Talk:Classic 100 Symphony

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Composer links[edit]

It has been suggested that the composer names should be linked. Of course, consensus rules, but I will put in an argument for not linking the names:

  • This is a page primarily of works, not composers.
  • The composer pages are easily found via the work link.
  • We are trying to get away from over-linking at WP.
  • As we are not going to link all 100 composer names, I guess only the first instance of each composer would get linked. The trouble with that strategy is that the first instance of a composer name is meaningless when the list is sorted (and sorting is a feature of the page).

 HWV258  06:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first instance should be linked in a table like this... just like in all the excellent Handel tables you've created in the past several months. When that's fixed, the Edwards, O'Boyle and Bračanin "composition links" can be removed (or turned red) as those just point to the composer because the compositions don't have articles.
I'm a bit curious where you are going with these lists, actually. Every classical music station in the world periodically runs countdowns like these in order to boost their ratings. Are you planning on creating tables for the results of each poll or just the ones run by your favorite station in Australia? Seems like you are opening a huge can of worms. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Every classical music station in the world periodically runs countdowns like these..."—great; let's make a category!  HWV258  09:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned at the start that "sorting is a feature of this page" - how does this work?
Another possible link for this page would be a link to the September 2009 archives of ABC Classic FM playlists, as this would give the actual performances of symphonies used.
How many classical music stations are there that would have similar or greater numbers of listeners? I mainly hear about them through ABC Classic FM's broadcasts of other performances supplied by the other stations.
Splouge (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By defining the table as class="wikitable sortable" the columns of the table can be made sortable (and all of the ones on the page have been made sortable). Try clicking on the little icons next to the table headers (you can click then icons more than once each in order to change the sort direction).  HWV258  09:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, I do believe that the first instance of a composer being mentioned should be linked. See, for comparison/example, another ABC 100 music countdown: Triple_J_Hottest_100,_2008. And I definately do not see where you can say "We are trying to get away from over-linking at WP." 138.25.67.130 (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned: consensus is the name of the game. Regarding "overlinking", see here.  HWV258  09:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, consensus. You've got three people disagreeing with you now and no one agreeing. "No linking" is not the appropriate response to "overlinking".DavidRF (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the old numerical approach to "consensus". I've made some good points—e.g. I don't believe reducing a two-click process to a one-click process is worth the strange effects that will be generated after sorting the composer links; and this is a page to do with works, not composers). Reading above, I can only gleam that people want composer links because they want them (aka the use of technology because it's there). Anyhow, I'm not stopping anyone from doing what they feel they must. I've been out-!voted! (I just wanted people to think before blindly linking.)  HWV258  03:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You're the one that cited "consensus" when everyone disagreed with you. Didn't make any sense. I was just pointing that out. And making up trite reasons for why people are disagreeing with you? Over what? Wiki-linking the first instance of a person's name? That's the definition of what is supposed to be linked. Anyhow, I don't want to get involve in page ownership disputes here, so I'll bow out now. Cheers.DavidRF (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cited "consensus" (see my 06:32, 15 September 2009 post) when one person started to link composer names (as in: let's see what transpires after debate). Isn't that how WP is supposed to work? "Definitions" of what is supposed to be linked work well in article text, but are not so clear-cut in sortable lists. You are not assuming good faith when you use words like "dispute" and "trite". What "dispute"? Did you notice that I said I'm not trying to stop anyone? Sheez.  HWV258  04:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another possible approach—we could put the following table at the end of the page:

Composer Symphonies
Beethoven 3
Berlioz 1
Bizet 1
Borodin 1
Bračanin, Philip 1
Brahms 2
Bruckner 4
Dvořák 4
Edwards, Ross 1
Elgar 2
Franck 1
Glass 1
Haydn 5
Mahler 6
Mendelssohn 2
Messiaen 1
Mozart 6
Nielsen 2
O'Boyle, Sean 1
Prokofiev 1
Rachmaninoff 3
Schubert 1
Schumann 2
Shostakovich 4
Sibelius 5
Strauss, Richard 1
Stravinsky 1
Tchaikovsky 3
Walton 1
Williams, Vaughan 5

(Correct with 28 works to go.)
That adds extra information and allows a one-for-one composer linkage.
 HWV258  04:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not unless you were going to make that table anyways. That just seems like a large about of work and a large bulky table far away from the links in question to address this. I didn't think the link-first issue in tables was that big of a deal. Its done all the time even when its sortable from Kochel catalogue to List_of_compositions_by_George_Frideric_Handel (which you've been a large contributor to). But seriously, I really only have a passing interest in this page and I don't want to become a candidate for WP:LAME for discussing this too much further. Cheers and apologies for the disruption.DavidRF (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Performer Column[edit]

I don't believe the performer column should be added. The symphonies were voted for in their own right irrespective of the performer. Adding the column gives the impression that the voting was based on both the symphony and the performer which it was not. It would be more accurate if a note was added noting that the performer indicates the performance that ABC Classic FM chose to broadcast. Statters (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed the column until this is sorted. It's a difficult feature to get right. The point of the table is to show a summary of the works in a manner that can be sorted for added analysis. I don't know if the performance details add much to that. Perhaps a link to each day of the countdown is enough as that allows an interested reader to find the performance details for themselves. For example:

 HWV258  09:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried turning on javascript to see the column sorting, and it made the load times in my browser several times as long, so I've disabled it again. Splouge (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have another go—the Javascript only needs to load once. Note that I've created all my pages with dial-up (sad, but true) and load times don't particularly worry me. (Note, to add your signature, you only need to put the following characters at the end of your post: ~~~~.  HWV258  10:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting[edit]

I never got around to putting in a vote, and the rules have now been removed from the website. I understood people could vote for only one work, but had three methods of voting. We're currently saying votes could nominate their three favourite symphonies. Is this correct? -- JackofOz (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct—three symphonies could be nominated. Note that (at least the couple of) previous countdowns only allowed a vote for one work.  HWV258  11:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonies 5 to 2[edit]

Please leave the details of the complete performance of symphonies 5 to 2 on 20 September 2009 in at least until it has been discussed.

I do not want to sacrifice accuracy for brevity Splouge (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The works after the countdown do not belong on this page. What if they replay some of the works in a week's time—will you add those? In a month? What happens after tonight is after the countdown and adds no significant value to the Classic 100 Symphony page. As I mentioned before, this is not an advertising page for a radio station. It's not a question of "accuracy"—it's a question of being irrelevant to the counting-down of 100 symphonic works. This is all quiet separate to the simple fact that WP does not anticipate facts—it reports facts that have happened.  HWV258  04:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we need to temporarily revise this until it actually happens:
  • All of the works (in their entirety) were broadcast (from number 100 to number 1) from 12 September 2009 to 20 September 2009, with a live broadcast of a concert of excerpts of works 5 to 2 and the entire number 1 ranked symphony on September 19 2009. The number 1 ranked symphony performance was re-broadcast on September 21 2009. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "clever" argument suggesting that two wrongs make a right (well, definitely not sticking to the issue being discussed). If you must, recast it—but keep in mind that recasting it does not give you (or anyone else) the right to mention programming after the countdown is over. By the way, I have recast the mess that was there. Trust me, I know something about the way WP works now, and this page is actually hanging on by a thread (have you seen the "notability" banners on the other Classic 100 pages?). Let's keep this page tight and give others as little reason as possible for disputing its existence.
In addition, the Day 9 reference has to be removed on accuracy alone: there's nothing on the programming page that suggests that works 5 to 2 will even be played; nor is there anything on the Day 10 programming notes to suggest that the favourite symphony will be rebroadcast.
Lastly, it's just plain wrong to talk about "Day 9" and "Day 10" of a countdown that went for eight days. We are here to assist our readers—not to confuse the hell out of them. :-)
 HWV258  05:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't trying to be clever; that's not my way. I noticed it yesterday, but time got away from me. But when you (quite correctly) mentioned that we do not anticipate future events (even those we can be reasonably certain will happen), I thought it was worth bringing up in that context. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite correct—I did try to slip one past the keeper. I thought I could get away with a (reasonable) wiki-lie before someone noticed (and for 7.6 days, I did). Now that I've just heard that ABC Classic FM intends not to broadcast the full symphonies in the "final" concert (grinds teeth inconsolably), I must admit that Splouge does have a point. I don't believe that it should be called "Day 9", but there should be some reference made to the completion of the countdown on the following day. I'll have a go re-wording when we get confirmation via events.  HWV258  05:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand Wikipedia not wanting to list future events. However, when there was a reversion of my additions of details (the fact that excerpts of symphonies 5 to 2 were scheduled to be played with the number one symphony on 19 September at the concert, and the playing of complete symphonies 5 to 2 on 20 September and the re-broadcast of symphony 1 from the 19 September concert on 21 September), the text left in the article was still referring to future dates. Removing some future dates but not all is inconsistent. Splouge (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references to anything that hasn't happened yet have been removed. I'll be out during the scheduled broadcast of number 6 and the start of the concert so feel free to update it as it goes. Splouge (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

link to list of Classic 100 countdowns?[edit]

Although there is a link to ABC_Classic_FM, there is no mention made on this page that this countdown is one of ABC_Classic_FM#Classic_100_countdowns. To avoid the "you can't get there from here" syndrome of links working well in one direction but not the other, could ABC_Classic_FM#Classic_100_countdowns get a mention on this page? Splouge (talk) 06:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine to link to the "Classic_100_countdowns" section on the ABC Classic FM page. Do you want to do it for all the countdown pages, or shall I?  HWV258  06:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to add a link to ABC_Classic_FM#Classic_100_countdowns from this page and any other of the "ABC FM Classic 100 Countdowns" pages that lack such a link?

Splouge (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lengths[edit]

I assumed the length of each work was the number of minutes in the recordings actually used in the ABC broadcast. That is, someone sat through them all and conscientiously timed them. But this edit caused me to think otherwise. Is there an "official" length in minutes of any particular piece of music? If not - and there's not, by the way - where do these numbers come from, and what support do they have? -- JackofOz (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the times from the ABC Classic FM programme logs, except for the number 1 choice which I timed from the broadcast of the live concert (30-59 seconds rounded up to the next minute, 0-29 seconds rounded down). Symphonies 5 to 2 were based on the times of the complete works broadcast on 20 September 2009. Strangely, after the ABC promised to re-broadcast the concert performance of the New World Symphony, we heard on 21 September 2009: Dvořák Symphony No 9 in E minor, Op 95 "From the New World" - Berlin Phil Orch/Herbert von Karajan DG 474 266-2 41'55. After correcting the times for individual symphonies (many only out by a minute, some several minutes out), I could copy and paste the table from Wikipedia into a spreadsheet, sum the "minutes" column, divide by 60, then multiply the remainder by 60 to get a total playing time in hours and minutes. It would be possible, although a bit tedious to get the playing times in minutes and seconds for every symphony played in the countdown from the ABC Classic FM web site and sum those to get a more exact figure, but the main points in listing the times is to give the casual reader an idea of the length of each symphony and the more serious reader an idea of whether a slower, faster or average length performance, which can be verified from the ABC Classic FM web sites. Splouge (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the times from the ABC Classic FM Programme notes into minutes and seconds, and using the time of the live concert performance of the New World Symphony of 43 minutes and 24 seconds, I get a total playing time of 72 hours and 35 minutes and 22 seconds, so the rounded total of 72 hours and 35 minutes was accurate. Splouge (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Classic_100_Symphony&oldid=1206714939"