Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 47

Nordwestdeutsche Philharmonie
Nordwestdeutsche Philharmonie
Years active	1953 – 1955: Wilhelm Schüchter; 2006 – 2009: Andris Nelsons; 2010 – present: Eugene Tzigane; other conductors 1950 – 1952: Rolf Agop; 1959 – 1960: Hermann Scherchen; ;
Known for	concert tours to Japan; Italy; Switzerland; United States;
	serving Bad Salzuflen; Bünde; Detmold; Lemgo; Minden; Paderborn;

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

Archive 40

←

Dates of composition and premiere

Comments are welcome at Talk:List of oratorios#Question. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Structure of Waltz in E major, Op. posth. (Chopin)

I think the structure presented here is overly detailed. In my opinion, the waltz is no more than a rather compact sonata-rondo with an introduction (I-A-B-A-C-A-B-A), and separating the introduction like that is needlessly confusing. One problem is that both my assertion and what's in this article is original research; I can't find reliable sources on this topic.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The articles on the Chopin waltzes are all very feeble, seriously content-lite: do they deserve separate articles ? (except maybe the 'Minute Waltz'.....?)--Smerus (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Symphony No. 7 (Schubert)

Does anyone have good reference materials for Schubert? If so the (fragmentary) Symphony No. 7 (Schubert) might be worth looking at. It's been extensively referenced recently. --Klein zach 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Reviews by Amazon.com users are not adequate sources here, and neither are YouTube videos. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

could also be interesting to have an article on the Gastein symphony btw.--Smerus (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Orchestra discographies

Is anyone interested in working on orchestra discographies? Up to now we've only had three of these: Oregon Symphony discography (a featured list), Cleveland Orchestra discography (also good), and Los Angeles Philharmonic discography. I've just created Vienna Philharmonic discography, partly to reduce the length of the parent article Vienna Philharmonic. This could be turned into a useful page, though it's a big subject and would take some work — likewise discographies for other leading orchestras. --Klein zach 03:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Alkan/Hamelin

I am hoping fairly shortly to submit Charles-Valentin Alkan for GA. The article has for a long time contained the following quote attributed to Marc-André Hamelin: "The aspect of Alkan that is most apparent when people who don't know him listen to him for the first time is that his music is difficult to play...But in a way, I wish that it did not take a formidable technique...the great musical worth of Alkan's music makes it worthwhile to master those difficulties." It would be nice to keep this quote, (if genuine), but it has no source, nor have I found one - in fact the quote appears quite widely on the net, apparently taken from the article. Can anyone by chance supply a source? Other comments on the article are of course also welcome. --Smerus (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

And now for something completely (well, slightly,) different....

Just to depart from minor composers such as Richard Wagner...I have nominated his coeval Charles-Valentin Alkan for GA, with the medium-term hope of getting it up to FA as soon as possible and nominating it for the front page for Alkan's own bicentennial in November. If anyone is willing to initiate the GA review I should be very grateful - and of course I look forward to any comments. --Smerus (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Orchestra infobox: proposal

All the main orchestra articles at present use the ugly pop music Infobox Musical artist, with fields more suitable for individual musicians such as 'genres', 'occupations', 'associated acts', 'origin', 'years active', 'notable instruments'.

Perhaps it's time to do something to cleanup the appearance and the accuracy of these articles? I propose we make a dedicated Infobox orchestra with appropriate fields. Is that OK? I know many of us dislike boxes for biographies, but institutions should be a lot less controversial. It might be helpful if people could agree/disagree, and perhaps even offer to help with the box if the project was interested in going ahead with this. Thank you. Klein zach 03:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Support - I think that's a good concept and if we can create an infobox for orchestras, it will definitely work for us. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Support per proposal. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Support - would certainly be a great improvement on current situation. But please don't make it too enormous! (Maybe date founded/founder/home town where not in title/base concert hall if any/present lead conductor/website?)--Smerus (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment I suggest to first look if existing infoboxes don't cover the requirements, for example {{Infobox organisation}}, or can be expanded to meet them, also compare {{Infobox choir}}, for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've proposed a box specially for orchestras, Gerda. If the proposal is accepted, we can discuss here what fields it will have. Klein zach 09:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Comment Why not update the documentation for the existing infobox, indicating which fields are not suitable for orchestras? Of the parameters you list, (place of) origin may be relevant, for orchestras with no place name in their own name; as might years active, for defunct orchestras, while a year of foundation is needed for those still active. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. We definitely need this infobox. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Fields for infobox orchestra

We have a consensus for a new box — which I hope won’t be disrupted — so what design and what fields are appropriate? My suggestion would be to use the 'clean design' of Template:Infobox person (pale grey tint with black hairline boxing). Per Smerus above, fields could be:

date founded
founder
home city (if not in title)
home concert hall
principal conductor
~~famous instruments~~
website

I’ve added ‘famous instruments’ to Smerus’s list because a number of mainly American orchestra articles list Stradivarius instruments, organs etc, see for example Los Angeles Philharmonic. However we could leave that out, or put the info in a separate box, if people think the infobox would be too busy.

Please comment if you think any of the fields should be omitted, or if extra ones should be added. Thanks! Klein zach 02:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Asking as someone having no knowledge, I would have assumed the instruments were generally the property of the individual musicians rather than the orchestra. (Obviously not an organ.) I take it this is wrong? Milkunderwood (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) See List of Stradivarius instruments for owners of some instruments. I think this might be complicated with some instruments owned by foundations etc. Obviously any info we include would have to be checked. --Klein zach 03:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think listing instruments owned would count as trivia. It's not a widely known fact about any orchestra (whereas the identity of the music director and the name of the concert hall is). It also can't make that much difference to the sound of the orchestra; most musicians play their own instruments. So let's leave it out. Opus33 (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Opus33. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll strike it out for now. Klein zach 03:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What about particularly important previous principal conductors, and dates? Szell Cleveland, Karajan Philharmonia, etc? -- Munch, Koussevitzy, Bernstein -- too much clutter? And isn't it likely that "founders" are ~~unknown~~ obscure names? Milkunderwood (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I withdraw my own suggestion about prior conductors. These should be listed in the text. But what about "founders"? I would relegate these to a text mention. Or, what is a "founder"? Occasionally a conductor will decide to create an orchestra for his own use, but generally it's some civic leader with a gleam in his eye, who acts as organizer and fund-raiser, and hires a conductor. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested fields (edited to strike guest conductors):

home city (if not in title)
date founded (and date disbanded, if defunct)
home concert hall
principal conductor

principal guest conductors, if any, no more than two at most (? this is probably asking for trouble)

5. website

All significant prior principal conductors should be listed, with dates, in the text. The term "music director" should not be used, because a principal conductor may not have been officially designated as such -- cf. Philharmonia Orchestra early history. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

The home city should be mentioned even if it is part of the title.
Conductors: the current conductor and important predecessors could be listed open, other former ones in a collapsed list. For example: Nordwestdeutsche Philharmonie (In the real article, I would list all with an article.)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Re. principal guest conductors, and Milkunderwood's remark, "this is probably asking for trouble": Yup! Deciding which guest conductors are "principal" is a judgment call, often nuanced, and so properly addressed with prose in the article itself. One of the problems infoboxes cause is that they encourage editors to make all-or-nothing snap decisions on nuanced topics. I think if "principal guest conductor" is removed, an infobox containing the remaining five fields would not be likely to cause too much trouble. Opus33 (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) (revised below) Milkunderwood (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

We are at the beginning of a discussion, right, offering options. We could list all conductors, list all with an article, or highlight a few and collapse others, then again: others could be all others, all others with an article, selected others. - It's only an attempt to show possibilities, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, of course Gerda - we are just throwing out ideas. Here is the way I was trying to revise my paragraph above:

It occurs to me the same criticism applies to Gerda's example, where she specifies "important" predecesors, skipping some years as presumably unimportant(?). Further, there's no point in saying the Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, etc, orchestras are located in those cities - that's just clutter. NWD would fall under Kleinzach's exception. Also, NWD is different from most orchestras in "serving" a region rather than being located in a large city. Attendees may come from all over the world, to any orchestra. And I disagree with including tours in an info box. Let's keep it simple. What would be helpful would be to list the types of information that may be useful to discuss in the article, as opposed to putting it in the infobox. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, in a separate conversation on our userpages, Gerda has raised the issue of infoboxes needing certain information being specified for the purpose of inclusion of metadata, which I know nothing at all about. This would put the whole topic in a different light. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

For orchestras whose name is not in English, a parameter for |name_lang=, to take the two-letter ISO code (such as de for German). This would not be displayed, but applied using {{lang}}. I can provide markup if necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Re 'metadata': this is a red herring, as far as I can gather from discussions about infoboxes in other arenas. Maybe Gerda has got the wrong end of the stick. Metadata may be linked to infoboxes, but don't have to be (and vice versa). It's a quite separate topic, and shouldn't be allowed to muddy the waters of this discussion, which otherwise could risk becoming yet another attempt by fanatics to slap infoboxes on everything in sight by falsely citing metadata and other little-understood topics as excuses for global standardization. There seems to be some consensus here on orchestras; let's not put it at risk by seeking to broaden the issue. Oh, and of course keep doubtful topics sch as 'guest conductors' and trivia such as tours out of any orchestra box. WP:KISS--Smerus (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I didn't mention the word you don't like, and told you, Milkunderwood, better not to do so (on my talk), and certainly hoped if doing so my name was not mentioned. - I didn't raise a stick, so can't drop it ;) - I could begin a template on a user page, to be edited by all until we are happy, - perhaps easier than showing too many examples here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No offense intended. If there's a controversy, I know nothing about it. I certainly agree with Smerus, to keep it as simple as possible, which I thought had been illustrated in my (amended) five fields. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never before had occasion to look at an infobox template, but looking now at Template:Infobox choir, this mess is exactly what we are trying to avoid here - it has fields for every conceivable item of information. Would it help for this Template:Infobox orchestra to specifically say in the explanation that fields should not be expanded, and additional information such as [...] should be listed, mentioned, or discussed only in the text of the article? Milkunderwood (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The fields don't have to be filled, of course, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

But this is the whole point - if the fields are there, people will fill them. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A latecomer as usual, I do support the proposal, but I have a couple of thoughts. First, something specific: might it be useful to add a line for former names or predecessor organizations? I'm thinking in particular of the George Enescu Philharmonic, formerly the Bucharest Philharmonic, and what today we call the New York Philharmonic, which until sometime in the early '50s or so was The Philharmonic-Symphony Orchestra of New York, derived from merger during the Great Depression of the New York Philharmonic and the New York Symphony. Seems to me that's the sort of "un-nuanced," purely factual information that a "quick glance" user, say, somebody coming to Wikipedia because confused by dueling Toscanini reissues citing different names for the same organization, might be grateful to have presented without need to resort to the text. Second, and rather more generally, might we do well, before going much further, to take a look at a cross section of the orchestra articles and systematically assess what pitfalls they may present and how well the proposals to date would deal with them? Better to chase out potential problems now, I think, than to discover them after the box has come into being. Drhoehl (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

And a couple of others that might bear consideration (sorry if somehow I missed them earlier): what about, for want of a better term, "type": broadcast (e.g., NBC Symphony), concert (e.g., Philadelphia Orchestra), recording (e.g., Philharmonia Orchestra), etc.? And what about record labels? Drhoehl (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

To me these are both very interesting ideas. The first, concerning different names, I agree would be important to include in an infobox for the reason given. Concerning "type", first, all three categories suggested did make recordings. I had not been aware that the Philharmonia did not give live performances. And I wonder if these might be difficult to reference. (Note that at the top of the major section on his proposal, Kleinzach listed a number of orchestras for reference in this discussion.) Milkunderwood (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary

Thank you everybody. I think we have some agreement about essential fields and some good ideas for optional fields. Without making any final decisions on these, I've gone ahead and created:

These will require tech checks before they are usable. Can we continue discussions about fields at Template talk:Infobox orchestra? Klein zach 03:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Followup: 'Native name' field

Unfortunately changes are already being made to the box without discussion, see [1] and [2].

We now have a field called 'Native name' which no-one asked for! (The name of the orchestra is now sometimes in more than one language, i.e. English and the 'original'!) etc. (We also have microformats, coordinates etc.). It's a pity because these changes are being made before the setup is even finished (which can't be done in userspace). I had asked Frietjes to look at it. --Klein zach 14:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

(I was not involved but would assume that) for the Vienna Philharmonic, there should be a parameter saying that they call themselves "Wiener Philharmoniker", and the information that this is German. - I didn't know that anything is ever "finished" on WP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, do you really want to see the 'original name Vs English name' can of worms re-opened? Don't you realise that many editors want all German names to be translated into English? --Klein zach 15:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I observe names such as Deutsche Radio Philharmonie Saarbrücken Kaiserslautern which I hope will not be translated, and I see that in some cases you could not deduct the original name from a translation, for example "Symphony" could have been Sinfoniker, Symphoniker, Sinfonieorchester, - and some names are awfully similar: WDR Symphony Orchestra Cologne is the WDR Sinfonieorchester Köln, until the 1990s Kölner Rundfunk-Sinfonie-Orchester, but there's also a different orchestra, WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln, which is a wrong redirect at present, it should be a translation of de:WDR Rundfunkorchester Köln. To make it short: these names are the worms, not the discussion, and if you go to the native names you are safer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This has got nothing to do with infoboxes. Wrong redirects etc. should of course be corrected. No-one is disagreeing with you about this. --Klein zach 00:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I put it back to the last version edited by Kleinzach, considering this a case of simple vandalism. I apologize to editor Frietjes for the collateral damage. Opus33 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was vandalism. Gerda pointed out to that editor that the box might be a "fork" [3], and he was trying to improve it by bringing the code in line with other boxes of that type. Some of it is an improvement in its mechanics. The "native name" field is debatable. Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I wrote "These will require tech checks before they are usable." That was disregarded. 'That editor' (who many of us think should be topic banned, see [4]) characteristically went in and took pre-emptive action to get what he wanted included in the box, including the language stuff. Obviously not everything he did was bad, but that's hardly the point. Klein zach 17:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I know who 'that editor' is. The way he made the changes was not at all collegiate, but not vandalism either. Voceditenore (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I support Voceditore's view, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? Voceditenore (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Are we are being a little naive here? 'That editor' wrote: "This new infobox looks promising, but should not replace infoboxes with additional, useful, parameters, such as those in City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, until it can handle similar detail (with better labels, of course)." [5]. So he's determined to inflate the number of fields until the new box matches the trivia of the pop music one, contrary to the intentions of everybody here (except possibly our poor Gerda who thinks this is about Germany-language titles!). Are we all ready for another huge-waste-of-time edit war? "Not at all collegiate" yes, well . . .Klein zach 10:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Naive? No. Disingenuous? Yes. I said nothing about "trivia". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Opus33 should be aware that false accusations of vandalism are not allowed on Wikipedia. I invite him to strike that comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As also noted on the template's talk page, there is no requirement for prior discussion before changes are made, especially to a draft temp[late. You say "no one asked for" the native name parameter; I did so above, yesterday, and it clearly didn't arise spontaneously. And there is no coordinates parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to throw a spanner into this discussion, is Württembergisches_Kammerorchester_Heilbronn WP's standard format for other-language orchestra/chamber groups? Milkunderwood (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

We are probably the most German-friendly group of editors on WP — Gerda please note — but that might be pushing it. --Klein zach 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Appreciating your friendliness, I started a new thread for this topic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Guideline

Can we add a short paragraph to our guidelines about orchestra infoboxes as follows?

A dedicated infobox for orchestras is available. This is called {{Infobox orchestra}} and is available at Template: Infobox orchestra. (As noted elsewhere, the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article.)

Thanks. Klein zach 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The first two sentences can be shortened to: "A dedicated infobox, {{Infobox orchestra}}, is available." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Native name fields again added

The native name fields have again been added to the template[6]. As there is no significant support for these fields (adding invented translated names of orchestras that don't have official English names) I've reverted. It really is difficult to develop bona fide info boxes for CM articles when this kind of thing is going on. This again illustrates why so many of us think the attempt to work on fit for purpose boxes is counter-productive. (And yes, the same editor, is of course involved here.) Klein zach 04:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

For the second time today these fields have been added. [7]. --Klein zach 15:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

What's the problem with that field? I fail to understand how you improve the encyclopedia by preventing a reader or re-user from getting the information that the Vienna Philharmonic is called Wiener Philharmoniker in its native language. --RexxS (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Bogus example. See the first sentence of the Vienna Philharmonic lead: "The Vienna Philharmonic (in German: Wiener Philharmoniker), founded . . . . " Of course no one is preventing the reader seeing this. That's not the point. And it's important to remember that the Vienna Philharmonic is an official name. --Klein zach 14:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Kleinzach's claim that the field (singular) is for "invented translated names" (my emphasis) is bogus. He offers no explanation for his removal of HTML classes unrelated to the native_name parameters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. But surely we don't fix the problem of folks supplying incorrect information by removing everyone's ability to supply any information at all? --RexxS (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Implementation/unnecessary field added without discussion

I've now implemented a lot of these boxes, removing the old pop music ones.

Unfortunately ‘that editor’ has again changed this orchestra infobox, this time adding a 'short name' field. [8] [9] As before this was done without discussion. I've reverted, though I expect the field will soon be put back and perhaps others will be put in as well. (The user knows that I observe WP:1RR). After going through many of these articles, I haven’t found one instance where this 'short name' field would be useful. Klein zach 04:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have replied - including a rebuttal of your final assertion - on the template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Orchestra Infobox from City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra

The new orchestra infobox (agreed above) has been removed from City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra and replaced by the old pop music box.[10]. (It's likely that other articles have also had orchestra infoboxes removed.) See also here. All the fields that editors here wanted removed have been restored. --Klein zach 15:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This is already being discussed on the talk page of {{Infobox orchestra}}. There, not here, is the place to reach consensus on the design of that infobox. Colleagues will also note a prior, unresolved, objection to the use of the infobox in the manner in which you have deployed it, on that page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox for Richard Wagner?

An infobox has been placed on the talk page of the Richard Wagner article see here. This was done by Gerda Arendt, who also unsuccessfully suggested an infobox for Johann Sebastian Bach, see here.

Some of us may want to express an opinion on the Richard Wagner box, but perhaps we should also think about whether Gerda Arendt is disrupting Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point, see [11]. --Klein zach 23:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The accusations of "disruption" against a strong content contributor raising a simple talk page discussion in completely good faith is inappropriate. Discuss the topic, Kleinzach, not the contributor. All she did was put it up on the talk page for discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 00:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I placed that infobox on the talk under the heading "no infobox" and meant it, believe it or not, following a recommendation of notable editors Nikkimaria and Newyorkbrad. Obviously I have a different understanding of "disruptive", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Where and when was this recommendation given? Why did you select the Richard Wagner article, when you are not even a minor contributor to that article. The principal editor there is well known to be against biographical infoboxes. I don't understand what you are trying to do. Can you explain? --Klein zach 07:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that only now, think I explained on the talk, but will repeat: I was involved in the FA review of Richard Wagner, beginning in January 2013, please study (!) Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Richard Wagner/archive2. The nominator accepted many of my comments, as you can see, but was strongly (quotes: "entirely", "I am certain that an infobox would damage the article", "resolutely") against an infobox, which I had started to create immediately. He was afraid it would be in the way of promotion, believe it or not. I did not "select Wagner", I had a first design ready for a long time, as the nominator knew, but waited until I returned refreshed from vacation to put it on the talk page, as recommended by Newyorkbrad. When and where he recommended that, sorry I don't know, I trusted Nikkimaria, - and, repeating, I still think it's a valid solution when powers and forces are against an infobox in an article. How that can be termed a disruption, can you explain? - I am certain that an infobox would not damage the article but improve it, - is that disruption? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

See 'Explaining disruption' in the subsection below. --Klein zach 14:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The preference of the "principal editor" (however that might be measured) counts for no more than Gerda's views, nor yours, mine, or any other editor's. That is core Wikipedia policy. You should know that, as I've pointed it out to you, more than once, previously. as to your first question, that is already eplained in discussion on the article's talk page, in which you have been involved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

But for some reason you did not complain about that argument when it was used in favour of keeping an infobox in an article ([12]). Toccata quarta (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

~~Where?~~ Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Came to ask the same question, the link goes to a contribution by Moxy. - Toccata quarta, could you please edit a section, not the whole page, for clarity on the watchlist? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The point is that there was no denunciation of that post. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed Why would anyone with any sense denounce an editor for saying that other editors should be listened to? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The comment there is "listen to the main editors". I have never suggested that any editors not be listened to. On the contrary. And unlike some posting on this page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, in the light of Mr. Mabbett's condescension, the opinion of this editor may be listened to, as a major contributor to the present content of the Wagner article, as the editor who proposed it for GA and then FA and responded to all the consequent discussions, and who more recently proposed it for the WP front page next Wednesday - in none of which actions Mr. Mabbett took any conspicuous part: I am entirely opposed to the use of an infobox in the main article, and I cannot see any use or point in parking a specious 'quasi' infobox, which does not have the consensus of the community, on its talkpage.--Smerus (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Explaining disruption

According to WP:DISRUPT:

Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that . . . disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. . . . Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively. The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia.

That's an accurate description of our experience here following Gerda Arendt's action in putting an infobox on the Richard Wagner talk page. Klein zach 14:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively" Get the beam out of your own eye, Kleinzach. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I know that passage, but I don't see how it relates to putting a piece of content on a talk page, sorry. I feel that I am improving Wikipedia. Simply look at how that infobox improved, by several helpers. I learned again. (Elizabeth II could be improved, regarding the collapsed section.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt: what you're describing is a sandbox. Talk pages have a different purpose. --Klein zach 23:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Klienzach, someone disagreeing with you on a talk page is not "disruption." It's DISCUSSION. With a disagreement. Montanabw^(talk) 21:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would call Klienzach's comments disruptive, actually. He is trying to intimidate Gerda and any others that may disagree with his rigid "no infobox" pov, in my view. Jus da fax 23:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That begs a definition of intimidation, as opposed to, say, criticism. Are you suggesting that quoting Wikipedia guidelines is crossing some kind of line? Of course accusations of intimidation can also fall into the same category. --Klein zach 23:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Kleinzach may have a point. Instead of "live editing" the infobox at the head of the article talk-page section, please leave it as is, and post a new version for each iteration. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The first version is in my sandbox. - I confess that I thought "sandbox" at times, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

New article list?

Some projects have a list of "recently created articles." Usually the first item on the list contains the most recently created article (example for WikiProject Musical Theatre: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre/pages). Does this project have such a list? If not, might it be useful to create one? -- kosboot (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you know how these lists are compiled? There is, of course, a difference in scale between CM and Musical Theatre. We have about 16,000 articles, whereas I think they have less than 1,000. --Klein zach 22:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The list on WikiProject Musical theatre is done manually by the project participants. Somewhere in the project page it says "If you create an article, add it to this list" and people do. For the Classical Music project, I think it would be fine to just start....from today. ;) -- kosboot (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No way. An ad hoc list for the whole of CM would be certain to fail. I thought you meant some kind of bot notification. As always, if you want to take an initiative it should be with a subsection of CM, not the whole thing, That way you stand a chance of completing the task. --Klein zach 23:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there that many new articles created on a weekly/monthly basis? If the responsibility lies with the creators of the articles, what's the problem? -- kosboot (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it will give a false idea of activity. People may go to the list for information that it's not providing. That's always bad. To answer your first question, yes many CM articles are started by editors who don't even know about this project. --Klein zach 04:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

From the Opera Project experience, I think the only potentially useful list for this project would be one generated by the NewArt bot. The OP has one, and it also picks up a lot (most?) of the new CM articles as well, although the listing isn't updated as frequently as it used to be. I've recently gone through the OP new listings page for 18 April - 15 May and found 7 articles related (or potentially related) to this project which is probably pretty representative. Only one was created by a CM member.

The CM banner was added at creation to Vienna Philharmonic discography and created by a CM member.
I've added the CM banner to the previously unbannered Les Illuminations (Britten), Poems and Prayers, and Janet Sung. None were created by CM members
The CM banner was added at creation to Gitano (Rolando Villazón album). I changed it to the OP banner. It was not created by a CM member
The CM banner was added at creation to Bach cantatas (Koopman). It was not created by a CM member. I left it, but are individual classical albums in your scope?
List of musical instruments by transposition is potentially in the scope of CM, but I left it unbannered for now. It was not created by a CM member.

Whenever I find an article which is double-bannered for CM and either the Opera or Composers projects, I remove the CM banner per your policy. But I suspect there are still a lot of articles inappropriately double bannered. Voceditenore (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

VDT's information highlights some of our maintenance problems. I've just been through Category:Orchestras. This is larger (with its sub-cats) than WikiProject Musical Theatre, and it had many articles with no project banners at all. Similarly Category:Classical music stubs seems to include many pages without banners. (It would be great if we could have some help going through them!) But kosboot — Are you interested in setting something up with NewArt bot? --Klein zach 15:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It think it would be worth a try. Even if it doesn't capture all the new articles, knowing some of the new articles could be a spur to improve them. Thing is - I've never done anything with bots on WP. -- kosboot (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To set up a bot run (i.e. to ask for a script to be run) is a matter of contacting a bot operator either directly or via bot requests. Then you have to define what you want the bot to do (e.g. find all newly created music articles). This is done using the project categories. We have a list of them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Categories. You have to be very careful to get the script right, otherwise you can do some harm. If you like to take this on — and it's an interesting learning experience – I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Klein zach 01:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Help with checking existing articles

Re the double-bannering, quite a lot of this seems to occur in Category:WikiProject Composers articles. Many of these were originally bannered with the old template WikiProject Contemporary music. They were bannering all the contemporary classical music composer articles (as was the Composers project). Now that the Contemporary classical music project has been absorbed into CM, it's leaving all the talk pages of these composers bannered with both Classical Music and the Composers project. I started going through that category (got only as far as Talk:Anton Cajetan Adlgasser), and removed 15 CM banners. I'd be happy to keep going through that category and doing this if you think it's appropriate and/or useful.

If you think it would be more useful, I'd be happy to go through Category:Classical music stubs gradually and add or remove banners where needed. I just need a couple of clarifications. Are the following types of articles in the project's scope:

Category:Classical albums
Films about classical music or musicians, e.g. Speaking in Strings
Classical "crossover" groups/musicians, e.g. Sterling EQ
Classical musicians/groups/compositions from non-Western traditions, e.g. Tay Teow Kiat (I assume not, but just want to make sure).

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Re clarifications, the project covers all "all articles related to classical music that aren't covered by other classical music related projects". My understanding is that Classical music is defined by the article, so albums, films, crossover groups (though the example looks more like pop to me) would all be in if they are not claimed by any other project, but non-western traditions are out. --Klein zach 01:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

We probably have about 20,000 articles, according to the project definition of CM articles not covered by other projects. While individual editing is obviously a good thing, I think only bot runs can really make an impact on the problem. The last time we did any big ones was in 2008, hence our bannering is out of date. Some bot runs are quite simple to do. For example it would be easy enough to go through Category:Classical music stubs and banner all the articles that are missing them. Of course any bot runs should be proposed here first, so we all know about them. --Klein zach 01:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User behaviour

Melodia has made a reversion with the words God you fuckin g idiots and your vandalistic repressions FUCKING STOP IT [13]. Most of us shun this kind of behaviour, but ad hominem attacks from this user are becoming more and more frequent. Is it time to take action, and if so, what needs to be said, or done? Klein zach 05:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Melodia has now removed the related warnings from their user page ([14]). Toccata quarta (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Article expansion.

Just to let everyone know, I'm planning to expand the Oboe Quartet (Mozart) article based on the new material I've found and added to the external links section to try and bring it in line with the other articles, similar to my expansion of the Quartettsatz article last year.

I'd also like to invite others to have a look at the notes I left on the talk pages of Quartet Movement in F major (Dvořák) and Quartettsatz (Schubert) as these contain details of items I was not able to research myself.Graham1973 (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tried my hand at re-writing the article on Bruch's 3rd Violin Concerto to add some more information. I've used what little I was able to find online to expand on what was there, but I suspect there's a lot more information offline. I think the most important thing would be to pin down the 20th C recording history. Graham1973 (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI relating to classical music infoboxes

See Persistent edit stalking, a complaint brought by Andy Mabbett against Nikkimaria, which refers to a number of classical music infoboxes and their editing. --Klein zach 03:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Barbican 2014

Next year's Wikimania is going to be at the Barbican Centre in London, and as a result we are having discussions with the Barbican about other possible collaborations between us and them including a Wikimedian in residence. Suggestions and requests from this WikiProject would be welcome, especially if there are any specific requests for material that would be in their archives. click here for the discussion page. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Bruckner symphony/Infobox musical composition

Infobox Bruckner symphony has been put up for deletion, see here. Apparently this is so it can be replaced by Template:Infobox musical composition, a very large box (29 visible fields) developed by Gerda Arendt and Andy Mabbett. AFAIK this work has never been notified to this project. --Klein zach 22:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Below is a list of articles that now have Infobox musical composition. The boxes were all added in the early part of the year.

Article	Box date
Agnus Dei (Barber) [15]	27 Dec
All-Night Vigil (Tchaikovsky) [16]	29 March
Bassoon Quintet (Waterhouse) [17]	7 April
Bei Nacht [18]	7 April
Bright Angel (Waterhouse) [19] \|	7 April
Celtic Voices and Hale Bopp [20]	7 April
Chinese Whispers (Waterhouse) [21]	7 April
Deutsche Messe (Schubert) [22] \|	29 March
Der Handschuh (Waterhouse) [23]	7 April
Epitaphium [24]	7 April
Gestural Variations [25]	8 April
Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Tchaikovsky) [26]	29 March
Mass No. 1 (Schubert) [27]	29 March
Mass No. 2 (Schubert) [28]	29 March
Mass No. 3 (Schubert) [29]	30 March
Mass No. 4 (Schubert) [30]	30 March
Mass No. 5 (Schubert) [31]	29 March
Mass No. 6 (Schubert) [32]	1 April
Membra Jesu Nostri [33]	29 March
Messiah Part I [34]	23 February
Messiah Part II [35]	23 February
Messiah Part III [36]	23 February
Piccolo Quintet [37]	8 April
Rhapsodie Macabre [38]	7 April
Sparrow Mass [39]	30 March
Structure of Handel's Messiah [40] \|	8 January
Three Pieces for Solo Cello (Waterhouse) [41]	8 April
Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate [42]	26 March
Zeichenstaub [43]	7 April

Klein zach 09:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kleinzach. I just edited the one Mozart item (since Mozart is one of my editing foci). I felt the infobox was too detailed and so I replaced it with a simple picture caption (which the infobox lacked). Opus33 (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Why this intensive focus on infobox development and implementation, when people's time is urgently required to improve the actual articles. I've outlined my reasons for not using infoboxes in complex-music articles at ANI. Tony (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Since February, there have been at least 18 infobox discussions relating to classical music: see here. (If I've left any out please tell me.) This has indeed been a frustrating period for music editors. --Klein zach 05:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Improving "List of compositions" articles

Does someone know whether there have been attempts to improve the "List of compositions" articles along the following lines:

Standardisation of templates.
Reconciliation with IMSLP and/or vice versa. LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I use IMSLP several times a week and I'm a contributor (their entries on music publishers is better than what's on Wikipedia). But I hate their naming "convention." I'm happy there's a template which links from WP to their site, but I'm wary of using their form of compositional names on WP. -- kosboot (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I was not per se concerned about reconciling the naming conventions between IMSLP and WP. One naming convention might be converted "mechanically" into the other as long as it is applied consistently on each site. In the extreme you could even automatically generate the templates which link to IMSLP. I intended a broader reconciliation than naming convention: for example compare both sites against each other for completeness of lists of compositions and of various data attributes about compositions, such as year, opus number, type of composition, etc. In such way both sites may be able to improve. If both sites are well structured in their data, such reconciliation efforts could be done with help of some automation. As for point 1 of my inquiry (standardisation of templates in WP), besides the fact that that could make WP better in itself, it also allows for better reconciliation. IMSLP appears to be further in structuredness of certain data, for example when I look at the IMSLP Category Walker functionality compared to the WP lists. Could also be due to differences in technology maybe, but I'm not sure. LazyStarryNights (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you (and maybe kosboot?) give some examples so it's clearer (at least to me!) what the parameters are here? In the past I've done a lot of work on articles in Category:Lists of compositions by composer, typically involving the development of simple lists into tables (with the help in particular of Michael Bednarek) — but not so much on IMSLP related stuff. Thanks. Klein zach 00:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Below 2 random examples easily found for Prokofiev which shows potential improvements in both directions:

WP: List_of_compositions_by_Sergei_Prokofiev

Has a list by genre and a list by opus. I'd expect they should only differ in terms of sorting and be 100% the same in terms of data, but they are not.

Two Poems, Op. 9 (1910-1): Genre is only in the By Genre list and Instumentation is only in the By Opus list (merged with title).

Five Kazakh Songs (1927): Only present in By Genre.

The 2 lists combined give Genre, Opus number, Title, Composition Year(s) and Instrumentation.

But not consistently for all compositions within 1 page, not in a single integrated overview, and not the same way for all composers.

IMSLP: http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:CategoryWalker/Prokofiev,_Sergey/

Has 1 consistent list of data in which you can slice and dice anyway you like for all composers.

By comparison for the same 2 examples:

Two Poems, Op. 9 (1910-1): Besides the attributes found in WP, there are also some (possibly less important) attributes: ::::::Movements/Sections, First Performance, First Publication, Librettist, Language, Average Duration, Piece Style, External Links.

Five Kazakh Songs (1927): Not present in IMSLP at all. LazyStarryNights (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, now I understand. It's a common enough situation on WP where many of these pages are written up as simple lists with exactly the kind of inconsistencies that you have noted. On the research side, it would obviously be necessary to check sources and make sure all the facts are correct — but I'm sure you understand that.

On the publishing/technical side, the best method (IMO) is to use sortable tables (not templates of any kind). Michael Bednarek and I worked on a series of these at Category:Lists of operas by composer. In most cases there is a single table which can be sorted by any column (except the notes), so the entries can be lined up by title, date, genre, opus number, catalogue number. A relatively simple example can be seen at List of operas by Siegfried Wagner. You can see how sorting works by clicking on the matching pairs of triangles on top of the columns. In the case of this example the default is sorting by opus number — i.e. that's the order the reader will first see when opening the page.

I think it would be great if you are willing to work on these lists, though it's of course a lot of work, and you need access to authoritative sources. Let me know if you have questions! --Klein zach 03:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For now I'm mostly looking at the "publishing/technical side" (structuring data already in WP). See further discussion on this under your other reply below. Speaking about the "research side": I wonder whether IMSLP data (eg composition year and type) can be used as source in WP? I.e. can we enrich WP data with IMSLP data? It still bothers me that 2 projects work on the same data. Seem like such a waste. LazyStarryNights (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I can help with templates. The assimilation/ comparison of lists of works sounds very much like what the WikiLovesMonuments crowd have been doing, I'm sure they would advise, share scripts, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at WikiLovesMonuments and recognise some similarities indeed. Thanks for pointing that out Andy. Also great that you can help with templates. Inspired by Kleinzach's approach for Orchestra Infobox, I'd like to propose the following for a potential Composition list template:

Could people agree/disagree, and perhaps even offer to help with a template for composition list articles if the project was interested in going ahead with this?
If so then we will work on agreement on a template.
If agreed then we will convert the composition lists to the template.
Optional: IMSLP reconciliation efforts discussed above could be a next step or parallel effort, but not per se linked to the template discussion. LazyStarryNights (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As explained above, I think you need to use sortable tables, not a template (in the Wikipedia sense), for this. Klein zach 03:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand better now and agree with Kleinzach - what you want is sortable tables. -- kosboot (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think "template" here means that they all (should) follow the same format. Sortable tables are used for compositions, for example in List of Bach cantatas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda, though with all due respect, that's a spectacular example of how not to do one of these lists! --Klein zach 09:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I also was thinking of some kind of template (or guideline?) involving sortable lists. Kleinzach, could you point out what kind of things might be wrong about Gerda's example? I created an example myself as well in my sandbox based on Boccherini. It is a rudimentary Excel based conversion of the data already present in the original article. I still see various obstacles. For example: if List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is converted to a sorted list, there is no place anymore for all the texts between the current lists. Then I wonder, should these texts be here at all and not in separate articles, eg the article about the composer or eg in articles about his string quartets. LazyStarryNights (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

When we did the opera series, we basically did one list at a time, and then copied the basic table structure for the next one. This enabled us to be flexible as different lists implied different combinations of columns. (For example some composers used opus numbers and some didn't.) Doing it this way, it makes sense to try shorter, simpler, lists first and then do more complex ones later. (BTW List of Bach cantatas is overly complicated and doesn't relate to any other lists AFAIK. It uses abbreviations extensively. It's reader-unfriendly.)

Your Boccherini list looks fine as far as it goes, though it could be easier to start with a 20th or 19th century composer. (With later lists you have fewer disputed/lost/rewritten or whatever works which require special notes etc.) Mozart would be a challenge to put into one, single list — have you seen the List of operas by Mozart? Even that list is very complicated. I'm a believer in WP:KISS — also in not starting anything unless you are confident about finishing it!

List of compositions by Anton Bruckner might be worth trying if you wanted to work on the list of a major composer. List of compositions by Gustav Mahler has already been done as a sortable list, though the default sort is genre which is rather awkward. Hope this helps. Klein zach 01:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

See my reply to your other reply below. LazyStarryNights (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The use of templates does not preclude sortable tables; each template instance represents a single table row, with a separate template for the table header. This is done widely, acorss Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you know any good examples of lists in other areas of WP which could inspire an initiative for composition lists? LazyStarryNights (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think most of us have seen sortable lists. The thing to do next is to see how it would fit with various composers. To take Mozart: you'd need to have fields at least for the Köchel number(s - that's 2 fields), the year of composition, the genre, the key, the name, author of text, and the solo instrument(s). Perhaps if someone had a good template, because--to me--tables in MediaWiki are laborious. I can't think of one on WP just now, but am very familiar with one on IMSLP: Music Publishers. -- kosboot (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've dealt with this above, but to elaborate, it's a matter of first choosing a composer — ideally an easy one — then after that deciding the default sort field (on the far left) — typically the opus or catalogue number — then deciding what other fields are necessary, and how they should be ordered from left to right. At that point, I or someone else can just give you the code, or you can copy it from another list. After that it would be better to work on it in userspace, not on the article itself, because a lot of small changes will be needed. The table code can be checked and tested — to see if it 'works' — with a minimum of entries, you can see if it's OK with only 4 or 5 lines. When the table is complete, or a section is complete, it can be moved to the article.Klein zach 05:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Kleinzach.

About the List of Bach cantatas: I guess the main problem is the way instrumentation is listed. If these would be merged into 1 column and use the already existing instrumentation guidelines it could be better readable. Nevertheless, I do like the IMSLP links in the table.

List of operas by Mozart looks nice. I'd expect List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart being similar workload as List of compositions by Anton Bruckner, maybe even less, because it is already more standardised.

List of compositions by Gustav Mahler has a sortable list, but still has that "oddity" of having 2 lists. A sorted one and a chronological one. This could merge.

As you suggested I had a go at Bruckner, see User:LazyStarryNights/List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. Some points I have already observed myself:

It is quite some work, although with some more routine that should hopefully decrease.
It is far from perfect yet, especially in terms of naming conventions and the type column. My philosophy so far was the same I used for Boccherini: choose a general genre/type which has a wikipedia article. I do like the IMSLP way where you have subtypes in some kind of hierarchy. Alignment with IMSLP could be nice in this regard maybe one day.
Quite tricky to put the column widths nice.
I did not add or throw away data from the original article, just restructure, with the only exception of some additions from [Werkverzeichnis Anton Bruckner] for WAB 127, 128, 136, 139, 140, 141, 143 which were missing. This article may need to be merged if you follow simlar merges that happened for other composers.
I am not sure what to do with some of the general texts per genre which were between the original lists. I parked them under TODO in User:LazyStarryNights/List of compositions by Anton_Bruckner. I wonder whether they should stay in this article at all and not merge into Anton Bruckner. Various composers have this. Eg the same applies for List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. List of compositions by Gustav Mahler has less of this "problem", but even there I wonder whether it is more "correct" to merge the story on top of the article into Gustav Mahler.
For comparison I also compared against the similar Bruckner list on IMSLP: http://imslp.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Anton_Bruckner, which could be used for enrichment - eg instrumentation if this is allowed.
Along the way I discovered {{Infobox Bruckner symphony}}, which triggered me to think that standardisation of composition list may go hand in hand with maybe standardisation of Infoboxes and even generating one out of the other. LazyStarryNights (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bruckner looks good. Having the WAB as the default makes sense. Should 'type' be 'genre' or perhaps 'form'? What are your capitalization/italicization rules? Will there be a column for date of first performance? I think the general texts will need to be reworked into the introduction at some point. My feeling is that it would be better to finish a simple version (without instrumentation) first and get it published, and then think about whether to add more columns. There comes a point where these tables can hold too much information, and the reader simply can't take it all in. He or she takes one look and clicks the exit button. (Likewise I think it would really better to stick to tables and leave the incendiary topic of infoboxes aside for the rime being!)

If you have problems with column widths etc. I'd strongly recommend talking to Michael Bednarek who helped me a lot with this kind of thing when I was working on the opera lists. As you've noted, List of compositions by Gustav Mahler is a bit odd. The chronological list should really be merged into the main one — but that's a job for another day. List of operas by Mozart is atypical, e.g. including place and date of first performance as one column. It's also arguable whether a language column is worthwhile — other lists don't have this. I've also discovered two simple Brahms lists which are a perfect candidate for a sortable list: List of compositions by Johannes Brahms by opus number and List of compositions by Johannes Brahms by genre. --Klein zach 01:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As for the 'type' column, I was thinking of some kind of clear separation of type and instrumentation. Although I do not completely understand it yet, IMSLP seems to make a clear difference between "Work Type" and "Instrumentation", but both are seen as "Genre". This give some inspiration: http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:View_Genres.

As for the capitalization/italicization rules, I was thinking we should ideally follow the same rules as for composition names in general. I could not find this in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music), but maybe somewhere this is already in a guideline? In my Bruckner prototype I removed all capitalization/italicization in the names, but not on purpose and I could revert this if needed.

As for the naming I still had some other dilemmas: how to call the column? Name? Title? Composition? Work? And another question is: should always only the literal name as used in the wiki composition article name be used (maybe except removing the composer name if any), or should more be allowed to be there in the column.

I think for compositions in general, first performance may be less relevant than eg instrumentation. I can remember to have seen a discussion on this, that for opera specifically this was more important than year of composition, in which opera is special in relation to other types of compositions.

I am still in doubt whether the general texts should need to be reworked into the introduction at some point. I thought to have seen some guideline that says that everything about a topic should be in that topic. In this case, a list should be primarily just a list and an article about a composer should have discussion about his compositions in general.

Tables size should be balanced to needs indeed. Shame that wiki tables don't support options like expand, scroll, filter and fix headings.

I will leave the "incendiary topic of infoboxes" aside for now. Thanks for the heads up! The years of discussion provide an interesting read on how WP collaboration works though for a beginner like me.

I think I got the grasp of the column widths now and updated the prototype.

I also thought of a disadvantage of the sorted list: the lack of a "genre hierarchy", which is in some way present in the automatically generated TOC for lists sorted by genre.

Mahler, Mozart and Brahms are interesting ones to start on at some point as well. Brahms provides an interesting comparison against http://imslp.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Johannes_Brahms, which poses quite some "competition". LazyStarryNights (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I had a go at User:LazyStarryNights/Lists of compositions by Johannes Brahms. Curious to comments. LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A very nice start - bravo. To me, your list reveals that both IMSLP and WP (and especially WP) needs more work in determining what is a "genre." I would have thought forms (symphonies, sonatas, etc.) are genres but from the list it seems most think groups of instrumentation are genres. This being so, I'm kind of disapointed that one will not be able to easily determine how many works Brahms wrote in a particular genre/form (symphonies, sonatas, quartets, etc.). Just some thoughts, otherwise it's very nice. -- kosboot (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you've done some hard work!

I agree that separation of type/genre (e.g. sonata) and instrumentation (e.g piano) is necessary. (IMSLP doesn’t seem to follow the usual definitions/rules here.) I agree with Kosboot that forms like symphonies, sonatas etc are genres. Sometimes the genre is the same as the instrumentation, but the reverse might not apply, e.g. string quartets. I don’t think this should be a big problem, especially with 19th century composers.

Regarding capitalization, 'sentence style' will usually work. This applies to the Notes column where the entries sometimes start with lower case and sometimes with upper case. This should be consistent. I also recommend using ‘note style’ text, e.g. “Celebrating the laying of the . . .” rather than “to celebrate . . .” and “Discovered in the . . .” rather than “Was discovered . . .”. Proper names should follow normal German capitalization, of course. Unique titles should be italicized, per Wikipedia style (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)).

Personally I’m not bothered by not having "genre hierarchy" as this differs from composer to composer, and I think is subjective. To be frank, I think The Brahms list has too many repetitive fields. I’d prefer to see something a bit simpler with the general (Brahms) reader in mind. Klein zach 16:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciation Kosboot and Kleinzach! Good to see that the prototype is of some use at least.

Definition of "Genre" needs more work indeed in both IMSLP and WP. I have the impression that IMSLP is further than WP as it stands today though. Music genre and related articles may need some work as well to straighten this out. The best I have seen so far is in the IMSLP Genres which seems to make a clear difference between "Work Type" and "Instrumentation". Although both are seen as "Genre", here "Genre" is probably meant as "Category", while "Work Type" here is probably what we are looking for. Although I do not know IMSLP's definition of Work Type, IMSLP seems to categorise all pages based on this system which is great! The result is for example seen in the IMSLP Brahms category walker which should not be confused by the IMSLP manually maintained Brahms list which I used to compare the 2 WP lists with. This IMSLP manual list uses as definition:

"Genre — works are grouped in the following broad categories: Stage, Choral (for many voices), Vocal (for individual voices), Orchestral, Chamber and Keyboard"

But take for comparison IMSLP Bach list which uses:

"Genre — as used by IMSLP's categorization system."

I like the IMSLP category walker a lot since it is the most structured and it also gives the genre counts Kosboot is looking for. The main problem is that it only lists compositions that have an actual page linked so that the categorisation data can be taken from there automatically. Compositions without pages are simply missing from the category browser, but not from the manual list. But these missing pages maybe could be generated as stubs containing the categorisation data.

Maybe something similar could work in WP as well. If all composition pages contain proper categorisation data for Work Type, Instrumentation (and maybe more), and also includes stubs then you can easily browse using the category browser. And Composition lists could be using the same data in the columns. Maybe even (semi) auto generated from the categories.

For comparison purposes I made User:LazyStarryNights/List of IMSLP work types, which compares IMSLP and WP work types with links to category browsers and articles on respective sites. This list might be useful in getting a clearer picture on genre. I am thinking of doing something similar for instrumentation.

Although I agree with Kleinzach's proposed guideline on the Notes column, I did not give that column much thought yet. In the Brahms list I blindly copied it's contents over from IMSLP. But it makes me think whether there should be (limiting?) criteria about what kind of information to put in the Notes box in the first place.

Regarding capitalization / italicization etc, it seems that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)#Compositions (classical music) is not complete without also looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music. Maybe these articles / sections should be merged? (Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines also has some overlap). Then ideally if there would be a guideline or template for Composition List articles, it would just point to one of these articles for the naming conventions in the Title column.

About the "genre hierarchy". It is not just the "hierarchy" element I was worried about (maybe I should have avoided that word), but it is more the TOC element, which some readers may start to miss. Or maybe not, I don't know.

Kleinzach mentioned the Brahms list has too many repetitive fields. Currently the first row is:

ID	Genre (WP)	Genre (IMSLP)	Title (WP per Op.)	Title (WP per Genre)	Title (IMSLP)	Year/Date of Composition (IMSLP)	Forces (IMSLP)	Key (IMSLP)	Notes (IMSLP)
Op. 1	Piano	Keyboard	Piano Sonata No. 1 in C major (1853)	Piano Sonata No. 1 in C major (1853)	Piano Sonata No.1	1852–53	pf	C major

But after merging the data from the IMSLP and 2 WP pages, this could become:

ID	Genre	Title	Date	Instrumentation	Key	IMSLP	Notes
Op. 1	Sonata	Piano Sonata No. 1	1852-53	Piano	C major	[44]	Bla bla bla bla bla bla bla note

Do you still feel it would have too many repetitive fields in this form? If so then what would you suggest? LazyStarryNights (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your merged form is much, much better than either IMSLP or WP. (With the exception of Terry Riley, "in C major" is almost never a title but a way to disambiguate works.) I like it very much. -- kosboot (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the merged list is great. In this case you have a Key column. Is this is a special requirement of the Brahms? Fine if it is. (In other lists it might repeat the title.) I think a logical order would be Op.1/Title/Key/Genre/Instrument/Date/IMSLP/Notes.

Regarding capitals and italics, this is basic copyediting. Tables have their own rules, but these are not standardized throughout WP. If you like, I can go through the Bruckner and edit it according to the style I used for the other lists. You can then either follow my copyediting style, or make changes as necessary.

Regarding genre, I'd recommend keeping a working list on one of your user pages. A composer like Bruckner didn't use many so this should be simple. It can just be a simple list based on what you already have at User:LazyStarryNights/List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. The list can be updated with each new composer. Of course you have to decide when or not to use English, e.g. Song Vs. Lied.

To be frank I don't like the List of IMSLP work types at all!. I think it's nerdy and amateurish. It mixes genres, musical terms, English and native language etc into a grand hotchpotch. The heirarchy — particularly of opera forms — is just plain wrong. (See List of opera genres for comparison). Of course it also contains a lot of genuine genres, but correcting the list is not worth the effort that would be involved. I think it's much easier to take the genres, one composer at a time.

Hope this helps. Klein zach 01:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I had a go at the Italics in User:LazyStarryNights/List of compositions by Anton Bruckner and also applied other the column order suggested here. For other updates on Bruckner see our separate discussion with Meneerke on that article's talk page.

I don't have enough knowledge to judge the genre list of IMSLP. I guess it could further improve and I guess the same applies for the WP side of it. Ideally they should be more or less the same.

Hopefully the Bruckner list can be completed soon and then free time to merge Brahms in a similar way. LazyStarryNights (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I Added "Genre (Proposed)" and Updated column order and names in the User:LazyStarryNights/Lists of compositions by Johannes Brahms. I also added some project info to the article. If you have Brahm's specific comments / questions, could you post them at the talk page there? Otherwise here. LazyStarryNights (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

While working on Bruckner and Brahms I felt the need to work on some kind of guideline for the Instrumentation column. I put some initial thoughts here: User:LazyStarryNights/Scoring. LazyStarryNights (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I see some of this relates to abbreviations. This issue was recently discussed in the debate here. I — and I think most editors here — are opposed to using abbreviations because they make the tables more difficult for the reader to use. Klein zach 23:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

OK agree with its main conclusions: no abbreviations - maybe except additions like SATB addition to choirs. Still some issues of Ordering, Optionality and Terminology - see User:LazyStarryNights/Scoring. LazyStarryNights (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

'Choir' or 'chorus' for secular music?

Does anyone have an opinion on 'Choir' Vs. 'Chorus'? Please see Talk:Men's chorus. Thanks. --Klein zach 23:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:IMSLP3

In List of compositions by Anton Bruckner I had added a ♫ to the IMSLP links following example of List of Bach cantatas. But for this approach full IMSLP links must be provided: (http...). I considered using Template:IMSLP2, but it adds the IMSLP text " : Free scores at the International Music Score Library Project". Would it be useful to have Template:IMSLP3, which would then provide a link with ♫, or with any specified text, but without the auto added IMSLP text? LazyStarryNights (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That's very nice an convenient to have links to what's on IMSLP. The problem with it is maintenance. Are you always going to be around and available to check when a new Bruckner score is added to IMSLP? What about other composers? I can't imagine that anyone would want to be perpetually responsible for watching another website's holding. As with all external links on WP, I think it's better just to have a single link to the composer's page on IMSLP. -- kosboot (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

ISMLP links to individual compositions are already on many WP composition pages. There you have the same problem. If you create an article about a composition but there is no IMSLP yet, it may need to be added later if it becomes available later, and also corrected when the name changes on IMSLP.

The links in the lists provide a user friendly way to the scores on IMSLP, but yes it comes at a maintenance cost as well. Similar to discussions in #Improving "List of compositions" articles I hope that one day WP and IMSLP composition data can be easier aligned, since both sites' contents are driven by (partly the same) users and have a considerable information overlap. I believe the links per composition are a step towards that as well. Maybe I'm thinking too big, but a link was a small step already. And ISMLP already proved useful in our joint efforts to improve the Bruckner list, which now we are also working on similar lines for the Brahms list.

Note also that the idea of having links to other sites in table entries is not new. See for example List of Bach cantatas, but also 2011 in film#2011 films. LazyStarryNights (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Be prudent with the links to IMSLP! When working to the (I agree complex) List of compositions by Anton Bruckner I found that the content of one IMSLP link was incorrect (WAB 42 instead of WAB 43 [two different Tantum ergo]) and the content of another (WAB 9) was inconsistent. I have then corrected these two IMSLP page, so that they are now OK.

Previously, I had already encountered two other problems, which I have corrected: WAB 6 was incorrectly named WAB 5 (another Ave Maria) and there was some confusion among the two Um Mitternacht (WAB 89 & 90).

Moreover, it is not always very clear to which version the scores apply (e.g., the version of the five Tantum ergo of WAB 41 & 42). The same applies for Bruckner's symphonies (WAB 101 to 109), of which the scores are generally of the first, non-critical edition. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to the original question: I don't think a template IMSLP3 for very short citations is needed. These can be created just as quickly using the syntax [[Scores:…]], e.g.
[[Scores:Messe für den Gründonnerstag (Christus factus est), WAB 9 (Bruckner, Anton)|♫]] which gives ♫. For general documenation on interwiki maps, see meta:Interwiki map. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Reginald:

Agree we should be prudent. Your corrections on IMSLP and the solution we found for the multiple versions problem (eg WAB 41), already show the benefits of aligning WP and IMSLP data: both sites get better.
I am currently in the process of the Brahms list in which many irregularities are found between data from IMSLP and the 2 current WP pages.

Thanks Michael, that is what I was looking for. I updated List of compositions by Anton Bruckner accordingly. LazyStarryNights (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

For your info: Kleinzach has in the meantime renamed Bruckner's Study Symphony to the better name Study Symphony in F minor. I have updated the page Symphony No. 0 (Bruckner) and renamed it to Symphony in D minor (Bruckner). "No. 0" is a nickname, a source of confusion, because it is a misinterpretation of Bruckner's "nullifying" of it, and its date of composition (1869) is between those of Symphonies Nos. 1 and 2. I have also renamed the page on the IMSLP site, in which I have corrected the date of composition ("1869", instead of "1863, revised 1869"), and I have put the IMSLP "Bruckner's symphony template" in correct chronological order.

Good luck with working out the kinks in Brahms's lists of compositions! --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

For those interested in a new initiative to apply infoboxes to classical music topics.....

...you may like to see the discussion here at WP Opera.--Smerus (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Alkan.....

Now up for FA review here. Best,--Smerus (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Major discussions page

During the recent ANI about alleged stalking, I contributed a reference list of classical music-related box discussions. Today I moved it to a subpage of the project as an updated list linked to the guidelines page. Unsurprisingly, someone closely connected to the ANI got to it very soon afterwards, renamed it and made changes. Nevertheless I hope it is still useful. It is now at Major discussions. --Klein zach 10:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My attempt is called Infobox, it aims at understanding,--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

When you discuss my edits, Kleinzach, please feel free to mention my name. If you wish to create pages that no-one else may edit (or "get to"; how charming), there are plenty of free web hosts available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Minor note to Andy: I'm not going to undo your renaming of the section because the name of the page under discussion is simply "major discussion" without the word controversy (though you were the one to rename it), but I'm not sure NPOV is something applied to talk or project-space pages. Bramble claw x 15:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:TALKNEW says "Keep headings neutral". Andy Mabbett(Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 15:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As everyone here probably already knows, the editor involved here follows me around Wikipedia reverting and refactoring my edits (e.g. [45],[46],[47],[48],[49]). Unlike this individual, who reports people he thinks are stalking him to AN/I (see the link above), this is something I have learned to live with, but it's also the reason why I am not more active working on articles. The title of this section before it was hacked was Major discussions and controversies page, like the page itself [50]. I chose this as a neutral title. 'Controversy' is not a pejorative term, it's a common English word merely indicating disagreement — a common element in all the discussions listed. I avoided the word 'infobox' both to make the scope more general, and to avoid the impression that we were targeting anything. So I think I'm entitled to say that Major discussions and controversies page was a good faith attempt at providing information. Taking out the word controversies IMO makes it less noticeable, which I guess was the intention. --Klein zach 01:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

And the reason I'm not more active in this project is that so many of the most prominent editors here accuse other users of being uncivil, sarcastic, or the like, yet find the need to do so in a manner to bite back. I thought just this once, I'd say a little something, but it just seems that every time someone says something, people here find a way of using it to demonstrate why they're right and those who are against them are wrong. Everyone claims they're being civil, yet I see concealed jabs by both sides nonetheless. So, before I back out of this talk page again, I have a few words for all involved, not just in this discussion, but those which previously brought up a lot of controversy:

Just because you feel someone's not being polite to you, doesn't mean you should hit back. Remember to be polite, keep the wording friendly, and assume good faith (and if I see someone say "oh well, of course I'm doing these, but everyone else isn't", I think I'm going to scream). I'm now stepping off this talk page to remain a spectator again. Bramble claw x 01:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your claim, repeated here having being made previously elsewhere, that I am stalking you ("follows me around Wikipedia reverting and refactoring my edits") is both false and unacceptable. If you feel otherwise, take it to ANI. Your smear of a perfectly reasonable edit as "hacking" is laughable; as is your unsupportable and bizarre insinuation of the page being made harder to find. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

And on top of this, my comments are now being deleted by this individual! [51]! What has Wikipedia come to: anarchy or farce? --Klein zach 00:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't answer your last question, Kleinzach. Why do you seem so surprised that Andyreverted you (with the edit summary: "Don't remove others' contributions (feel free to reinstate your own)") when/after/because YOU deleted part of my comment. Double standards? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No more games please, Gerda. I deleted an infobox on a talk page where it didn't belong. I did not touch your comments. Here is the proof: [52]. Everyone here knows that I don't delete other people's messages. Please strike out what you have just written. Klein zach 10:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You deleted an infobox which was the essential part of my contribution. (I didn't say you "deleted my comments", as your edit summary suggests, - I said "part of my comment" above.) That an infobox (under discussion, mind me) does not "belong" on the talk of its article, is your view, not mine. How can we discuss/improve an infobox that is removed from the article if we don't at least show it temporarily on the talk UNTIL related questions are resolved? I said before that it would have been better to leave it in the article and improve it there. I moved it now to Open discussions, you can remove it from the talk, I will not complain. Sorry that you see "games" and "attacks", - I would simply like to improve the article. Did you read the related essay in The Signpost. A question on project opera is waiting for your thoughts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you please state here, absolutely unambiguously, your agreement that I did not delete anything that you wrote in that discussion? Klein zach11:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict with all below, but it's still what I had to say at THIS point) Kleinzach, I described what I saw you doing as "you deleted an infobox which was the essential part of my contribution" as factual as I can. I had also written that infobox, by the way, so how could I agree that you didn't delete anything that I wrote? Sorry. - The normal style - as far as I know - is to comment and ask for a removal, not do it yourself. I am open for discussion and compromise, in fact even had moved the infobox to a page where more open discussion is possible.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You quite unambiguously deleted part of Gerda's contribution to that page; you had no right to do so, I reverted you, and other editors, including but not only Gerda, have also called you out on it. As I've said elsewhere, it's beyond time you stopped trying to censor others' talk page contributions. This is also off-topic here. You ahev also raised it on at least two other pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Clarification. I reverted an infobox here [53]. I did not delete anybody's comment or contribution. Andy Mabbett put the infobox back and removed my comment, here [54]. Those are the facts. I've provided the diffs. Klein zach 11:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not a clarification, it's a distortion; and a lie. You removed part of Gerda's contribution, so I reverted you; as the diffs show. What makes you think that this page is suitable venue for you to air your imagined grievance? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Haydn Concertos Navbox

There is now a Hayden Concertos Navbox available. I've linked it to all the existing concerto articles including the Sinfonia concertante article which I'm currently editing.Graham1973 (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Request: Infoboxes

Yesterday, Ched filed a request for Arbcom to look at Infoboxes. See here. So far about 20 people have made comments or statements.--Klein zach 02:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Help wanted with Quartet Movement in E-flat major (Shostakovich)

One of the reference links in this article (To a copy of the 2011 edtion of the "Dmitri Shostakovich:Catalog of Works" published by the Sikorski Musikverlage.) has broken. I located a copy of the 2005 edition of the catalog on Scribed, but it does not contain the information about the Quartet movement that the 2011 edition contains. I've tried the Internet Archive, but they do not seem to have a copy.

I myself do have a copy offline, but would prefer to have an online copy of the 2011 edition for linkage purposes. A pointer to a copy would be greatly appreciated.Graham1973 (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Is [55]any help? I see it gives the movement as op. 117a. It also seems to dispute the burnt-in-the-stove story.--Smerus (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add that to the page tomorrow. Currently working on the "Two Pieces for String Quartet".Graham1973 (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added it as a "source" to the article. It does dispute the burnt-in-the-stove story, but I was careful when I wrote the article to use the phrase "...with at least one completed version being destroyed by the composer in 1961..." as it was never clear there was any connection between what was found in 2003 and the story quoted in Wilson.Graham1973(talk) 01:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sinfonia concertante vs Concertante symphony vs etc

Anyone an opinion on this, could you add to Talk:Symphony Concertante#Inconsistency in terminology?LazyStarryNights (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Bruckner symphonies

The Bruckner symphonies had an infobox since 2007. I changed their presentation to templated form, as the infobox documentation shows, but not the content, for example. A later edit by Nikkimaria removed the publishing history, which I think is important in Bruckner's case. I would leave such decisions to the articles' principle authors. I mention this here, not on the articles' talk, because we have 10 similar cases. --Gerda Arendt(talk) 11:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Bruckner's 9th has four movements? Hey, thanks Mr Infobox. I'm just wondering why almost all performances and recordings of this piece only have three... --Folantin (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The famous tacet last movement !! Eusebeus (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried to include that now. What about the publications that were shown from 2007? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Genres

Some of us are working on lists of compositions involving making decisions about genres. This is not always easy because we don’t have any lists defining terms. Category:Lists of music genres has a number of articles but there is no 'List of classical music genres' as such. We do have a long List of music styles, which starts well and then dwindles, but that is really for pop and folk music. We also have an article on Music genre, with a good introduction that approaches genre in an intelligent way, but that also is incomplete. Should we attempt a 'List of classical music genres'? One approach would be to agree a definition — distinguishing genre from style, form and instrumentation — and then divide up the work by category or period: maybe voice, chamber, symphonic, choral, Baroque, Classical, Romantic etc etc. Any interest? Any ideas?--Klein zach 00:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Support and willing to help. Some initial observations:

Initiative has overlap with earlier initiative User:LazyStarryNights/List of IMSLP work types that was born out ofWikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Improving "List of compositions" articles.
We have to take into account that compositions may sometimes belong to multiple genre's or its genre may be ambiguous or controversial.
Hopefully we can align these genres with categories as well and vice versa. For example, I would expect that all articles inCategory:Psalms by Anton Bruckner have an entry with Genre Psalm in List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. (interestingly this random pick already appeared to be an example of inconsistency, see talk).
Some other relevant articles: List of opera genres, List of musical forms by era, Category:Song forms,Category:Musical form, Category:Western classical music styles. LazyStarryNights (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply: The articles in Category:Psalms by Anton Bruckner have now an entry with Genre Psalm in the List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. In addition, I have set a link to the wiki page on the individual psalms in de column "Notes" (see talk). I think that it is, as we say in Belgium, "Un compromis à la belge" (a quite good political compromise).

Some genres, which are relatively specific to a country, have currently no link to a wiki page, e.g., Weltliches Chorwerk, which could be translated as "Secular choral works". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem(To reply) 12:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest. I will put up a list on a user page next week, probably based on existing WP material, and we can see what it looks like and how we can take it forward. Klein zach 14:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The genre "Psalm" with a link seems a bit strange, - could it be at least "Psalm composition"? For Bach, someone created a category even more cautiously named Category:Psalm-related compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, including works that set not a complete psalm but only part of a psalm within a larger work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I noticed that. Some attention is needed to sort out these church-related genres and categories, but then there are problems across the board. No one has done much systematic work in this area. Good editorial cooperation would be needed to address all these matters, but that's difficult if not impossible in the present climate. Klein zach 13:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Psalm could perhaps be replaced by Psalm set to music. See section Psalms set to music in page Psalms. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'set/setting' is better in this context than 'composition'. --Klein zach 13:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. But doesn't the addition "set to music" sound a bit like something that is already implicit in the term being used in the context of musical genre? You would not use it in a sentence, e.g. "Bruckner composed a beautiful psalm set to music.". And for the psalm example there might be many others that would potentially need such addition, some examples from the Bruckner list: Mass, Requiem, Offertory, Magnificat, etc LazyStarryNights (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Gerda's point relates to categorisation rather than text. You are right about not saying "composing . . .set to music". --Klein zach 22:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We have Mass (music) and Requiem (music). Could we have similar constructions, such as Psalm (music),Magnificat (music), etc.? Could we perhaps list both, the composer's name ("If a composer calls his work a aubadethen it's a aubade, even if it's all about the dark side of the moon.") and a more common term? Respect the composer but still have it in one of our categories? Say that the composer called Tristan and Isolde "Eine Handlung" (An action) but also say "opera"? Recent example The Company of Heaven, it started as incidental music to a radio feature, our articlecantata lists it as a cantata, with justification. - Did you know that the article is a collaboration of three editors typically seen on different sides of the infobox controversy, - I see a climate change, --Gerda Arendt(talk) 10:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Definition of genre

IMO a list is only worth doing if it’s done properly, based on (1) an agreed definition and (2) reliable sources. I’m offering the definition below. If this is accepted — of course with rewording as necessary — we can proceed to the next step.

This is a List of European musical genres used in art music from medieval to modern times.
A 'musical genre' is understood, for the purposes of this list, as a conventional category or description, usually given by the composer, for an entire work that is composed in a particular form, often in a distinct style. A music genre is thus different from a 'musical term' (which can include, very broadly, any word or words used in a special musical context), a 'musical style' (which can refer to a part of a work or multiple works) or a 'musical instrument' (even if certain genres are exclusive to particular instruments or voices).
The ultimate authority for genre will always be the composer (usually the first published version of his work). If the composer calls his work a aubade then it's a aubade, even if it's all about the dark side of the moon. (Some composers are notable for inventing fanciful names). If there is any ambiguity about usage, original languages names (again as used by the composer or publisher), are preferred to approximate English translations.

Incidentally I’m now inclined to divide the list by category — orchestral, chamber, voice, keyboard etc. — rather than by period, as I think the latter would involve repeating too much information. Klein zach 03:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The first half of the final paragraph reads very much like original research. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

About the definition of 'musical genre' for the purposes of this list, I'd expect this would not be different than the one in Musical genre. If that one doesn't suffice that article may need change?

About the division of the list, a solution could be a sorted list, see example User:LazyStarryNights/List of IMSLP work types.

In such format both category, period and maybe even other data could be held and sorted.

And it could be useful to have a look at this list anyway for some reuse as I have already looked up all possible Wikipedia genres I could find based on the parallel IMSLP genre list. LazyStarryNights (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The article Musical genre — quite rightly in my opinion — notes there are different definitions of genre. The first authority quoted is Green, whose definition is similar to the one I've suggested, but there are others. If the list to be created tries to follow each theory/definition of genre simultaneously, we will just get a incoherent mishmash of terms. I'm not going to attempt that. It would be a total waste of time and it would be no better or even worse than theList of IMSLP work types. As for sorting, this is for fact-based lists where you need to see data arranged in different ways. I don't think this applies in the case of a genre list.

This would be a big undertaking. I'm not going to take it on without getting everybody's support. Recently a lot of bona fide contributions have been reverted by certain editors. If this trend continues then it's just not worth attempting a major new page. One could spend hours and hours referencing a list and then find the whole thing had been deleted or subverted.Klein zach 22:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Putting this back on the shelf

Given the conditions we are working under, I am not going to continue with this. A good list of music genres would IMO be invaluable, not just for itself, but to underpin all the related articles. However genre is a difficult (and often controversial) subject in the real world as well as here, and without support and good will it would be a waste of time trying to attempt a coherent article. If at some time in the future we can get back to the kind of collegial approach that used to characterise the music projects, we can dust this off and have another look at it. P.S. In case this is also hacked, I have posted it under the heading "Putting this back on the shelf". Klein zach 06:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree the genres are a difficult topic and understand you put it on the shelf. I do still support the initiative. I do have the initiative in the back of my mind (e.g. during my current detour on refining Category:Dance forms in classical music). I hope one day we can dust the genre list off with the "collegial approach" you refer too. I'm not sure what it all means, but it sounds good! LazyStarryNights (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Category: Classical music genres (newly proposed)

This categories proposal is related to the genre list efforts discussed above.

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 13#Category: Classical music genres (newly proposed).
Please join this discussion if this interests you. LazyStarryNights (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)