. Why? I ask don't we just leave old articles that served a few readers alone? I see no danger. - We (project) could say that we don't want more repertoire articles, but those we have (of had) were the luxury of a past. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I have thought that way about many pages, including many of the drum corps articles of which ended up being deleted. Unfortunately, the idea that pages should kept if they have people wanting to read them doesn't work when they are simply not suitable for an encyclopedia. Another thing is your belief that by adding unknown compositions to the list, it will help promote research and foster the creation of new pages. That's a worthy belief, but that would mean at the bare minimum, there has to be at least one source naming it notable repertoire for the instrument (which I made a requirement for the updated list). Not every viola piece will be able to have a Wikipedia page. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I made the comment before the discussion became an RfC, and now that it is an RfC, I think the choices are too limited. How about Option 4: hybrid, following the reasoning of Dbynog? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
This is not my RfC. I support none of the 3 options:
No, because deleting information that others have built, for reasons established later, looks cruel to me.
No, because that seems asking too much from editors if this is the only way of such lists permitted. - Looking a bit beyond instruments: I like the List of 20th-century classical composers, for example, although not every work in it is referenced, and referencing them all would ask for much work, and lead to hundreds of references. The works serve the purpose of saying in a short way what a composer stands for.
No, because going for every piece, and only, is also asking too much, - who would ever be sure to gather every piece?
How would you like me to word these options? I'm completely open to suggestions.
I'm not sure I can ever agree with you on point one, because WP:CCC. For point two, I'm also unsure of what you mean. Verifiablity and referencing is the core nature of Wikipedia. For your example, it literally conforms to one of the main points of Option 2 (entries must have a Wikipedia page). For option three, is this not what you wanted based on prior discussion? How would you like to see these lists develop? Why? I Ask (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Option 3 I go for this one (in part because I know I'm in the minority but in the hope that it will influence a more inclusionary approach to Option 2). If one is consulting an encyclopedia, one wants to see near-complete coverage of the subject. I often compare WP to Grove. For well-known composers Grove is excellent. For middle-of the road composers Grove is often not as good. Sometimes I need to go to Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart whose worklists of lesser composers I think is better than Grove. In short, these sources do not give me the information I need. That's why I think WP should aspire to be as complete as possible, especially with lists that may not appear in the leading music encyclopedias. - kosboot (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how lists of compositions goes against WP:NOT. There have been articles published explaining that work lists are omitted from Grove because editors didn't have time to complete them, not because they don't belong or they are "not encyclopedic." - kosboot (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
A list of every (emphasis on every) piece written for an instrument is blatantly indiscriminate. And you're confusing work list (i.e., a composer's list of compositions) with a list of compositions for an instrument. The person whom wrote the most music capped out at about 3,000 pieces (and Wikipedia doesn't even list all of them). The incomplete viola list measured over 10,000 pieces. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Option 3 hybrid I personally do not believe that such constraints should be placed on these lists (mandating that they all adhere to one of the options above); all articles on Wikipedia do not need to be consistent. Similar articles, including discographies and bibliographies, exist in many formats, and having such narrow restrictions solely for instrumental repertoire lists on Wikipedia does not seem useful. I, and other users, can derive benefits from articles in a variety of formats, and rather than attempting to enforce limitations on all lists, I would prefer to let editors use their judgement to create the most appropriate article for the subject. Dbynog (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Not all articles need to be consistent, but the reasoning behind having such articles on the platform does. If editors like such lists, great; if they don't, then they need to go. As it stands, having lists that try to include the thousands of pieces written for that instrument go against Wikipedia guidelines. Discographies are fine because, per WP:CSC they are usually short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. A list of 10,000 non-notable compositions is not short by any metric. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Suggestion This discussion has raised wider issues of what WP is about. I think, for example, that lists of works per instrument fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE - " Wikipedia articles should not be summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works". As comparisons, I suggest, we don't (and won't) have a "List of books written in English" or "List of paintings in oil". So the topic under discussion here might benefit from being raised in one of the wider WP discussion pages - I'm not sure however which one would be best for this. --Smerus (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
As an alternate comparison, look at the extensive lists of Hindi Cinema, which effectively breaks down all Hindi films back to 1920 by year whether they have a Wikipedia article or not (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindi_films_of_1920 and later years). Some could argue that this is indiscriminate, since its aim does seem to be to list all Hindi films ever, which will ultimately be a large list. I don't agree with this attitude, preferring to let the fans of Hindi Cinema design pages that meet their research needs, which might be different than the needs of German cinema or French cinema. Ultimately, I feel that any such restrictions in any category are too constricting.Dbynog (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)dbynog
Is the above really meant to exemplify a good example? Of 21 films listed, only two have citations (let alone WP articles) to support their inclusion. Once again I refer to WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The issue here is not what people feel, or like, but what conforms to the WP guidelines.--Smerus (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@Smerus: Do you think this is something that needs to go to Village Pump? Not this RfC, but a new one dealing with how "indiscriminate" lists can be for an encyclopedia? Honestly, I feel that the guidelines that have been mentioned (WP:CSC/WP:LSC, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTDIRECTORY) are already pretty clear that these types of list articles are not acceptable. However, I've been getting push-back for trying to even trim such articles down to ones such as Viola repertoire. I trimmed that down from List of compositions for viola: A to B (and companion letters), but several editors thought that action was inappropriate. Now, per Gerda's recommendation, the two articles are seperate where the former acts as an "overview". Why? I Ask (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
How would you feel if a source was cited? There have been a number of bibliographies. That would make it less indiscriminate, yes? - kosboot (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
See Option 2. If you mean to include every piece listed in a bibliography, then I am opposed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and such large scale bibliographies just aren't part of that. (Although an idea of a WikiBibliography is something I'm toying with.) For just a list of notable pieces, I'm not completely opposed, but am hesitant because such lists typically require a very large amount of overhead due to spammers. I'd prefer the "Option 2 Hybrid" where there is prose discussing the important pieces instead. The only thing I'm vehemently opposed to is Option 3. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 Giant lists that cannot be completed, even if you limit them to notable entries, are time sinks that don't actually serve readers that well (modern users of the web aren't drilling down hierarchies—it's why the whole concept of outlines and portals on Wikipedia are likewise obsolete.) Repertoires themselves vary depending on cultural context and tastes, you cannot have one "objective" or master list regardless. They absolutely fall afoul of INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIRECTORY. It's entirely possible that specific repertoires could be notable, but I'm having a hard time seeing it versus the constituent parts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk13:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Option 1 with maybe a dash of Option 2. David Fuchs is right that certain lists are just misconstructed. Not that "completeness" needs to be the standard, but we end up with problems when a list is a combination of long, subjective, and simultaneously incomplete/over inclusive. It becomes WP:OR that cannot be verified, and even to the extent that it's sourced, there is no context to provide WP:NPOV. This is the spirit of the advice at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, to avoid trying to catalog these inherently vague concepts. (To interject with my own opinion, the reason these lists often fail readers is because they aren't written with them in mind -- they are written for the editor.) None of this is to discourage someone from trying to cover some of the most notable repertoire, but even there, the standard is WP:DUE weight, and mere existence on Wikipedia isn't enough. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Invalid RfC as it is not neutrally worded. Regardless of the opinions here, such an invalidly-worded RfC is not going to be normative as it is fundamentally flawed. Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
So you'd like to start the entire RfC over? I'm fairly sure nobody's opinion will be swayed by whether or not the text before the statement (which is what I assume you have issue with) is neutral? I'm am unsure why you keep following me around to lawyer. Use some darn common sense and just tell me your actual opinion on these lists. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Why? I Ask and am not sure what restarting this RfC would accomplish, other than perhaps reaching a different outcome possibly preferable to Jclemens.
I'm also confused by the outcome of this related AfD. Even though the majority voted in favor of deletion (6 – 4, if one includes the nominator), it was still closed as "keep." The closing editor didn't deem the "delete" arguments good or expansive enough, but the "keep" reasons were at least no better; essentially coming down to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSIMPORTANT. How is it possible to disregard the outcome of a vote? In such cases, what's the point of participating if the rules are tilted to favor one outcome over the other anyway? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether the RfC should be started over again, and no interest in the topic per se. You may want to start the RfC over again, because it's not valid and won't be normative for anything. WP:RFCNEUTRAL lists the appropriate expectations on this score. My interest is only in making sure user conduct, including yours, is appropriate and respects consensus-driven decision making processes. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Nothing was said about your user conduct. If you look at the indentation levels, I was replying to Why? I Ask, rather than to you. That can be tricky, and if I'd indented one more level, then yes, you would be correct in reading my reply as being directed to you... but it wasn't. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Option 1. A list that doesn't have any notability requirements and has no hope of ever being complete is pretty clearly violating NOTDIRECTORY. I don't even understand how option 3 would function--if an entry doesn't need an article and doesn't even need a reference, how is there any possibility of quality control? Lists of this size are also perfect promo/vandalism targets, since if you don't require citations there's zero justification for removing anything that isn't blatantly NOTHERE. And I see no reason for WP to serve as a host for minor, non-notable pieces just because actual specialized directories for the topic themselves do not consider those pieces important enough to cover JoelleJay (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Option 2. I like the repertoire lists and have used them personally as a reader. There are many many sources that write about repertoire for piano, and I'm sure there are others for other instruments. If every entry either has a (sourced) article, or at minimum a reference that indicates it is a significant work for that instrument, I don't see the problem with being indiscrimate. Additional discussive material would also be welcome. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
To clarify, I don't consider that Option 2 requires all entries to be notable enough for their own article, let alone that that article should already exist. Coverage of classical music is extremely patchy; it's hard for someone without formal education in musical terminology, such as myself, to interpret sources to write articles even where abundant non-paywalled sources exist. Lists need to include something other than the usual suspects to be useful to readers; I mean, I could off-the-top-of-my-head write a list of piano solo repertoire, or piano concertos, so what I'm looking for as a reader is a level of detail beyond the obvious.
And in response to below; I agree the initial statement is biased. I'd be very open to Option 4 too. There just isn't a one size-fits-all solution to repertoire; the piano or the violin have a lot, the euphonium or the marimba not so much. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Invalid RfC or Option 4: Support status quo and deal with lists individually. So what is the problem here? I am not seeing anything option 1 would accomplish other than for mass-nominating these lists. These lists should be dealt with individually and can we really decide that a list is never helpful? I will note that some have voted for option 1 just because the other options weren't encyclopedic, so in reality this RfC is just drawing editors toward the option that the nominator wants to see happen. The nominator has already been warned to drop the stick on this, and I personally believe that this is not a discussion worth having. 0xDeadbeef12:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't really like your accusations. Options 2 and 3 could easily be considered encyclopedic by some (Option 2 literally meeting the set requirements for lists on Wikipedia). And you're absolutely wrong on the last point. I was recomended to drop the stick on the deletion review. The actual RfC was recomended to be had at another deletion discussion if you had actually read my post. Two other editors voted to procedurally keep one of these lists as there was no formal discussion done on this yet, proving that this RfC is necessary. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
"Deal with lists individually" sounds like a good option. Will you add that as Option 4, please. - Members of this project have different views on biographies and their layout, why should that be different for lists. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry if you have misread my last comment, my belief that this is not a discussion worth having is specific to this RfC. I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss the lists in general, just that !voting on these options do not go anywhere. 0xDeadbeef15:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
So would you prefer an entirely new RfC or what? I think there are people above that would agree an RfC is necessary before mass-nominating such articles for deletion/merging. An RfC will generally cast a wider net to help build a general consensus. I'm also unsure of why you dislike my options, which are in my opinion, neutral. Option 3 may not seems encyclopedic because it isn't. Yet, there have been people genuinely arguing for it and aiming for the completion of such lists as venues for instrumentalists to discover new works. That can be arguably count towards building the "sum of human knowledge", but it also is not compatible with established Wikipedia standards. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
How is the RfC neutral when one of the options is deemed unencyclopedic? Option 1 is "delete every list," Option 2 is "every list item must be notable," which isn't required. Option 3 is "keep everything." All three options do nothing, and there is no way we can reach a consensus if we don't discuss specific lists. If you don't know what the problem is, then there an RfC is not going to help. 0xDeadbeef00:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Reread WP:LISTCRITERIA. If we're talking about a list of compositions or repertoire, then there needs to be selection criteria to prevent the list from being indiscriminate. This is what Option 2 tries to achieve, although I have received pushback from removing unsourced entries in such lists. And I'm the one deeming Option 3 unencyclopedic. As per above, some people genuinely want this for the project; they think it is encyclopedic.
The purpose of the RfC is to decide if we should even have lists of this type on Wikipedia and, if we do, what should the inclusion criteria be. I can discuss specific lists all you want, but others thought that it would be best to have a discussion about all of them, and I agree. So here we are. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I've not only reread WP:LISTCRITERIA but have gone further and read MOS:WORKS. It talks about musical works only in the context of discographies and says that such lists should be separate articles. It doesn't say anything about complete or incomplete. I'm one of those editors who is an anti-deletionist (a point of view which has been endorsed more than once by The Signpost). If you don't like something, don't destroy (i.e. erase) others' work but instead offer constructive criticism. Thus unless you want to start a topic on the Manual of Style, I still go for option 4. -- kosboot (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think an MoS is grounds for keeping these articles as they are over another guideline. Especially when that MoS is largely talking about how works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists; you know, individuals or groups. I don't see anything that would support lists of works based on instrument. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The purpose of the RfC is to decide if we should even have lists of this type on Wikipedia and, if we do, what should the inclusion criteria be. So WP:SNG but for lists of repertoire? At least per WP:NLIST, since repertoire of instruments have been discussed as a group by multiple sources, there will be lists that are notable. The AfD you linked with Liz suggesting an RfC to provide guidance when articles like this one are nominated for a deletion discussion does not align with this RfC. As I said before, this is a delete all or keep all choice with Option 2 not having any policy basis at all. I would think that this is just a mass AfD nom in disguise, with an extra option added just so that people wouldn't suspect this. 0xDeadbeef13:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
How does Option 2 not have a policy basis at all (I've already cited WP:CSC)? Sure, there's no doubt that repertoire is the subject of study, but is a plain list of compositions the best mode for discussing them? And don't pieces of actual importance to the instrument need at least a minimum of a source? If you were to source every single entry in each list with a reputable citation showing the work's importance, I'd be fine. But that will likely never happen.
My interest in participating in this discussion directly correlates with where the comments land on this diagram. 0xDeadbeef14:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)WP:CSC is a guideline, and is probably one of the weaker guidelines as it isn't even suggesting that most lists actually follow these criteria. It is just common. Also, how does this not align with the views expressed at AfD? Liz suggested an RfC to provide guidance, you opened an RfC to ask for outcomes. These two are different things. For this RfC, it is clear that it is either "delete everything", "remove all unreferenced entries", or "keep everything". This isn't guidance for future AfDs, this is an AfD in disguise as an RfC. 0xDeadbeef14:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant WP:LSC but I doubt that would matter to you. And again I ask, how are you defining "guidance"? I understand that you'd rather have each list looked at individually, but doesn't that also defeat the purpose of creating consensus on Wikipedia? If one list isn't fit for inclusion, then really none of them are. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
And after nominating an article for deletion, I was told a wider discussion about all of these lists was desired. Do you see the roundabout nature of this? If I nominate an article of this type for deletion, then people would say that a wider discussion is needed. But now you're arguing that it should all be individualized. These articles are all very similar. There's not a single instrument (from even marimba and euphonium) that doesn't have repertoire discussed in-depth somewhere. However, whether or not Wikipedia should break down those discussions into simple, ill-defined lists (either about repertoire or more broad compositions) is a different question. I say no. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
But still, we aren't determining a selection criteria for the list entries. You argue that these lists have too many entries and look like indiscriminate collections of information, so why not try to establish a consensus for selection criteria of those lists? Several editors have said that they would like to retain list items that are mentioned in a source. Couldn't that be an option as well? It is still verifiable. You also argued that it should be about the development of repertoire, yes, but lists are not used for this purpose. 0xDeadbeef14:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I mean, the first step is deciding if the community wants these lists and the basics of how they want them (either as full indexes of works or specific sources entries). Specific list selection criteria, if needed, can be sorted out later. (For example, for "repertoire" something could be done for something like List of blues standards where a plethora of sources are required for an entry). As for your next point, I could have been more clear. Either a Wikipedia page or a source can be used for inclusion. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
How do you determine whether anyone wants the lists? For that matter, how do you determine whether anyone wants a Wikipedia article? That's an unanswerable question, although clearly most of us believe certain topics deserve Wikipedia articles. Your next steps sounds like Option 4 (i.e. that each article requires different approaches). - kosboot (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
You find out whether or not people want the lists by having discussions (e.g., RfCs) similar to how anything else goes on Wikipedia. Look at WP:Poképrosal. And I don't get your next point. These all have the same subject: instrumental repertoire. They should be dealt with the same. The instrument doesn't randomly change what should neutrally constitute repertoire or if there needs to be a source for an entry in a list of compositions. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree. Wikipedia has biographies with great detail, and others that are stubs. Making them similar would mean to shrink the detailed ones. Not all articles are created equal, especially not those written long ago. You wouldn't change the style of a Baroque palace, to make it similar to a 21st-century building, or would you? Or demolish it, or would you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Option 1. Our list criteria should more clearly weed out lists like this. I see several problematic issues. We should not be creating lists when it is clear that the size of the list would be impractical if/when completed. We should not be creating lists where most or all entries will have little or no meaningful encyclopedic content, and lack an article to link. And we shouldn't be trying to build or replicate an indiscriminate database or catalog. In such cases we should be linking people to proper searchable catalogs and databases. Alsee (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I do not understand why we should keep this RfC open. If anything we should close this RfC as no consensus and reformulate the proposal to better achieve consensus. It is apparent that the current RfC as phrased will never generate any meaningful result. 0xDeadbeef→∞ 08:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Strong support for a weakened option 1, strong oppose of other options; per User:Aza24's arguments. None of these lists should exist; an article should only be created on a repertoire when there is significant scholarly discussion of that repertoire; otherwise, we fail WP:N. If that threshold is met, pieces should only be included if they're significantly discussed (in multiple scholarly sources) as part of discussions of that repertoire. Not if they're mentioned as "famous viola pieces", "popular", or whatever; those don't meet WP:DUE. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and we need to make sure additions meet encyclopedic standards. That is not only policy, it's one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. DFlhb (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Some variant on Option 2. Categories won't suffice - you'd probably want to include Rachmaninoff's 2nd (both of them, really) on a list of clarinet repertoire, but if you just tag it with the category, it will either be removed, or all the other instruments will get added. If neither the composer or the piece is notable enough for an article, it shouldn't be on the list, but a piece like "Clarinet Candy", by Leroy Anderson, might be worth mentioning, even if it can't truly support an article of its own. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)14:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Establishing criteria for entries
Attempting to initiate a more forward-looking discussion... On the assumption that we agree to keep at least some selective lists of repertoire, what kind of references do editors think are helpful? There are books of repertoire, which are exhaustive to different degrees. Alternatively one could go with works that have been recorded multiple times (how many?), and/or performed (in what kind of venue) and reviewed (in what kind of source). We'd need to be able to distinguish between say Rachmaninov piano concerto no 2, which would be on everyone's list of best-known piano concertos, and Espresso Addict's (fictional) piano concerto no. 1, which (perhaps) has been performed by Espresso Addict with a couple of amateur/youth orchestras of their local area and reviewed in the local newspapers -- and probably very many shades between. Thoughts, anyone? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The first step is clarifying what is mean by "list of compositions" and "lists of repertoire". The former is very broad while the latter is defined as "being played often". From the arguments listed above, I think there are people that would want articles for both (i.e., Viola repertoire and List of compositions for viola: A to B for a complete overview), people that just want the latter (to avoid becoming a directory for compositions while still listing notable pieces and repertoire), and people that want neither (because the selection criteria would always be lacking, maintaining such lists would become an impossible headache, or because prose overviews would be better).
The example I linked above (List of blues standards) tries to ensure there's due weight per entry by citing a minimum of five sources that name the song as a standard. I think that could be a good example of what is required for repertoire lists. Even the euphonium could potentially achieve that [3][4][5][6][7][8], and I definitely know the marimba can. However, I just do not see a use for lists. If an article is title Trombone repertoire, I expect it to discuss the repertoire, its influences, and its development. We have categories for simply listing notable works. At the very least, simply existing is not a good enough criteria. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
List of blues standards is a featured list, which are held to higher standards of sourcing than appertain to articles in general. Personally I think it's very thin, and would probably be much more interesting if it had a wider range of compositions, but I don't edit in music outside classical. Perhaps for repertoire lists either more than one source that explicitly lists the piece as standard repertoire for the instrument, or reliable sources that demonstrate that the piece has been played and reviewed (not just concert listings) at at least three different high-quality venues, and/or recorded more than once on mainstream labels? Espresso Addict (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Isn't the goal for every article to be a featured one? They aren't held to a higher standard. They just happen to meet the standards that every Wikipedia page should strive for. I don't approve of the "recorded more than once on mainstream label" criteria. A reliable source clearly calling a piece repertoire? Sure. An editor calling a piece repertoire because it happened to be recorded three times? Nope. I also worry about the "played" and "reviewed" criteria. Magazines and music journals, such as The Instrumentalist or Limelight, will often review newly published or premiered pieces as part of each issue. Can we really say a piece from 2019 is part of the repertoire simply cause it was reviewed or played once? For example, I came across many reviews of John H. Beck's pieces while researching for his article. Is the piece Andiamo really part of the percussion repertoire? No, it's really not at all. It was just a new piece at the time that the magazine reviewed. Heck, Tempo used to only exclusively review music published by Boosey & Hawkes. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, that's why "played and reviewed (not just concert listings) at at least three different high-quality venues". Maybe some timelag would be useful as new pieces are often played on tour at multiple venues. And while featured articles at least theoretically represent the best of the 'pedia, in the real world we have less than 0.1% of them, and the remaining 99.9% are only held to GNG (or in a couple of irrelevant cases a subject-specific guideline). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
And how do you define "high-quality" venues. I'm sure that you can find at least three performance of a piece at any post-graduate student recital (as most programs are saved online by the college for these), but then that delves into WP:OR. And my perspective is that if none of these subjects have the framework to become GA or FA, then there is something lacking. Not every list or article will reach that status, but it should be at least given the framework to. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
But student recitals are almost never reviewed in reliable sources! And I think it would be easy to agree on what is a high-quality venue, eg Wigmore Hall high quality, Bunessan Hall not so much (even though it hosts some really high-quality concerts). And yes, in an ideal world, all articles would be sourced to featured standards, and personally I never add anything that isn't sourced, but in the real 'pedia, we have 136,754 completely unsourced articles, many of which are considerably more problematic than lists of pieces of music. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I see what you mean now. Three performances and a review for them each. Is that correct? I honestly think that would be a harder task than simply cross-examining what the literature says (i.e., if three reliable sources list it as repertoire). Why? I Ask (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, my suggestion is that each entry should satisfy at least one of:
three different performances at mainstream venues that each got a review in a mainstream source;
inclusion in at least two different repertoire lists for that instrument;
Strongly agree that the blues article's standard is what we should apply to other lists.
Just about the only appropriate articles/lists we should have are those that meet similar notability and dueness thresholds as List of blues standards and Euphonium repertoire. If multiple reliable sources don't significantly cover "X repertoire" as a distinct topic, delete. If multiple reliable sources don't significant cover certain pieces as "standards", delete the entire list. Very few of these lists actually belong on Wikipedia, and it's time we clean out the cruft so people can focus their efforts on actual encyclopedic content.
In response to WIA's ask for a chime or two. The list articles (for viola or any other instrument) should be cut of every entry without a WP-appropriate citation. For the viola list articles, that would, at present, result in wiping them out. I have headed each of these articles with a request for citations. If they don't appear I assume it will be in order to trim them accordingly. These articles simply don't meet WP criteria. For 'repertoire' articles - they should be 'proper' articles giving an overview of the history and nature of the repertoire - not a random list as per Viola repertoire, which lacks an informative lead and which claims to give 'notable' works without considering or explaining what 'notable' might mean, and is also uncited. It might (and perhaps should) be retitled List of compositions for viola which have an article in Wikipedia.--Smerus (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
A list of just the works which have an article on Wikipedia would be trivial (and we have it it's called Viola repertoire), and could be covered by a category. If you say "mentioned on Wikipedia", you'd get more interesting information. I didn't follow closely , but saw that at least the pieces from letter T got some references. General question: If there's a composer with an article, and the article lists pieces, with a reference, should we duplicate such reference to all occasions where the pieces are mentioned? Isn't that a waste of space? Another method would be to give the pieces a redirect to a composer's article where the ref can be found. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I am committed to adding necessary citations for all items currently on the lists (I trust that the Wikipedia community recognizes this will take some time and will not do any trimming without allowing appropriate time). Like Gerda, I would welcome thoughts on the best way to handle these in an effort to reduce duplicative efforts and not to waste space. Dbynog (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)dbynog
A WP-appropriate citation doesn't just include link to the piece verifying that it's real. If the mere existence of something was justification for including something within large lists such as these, we could have pages that list the thousands of people named Bill or a list of every game on Google Play. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
A WP-appropriate citation doesn't just include link to the piece verifying that it's real Ummm what? If the link is WP:RS, then it follows WP:V, right? I fail to see how not including every game on Google Play suggests that we should have higher standards than including compositions referenced by one reliable source. 0xDeadbeef→∞ 10:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:DUEness is a basic requirement for inclusion. The fact that a reliable source mentioned a piece, once, is completely irrelevant for our purposes. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion (WP:ONUS). DFlhb (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I would say not. The listings there themselves have no citations. And just to duplicate stuff from site would be a transgression of copyright.There is no reason to assume that everything listed there is WP:NOTABLE, nor is there any reason to assume for that matter that 90%+ of the stuff in the WP viola lists are notable. (Lots of stuff from composers own websites etc.). For these reasons I believe that this entire discussion is a waste of time. The only thing that would be valid in WP terms would be an article on viola repertoire that discussed its history and variety in a properly cited context, which could if appropriate refer to (referenced) notability of some of the works. I now exit this thread. Smerus (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
When I think of Grove and MGG I have to admit that they don't have extensive lists of repertoire for particular instruments (although articles on specific instruments talk about major examples from those instruments' repertoires). To which one could close off the discussion with a typical Wikipedian response, "But it's not encyclopedic." My attitude to that response is "feh - so what." People are coming to WP wanting more than an encyclopedia; they are seeking a reference resource to supply information they can't obtain elsewhere. I am willing to compromise and say that a list of instrumental works should not include every work ever written for the instrument. But it seems to me that if instrumental works are cited in published bibliographies or have been reviewed in reliable periodicals (not meaning websites), that should be enough criteria for inclusion. I'm even willing to "be bold" and exclude such list articles from WP:Classical until the time when the project's active editors recognize that such lists are worthy additions to WP and the project. - kosboot (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
A slightly modified Option 1 in the sense that a list of works for uncommon instruments should be possible when properly sourced. I am thinking about the Jew's harp, anvil etc. The Bannertalk09:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Option 2 seems reasonable. If there is a specific stable collection of pieces, a specific named repertoire which is well documented, akin to an anthology of literature or a well-documented stable canon of works for an instrument, that may merit an article; I wouldn't want to interfere with that as it seems a reasonable thing to document. However, if this is meant to be an arbitrary list of musical works written for a particular instrument, lists are poorly suited for that. Categorization into Category:Compositions for flute is a better way to handle such works than lists whose inclusion criteria is "a bunch of random people dumped a bunch of random items into this list". --Jayron3214:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Inclusion criteria 2
Once we are together: I just noticed Agnus Dei, and in it examples. Why these examples of the thousands there are, without any prose explaining? Why Agnus Dei from Faurè's Requiem but not Verdi's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the Piano Sonatas by Ludwig van Beethoven, I often find both "bar" and "measure" being used. Is there a consensus as to which one to use, or are both acceptable?
Both are fine. According to Grove, bar is the norm, except in American usage, where measure is generally preferred. Better to stick to one or the other in any one article, though. Tim riley talk16:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Same, both are fine. Both words have more than one meaning, and I prefer measure because of that :) My excuse is that there are many American readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Score
I am looking for an equivalent to de:Partitur, the kind of sheet music showing all parts of a composition together. I thought that is "score". Score, and Score (music), however, are just redirects, and what I am looking for is not an option, because sheet music can many types which do not show all parts. Autograph score doesn't help either. Help? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
That's way down in the article. How would a reader see in the first few lines what a score is? Reading the present intro, I felt I was at the wrong article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Gerda - the equivalent of Partitur in English is "Full score", not, as you thought, just plain "score". As the lead for the article Sheet music states, "The term score [in English, as this is English WP] is a common alternative (and more generic) term for sheet music, and there are several types of scores, as discussed below. The term score can also refer to theatre music, orchestral music or songs written for a play, musical, opera or ballet, or to music or songs written for a television programme or film." The link full score would take you to the definition if you need it in an article.--Smerus (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, you don't always in English have to use 'full score' (in the sense that you might in German if you were writing 'Partitur'). It's perfectly OK to say (for example) 'In Beethoven's score of the 9th Symphony, he included bass drum, triangle and cymbals.'--Smerus (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
