Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive of this page (housekeeping)

Shouldn't the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines/Archive 1 be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines/Archive 1? I understand that then the archive search box at the top if this page will automatically populate and become functional, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right of course. I've made the move. Have I done it correctly? --Kleinzach 15:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What I expected with the search box has happened. Thank you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

a useful quotation

If it's not impermissible, I'd like to keep the following quotation alive somewhere for the duration of this proposal for a guideline on classical music. This was originally posted by DavidRF at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526, and I believe it nicely encapsulates the problem we are trying to address:

Classical recordings are different. You have scores of violinists spending their careers recording large chunks of the violin repertoire (some skewing towards baroque, others not). This happens with each generation of performers. In some cases, the same violinist will record the same piece multiple times. Hilary Hahn has 34 recordings listed at arkivmusic.com and Mozart's K. 301 has 59 recordings listed at the same site. Yes, it was well-received by critics in 2005, what about old recordings by Grumiaux, Perlman, Shaham, Mutter, Szeryng, Accardo, etc, etc etc. And 34 and 59 are relatively modest totals compared to other soloists and other pieces. There's over 200 recordings of the Mendelssohn concerto. Also, its rare that the "albums" are considered works by themselves. Its extremely common for the individual works on classical albums to be collected and repackaged in different ways at a later date. I think the best solution is to have either a List of recordings by Hilary Hahn page or a Hilary Hahn Discography page with a nicely formatted table which could include links to reviews, etc.DavidRF (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Milkunderwood (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Endorsed. --Kleinzach 01:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Endorsed. -- kosboot (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

About the style advice tag added by Moxy

The style advice tag, twice added by Moxy to the guidelines page here, was featured on the WP Council page without any prior discussion or consensus [1], only an obscure announcement here. It's not popular and is used on very few pages (see [2]). (About 100 projects have style guidelines.)

I observe the WP:one-revert rule so I won't remove it again, however it's clearly an attempt to dissuade this project from making standards higher than those on non-CM music projects. --Kleinzach 05:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that Moxy has been systematically adding the tag to project pages all over the lot. So he hasn't singled us out for this. It seems that the appropriate place to discuss this, then, would be and the Council page, not here. On the other hand, my personal opinion is that the tag makes little or no difference. We are, after all, pretty much a small bunch who have been collaborating on this project for several years. All of us probably have read the guidelines and abide by them, and I have yet to encounter a newcomer who bridles at having to write "major" lower case. Even the more controversial determinations - no infoboxes and few recordings articles - enjoy wide consensus. So let Moxy call it an essay if he likes. The main thing is, it works. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have mentioned this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#guidelines vs advice - As i believe a move is actually better then tagging all this advise pages.Moxy (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This debate is closely linked to the composers Infobox controversy. Two involved editors wrote most of the policy on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, an English Wikipedia Guideline page that I didn't know existed. It's not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Navigation. I hope people will participate in this discussion so we can have policy decided by consensus rather than stealth. --Kleinzach 02:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"I didn't know existed" - We have been linking you to it for years. Your telling me you never click on the link that was presented to you many many times? At some point the info you tell people should be correct. Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Navigation the first link under WikiProject guide called "Introduction" is to the page you are referring to. Would love to hear from some older editors with a neutral POV abut this. Its not about " Infobox" as being presented here. Kleinzach you seem to be bitching about the fact a small group of editors may be making policy without the wider community approval. ------------ This is the whole point of the conversation - that is a small group of editors DONT have the right to set policy or guidelines without overall approval (What your arguing about). SO to make it clear to all here the conversation is about move Project page from "guideline" to "advice" nothing more... Moxy (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Moxy: "We have been linking you to it for years." Please provide the diffs/references for your assertion. I repeat that I was unaware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, a page that is not included in the main Council navigation box at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Navigation. Clearly I (and probably many others) would have disagreed with some of the text on that page — if I'd known about it. Why would I ignore the making of so-called 'policy' with which I disagreed? --Kleinzach 00:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not productive - But i am very very concern your either making things up or your not reading whats presented to you in rebuttals, thus your responding without knowing the proper context. Here you replied to a conversation were I had just posted that I had made a change to the Guide page its self. Here you asked me if I owned the guide that I posted at the bottom of the page. Here was a direct reply to you. Here I again directed you to the page and made it Bold. Could you click on the links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Navigation one by one to see were they take you. This would be the third time I have explained that it is there and you disagree.Moxy (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Moxy, I am about as far from being an "older editor with a neutral POV about this" as it's possible for anyone to be, but let me offer my thoughts on the situation, for whatever they may be worth. It seems to me that you and User:WhatamIdoing on the one hand, and Kleinzach on the other, are arguing on procedural grounds, of which I am almost wholly ignorant. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you and she may have the stronger position here. What I'd like to do is go back to the underlying problem. This is the fact that there presently exists a "Project page Wikipedia: Notability (music)". I have no idea whether under the definition used by you and WhatamIdoing that Project page is a policy, guideline, advice, or essay - perhaps you could clarify this question.

There are two problems with this guideline, if that's what it is. First, it assumes that "music" includes all music, and covers all types of music without making a distinction between any special circumstances that might apply to different kinds of music. Classical music, taken to mean the tradition of Western "classical" music of more-or-less the past thousand years, is essentially different from all other types in several respects, but primarily in that it is a genre built on specificity of tradition, leading to the invention of musical notation, where a sequence of notes is written down for the purpose of and with the expectation that this written script is to be followed with as faithful exactitude as may be managed by anyone and everyone engaging in a performance of this music. The following section on this page, a useful quotation, addresses an important aspect of how "classical" music differs from other types.

The second problem arises with the Wikipedia policy brought up by WhatamIdoing having to do with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. People interested in classical music are undoubtedly a "local consensus", if you're counting numbers. We are outnumbered by many orders of magnitude by people interested in popular music of various genres. The essential difference between these two types is that in popular, and other non-Western-tradition-classical types, of music, what is distinctive and important is the unique performance and setting rather than the composition itself, which is used merely as a vehicle for the performance. Many, and perhaps most of the people interested in popular music tend not only to be enthusiastically and emotionally involved with their particular likes and dislikes, but tend also to be disdainful and generally ignorant of classical music. There's recently been a very long and argumentative discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#RfC "Every album by notable musician gets own article" guideline?, where any suggestions posted by editors involved with classical music have almost entirely been ignored as irrelevant to the back-and-forth viewpoints concerning popular music. Since our position is considered irrelevant, it clearly seems very unlikely if not impossible to ever reach a consensus within that group to acknowledge the essential differences between their area of concern, and ours.

So to me, at least, the real question concerns what can be the proper procedure for establishing a separate guideline for a "Project page Wikipedia: Notability (classical music)", so that we are not tied to a guideline that is not appropriate to our "local consensus". (EDIT: It can argued that the "consensus", if indeed there is one, concerning Wikipedia: Notability (music) is just as much a "local" consensus as ours, other than their having many more interested and involved editors.) Milkunderwood (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I will try to reply the best I can (more may follow after this post)... to the question = "Project page is a policy, guideline, advice, or essay". We have 3 levels of "informative" type pages here See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Role. Project guideline pages/sections are basically essays because they have not passed the WP:PROPOSAL process. Wikipedia:Notability (music) is not a just a ""local" consensus" even thought it may be written by a few editors in one group because it has the communities wider acceptance as indicated by the Policy and guidelines header templates. WP:COMPOSER is a guideline and something that can be added to if you believe something is missing. Changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. If it just minor edits go ahead - See Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content changes for more info. Moxy (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. In the meantime, it occurs to me that to the extent that "classical music" may be a subset of "music", undifferentiated, it is no more so than "popular music" is a subset of "music". That is, popular music (whose adherents presumably wrote the original guideline) does not and cannot represent music, undifferentiated. People interested in classical music are obviously greatly outnumbered by "the Pink Floyd crowd" as it has been expressed, but there's not a great deal of overlap in interest between the two groups. So you could say that as a project, classical music has been beaten to the punch in getting a guideline approved, and overwhelmed in trying to make that undifferentiated guideline adjusted to address our separate requirements. We are in no sense a subset of what would have to be identified as popular music. Popular music is not equivalent to "music" generally, any more than classical music is. There's more of it, certainly, as well as many more interested editors. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are correct - as in this group has had much trouble getting "your" (meaning this group) views even the most logical ones recognized. This is part due to the fact that classical music is not the most popular "style" and the fact that its a very different scope as in it covers lots of historical categories. There is also as you can see by this projects guideline (I mean Advice) page that some conflicts in the past have not been properly resolved thus leads to some animosity towards this project in general. This group has been a shining example of what can be done by a Wikiproject when it comes to improving coverage and quality of articles under its scope. However the inter project cooperation has been lacking and has left the group somewhat isolated. All that said what exactly are you referring to when it comes to ideas you believe should be a guideline? Most of the advise page here is based on current policy and would just need some rewording and trimming. Other parts like those that indicate to our readers they must discuss a certain type of edit before hand is way off some of our core principles like Wikipedia:Be bold and our moto "Anyone can edit". All this is a bit of topic but productive I think. Moxy (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This last post from Moxy is obviously addressed to the WikiProject Classical music at large. I need to say that 1) I'm glad for this fuller explanation of his viewpoint; but 2) my posts were for the sake of argument, with no intention on my part of undermining Kleinzach's contrary position. I personally have stated my own concerns many times, in a number of different discussions; and I'm perfectly happy with Ravpapa's draft, as it may be amended by the suggestions made by LK and Kleinzach. I think we largely have agreement with the explanation quoted below, from DavidRF. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Refs subheadings markup

This page currently recommends at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#References to format optional subheadings with the Wiki markup ";" (semicolon). The HTML code produced this way has always been a kludge and a problem for screen readers for the sight-impaired. This has recently been recognised and Wikipedia guides no longer recommend the semicolon's use for this purpose. Proper section levels ("===…") are not desirable as an alternative, as they unnecessarily lengthen the table of contents. The only feasible method seems to me to bold the optional subheadings the conventional way with three apostrophes. I suggest to modify the guideline accordingly. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"no tempo indication" for movement

I notice that BWV 1041 Violin Concerto in A minor (Bach) has had movement 1 indicated as Allegro moderato since the page was first set up ten years ago, and has been left unchanged all this time.

I noticed this wanting to confirm Bach's tempo marking, because most of the recordings I have show either no tempo marking at all, or say "Allegro"; a few do say "Allegro moderato", and one says "Allegro non tanto". Checking at IMSLP it says "no tempo indication".

I think this ought to be corrected, but I don't know WP's preferred format for this. I was going to see how the harpsichord concertos BWV 1014-1026 handled the situation, but am surprised to find that many of these have exactly the same problem.

Milkunderwood (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of an existing guideline my own suggestion would be

1. [no tempo indication] (usually performed at Allegro or Allegro moderato)

Milkunderwood (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Actually, I don't think Bach every wrote tempo indications on his music. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no idea whether he ever used tempo indications or not, but someone did for the great majority of his works - just not all of the movements. These might be a later editorial addition for publication, relying on "understood" tempo for where they're omitted. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've usually seen the "understood" tempo in square brackets... as if to indicate that it was added by an editor years later. But that's a bit of a cryptic short hand. Your scheme spells things out more clearly the more casual reader.DavidRF (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The basic problem was that this 1041 page, at least, had originally been set up by someone who took the movement tempos from one specific recording, and just accepted them as is. I'll gradually look at some more as I get time. I certainly don't want to look at everything listed, but as I run across inconsistencies, I'll verify at IMSLP. I need to keep all these straight for my own cataloging work, which is why I'm looking here. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Organisations and institutions/Naming using an authority control system

These sections are added per the discussion here. --Kleinzach 23:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Uses in popular culture

Why should "such edits should be discouraged"? I and I am sure others would be interested in what movie or film a piece has been used in. Very often it is what makes a piece popular to the masses. E.g. Barber's Adagio in the Elephant Man, Platoon and several other films. The actual article does have this information, so it is just this guideline that is at fault. Please do not judge who should be interested in what!

I suggest this section is removed (or reworded to include popular culture). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 11:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

SurreyJohn, pages like this get very few watchers. I suggest you raise the issue at the project's main talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) This section is simply a adaptation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. If the use of a composition is notable, i.e. the use has been discussed in reliable sources, it will usually be included in the composition's article. For mere occurrences, the special page "WhatLinksHere" is a rich source of information, e.g. Special:WhatLinksHere/Adagio for Strings. For other works, the use in popular culture is of such volume that a special article has been created: Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture, Category:Music in popular culture. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(MB)

This has no connection with the Trivia guideline. Why should music being used in films, adverts, etc be discouraged or treated as trivia? This section is misleading. Another example is Bach’s Air on the G String. This text suggests one should write an article on Hamlet Cigars and add the reference to the music there, which is nonsense! At least in practice, it seems that popular culture (and other) sections do include the use of music in film and TV (so this section of the guidance is being ignored). Air on a G string has a large section on popular culture, and rightly so, and likewise O Fortuna. I can detect the bread in Dvorak’s New World too! Again I say such subject matter should be encouraged, not discouraged. SurreyJohn (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have copied this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. I suggest we continue the discussion there. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ravpapa and Voceditenore. I hope the discussions there will be followed by some suitable rewording here. I am still hoping for some action.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 15:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I've moved this passage here:

This is just a bot. See instead the more meaningful and helpful section at: WP:IPC. kosboot (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean either to agree or disagree with it (I'm not sure what is meant by "just a bot"), but it is the normal procedure on Wikipedia to first get consensus for changes to policy pages and only then implement them. Thanks for your patience. Opus33 (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

This "Use in Popular Culture" guidance section is currently under review. If you are editing an IPC section and are seeking advice, then you are encouraged to: Visit the talk:WikiProject Classical music project page to read or partake in the discussion. Read the Trivia guideline (WP:TRIVIA) guidance about handling 'trivia' type content in articles. Read the Conflicts between advice pages (WP:POLCON} for information addressing conflicts in advice. Read the essay on In Popular Culture (WP:IPC) for further information. Thanks,  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 22:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

References for recordings?

A wikipedia editor deleted a number of changes I made on pages for classical performers and artists saying that the recordings I listed were not sourced. This person apparently thinks that all recordings need to have references. I find this odd; I've hardly ever seen references for recordings, films, books etc., and I'd like to know what is correct. This person threatened to have me banned if I did not heed their rule, which I think is ridiculous. I have no desire to get into an argument with anyone, and contribute to Wikipedia because I value the resource. But if someone is going to make such a statement, I'd like to know if what they say is valid.

Kirkmc (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There were some egregious additions of non-existing or pirated recordings to some articles in the past. I think removing uncited recordings instead of requesting a citation is overly officious, but it shouldn't be too hard to find a reference for a recording. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My thought is that would make for very unwieldy articles: there would be lots of references - presumable a link to a record company page for each recording - cluttering up the References list.

Kirkmc (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing on Wikipedia as "cluttering up the References list"; WP:OVERCITE is very rarely a useful argument, but WP:Verifiability is a cornerstone. I don't agree with it, but almost any unsourced claim can be removed by invoking WP:V and WP:BURDEN – and there's no defence. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: There is consensus for the wording proposed by Stfg to be implemented

Firstly, I have considered the relative weights to be given to this RfC and the discussion held at the project talkpage. There is a general presumption on WP that discussions held by the general community override those held by projects (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). There may be an argument that projects should be allowed to govern their own affairs, but here we are talking about guidance intended for the community at large, and so the RfC discussion should take precedence. I have, however, taken the time to read through the discussion at the talkpage and I am effectively treating the RfC as a continuation of that, which, given the shape of the discussion overall, I feel able to do without interfering with the general principle that the RfC is a more significant discussion. It should be noted that project participants were not restricted from commenting in the RfC.

A number of editors supported the early closure of the RfC. However, this did not happen, so that's that. I do not think there was any valid basis for such a closure anyway. Opening a discussion to the wider community is not WP:FORUMSHOP. The lack of a precise question may have been a problem at the outset of the RfC, but since one later emerged, the RfC was not without purpose.

There is a clear consensus in the discussions taken as a whole that the current wording is unsatisfactory. There is also a clear consensus below for new wording proposed by Stfg. One editor voiced an objection in the voting section, which was, effectively, to say that it is not the case that usage of classical music can often add to the popularity of popular music because there are examples where it is not clear that it does. I don't find this objection logical. It was also objected, outside the voting section, that the proposed wording would allow too much trivia. This may be valid (time will tell), but it appears to be a minority view. It was also objected that one editor has been badgering project members so much that they have simply caved in. I do not see much evidence for this and, in any case, I don't think it is open to me to take the comments of participants at anything other than face value.

Accordingly, there is consensus to implement the change proposed by Stfg. There also seems to be consensus (and it is common sense in any case) that this need not be a full and final solution to the question and that further discussion and changes to the wording is not to be discouraged. I think it is also obvious that what matters most is the effect, if any, on article content. If the new guidance ends up being used to justify a dramatic increase in references to Family Guy in classical music articles, then that may be an indication that a mistake has been made here and that there is a need for review.

1. Currently: The guidance notes for the "Use in popular culture" section of the Classical Music Guideline has been discussed by over the past 10 weeks without reaching a consensus. The old guideline makes presumptions about what readers are interested in, and instructs that edits such as "Work X was used in [movie/TV show/electronic game] Y" should be politely reverted.
2. Current practice: Most well known uses of music in popular culture (i.e. classical music used in films, TV and other media) does appear in the music articles. However there are also examples where this information is missing. It is impossible to know how much encyclopedic information is lost or never added as authors are discouraged to add content.
3. Conflict: Some editors want to limit and restrict such content as in their view it provides no information about the music. The alternate view is that although miscellaneous points may be regarded as "trivia", provided they are not "trivial" and comply with Wikipedia policies, should be included as factual encyclopedic information within the music article in question.
4. Balance: A balance is necessary between indiscriminate content (i.e. trivial or irrelevant information) and the style of reporting trivia (i.e. miscellaneous facts). There is probably good agreement about applying the WP:TRIVIA guidance.
5. History: It appears that this conflict of views has been a problem over many years. The talk page of Beethoven's Fur Elise reveals that in 2007 "There's an intensive campaign going on now to kill off all the "in popular culture" articles" which explains why the existing guidance notes (written in 2009) suggest any such edits be politely reverted.
6. Essay: The WP:IPC essay has gone through a number of revisions over the years, and currently appears to represent a well thought out view, which is generally accepted by all.
7. Talk: The lengthy discussion has taken place on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music page (as this page gets more followers), and several proposed changes proposed, but without much agreement between members.

Please note: I raised the RFC and notified you I would be away on holiday. I am now back. I am asking for help and mediation is finding consensus on this difficult topic. If there is one key question to ask, then it is: "Is it acceptable for a guideline to be worded in such a manner that relevant information about the use of a piece of classical music in popular culture (e.g. a film) should be discouraged and edits reverted?" This Classical music guideline appears to conflict with various policies and guidelines, but there is great resistance by some to replace it with a guideline that allows such information, as it is considered irrelevant to the article.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 19:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment This appears to duplicate the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#In popular culture sections in guideline. Absent any identification of what we are being asked to !vote on, it seems wiser to continue that discussion. --Stfg (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy close and redirect the discussion to the current active discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#In popular culture sections in guideline, per reasons given by Stfg (technically this is a good faith inadvertently initiated WP:FORUMSHOP). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Note: the earlier discussion does not appear to have been flagged as a RfC per the process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and thus may not have attracted wider attention Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That's correct. The other discussion is not an RFC, though it might lead to one in time. For now, it's simply a talk page discussion like any other. There has been some discussion there about raising an RFC, but it was suggested to wait until we could agree what text to propose. --Stfg (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I know that the other discussion is not a (formal) RfC; that was my point, and is why your comment that it is a duplicate, and another that it is forum-shopping, are false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Nope. This one is asking for a discussion here while there is also a discussion going on there. That's the duplications. The correct procedure would have been to notify potentially interested projects of the discussion over there, seeking contribution to that discussion. --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• close also suggest closing this with no prejudice against immediately opening a new RFC as part of the exisiting discussion, that asks a concise question. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Please Keep open: I've updated the request to include what is being asked for. This ongoing request is for outside input and is on this talk page because this is the relevant article page of interested (as per WP:RfC guidance). The discussion is taking place elsewhere (see the WikiProject Classical music talk page). Thanks,  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 10:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm curious as to why my comment, above, dated 8 November 2014, now appears - out of context - in a subsection apparently begun on 27 November. It is not the only comment this affected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Andy: The discussion was started 8th Nov. I updated my own "Please Note" comment on the RfC from being on holiday to having returned (and posted a question as requested by Gaijin42). I thought that was preferable to starting again with a new RfC, so sorry if I've caused any confusion but I did also comment that I've updated the request.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 14:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    • You did explain it, but you may possibly not have realised that we usually don't edit things that people have already replied to, but refactor them using strikeout and insertion (<s> and <ins>) and with a separately dated note saying so. This avoids orphaning comments that people have already made. (That is also why version 4 should not have been a restatement of version 3, taking it away from the comments made on version 3. It would have been better to remind us of version 3 with a link back to it, urging us back to the version-3 discussion.) --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Wording proposed by Stfg

[3]:

Classical music often gets reused in modern culture, thus forming part of its modern history. This reuse can often add to the popularity of the classical work being used, as well as providing further insights into the music being described. When writing about such reuse in articles about classical music, please observe policies and guidelines such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA and WP:BALASPS.

• Support this wording – this is definitely an improvement over the current wording. I'd replace the current content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Uses in popular culture by this proposed content ASAP, and take it from there. I suppose many participants in the debate(s) on this topic may have higher expectations (myself included), but as such expectations seem to go in a wide variety of directions, I think Stfg made a good summary of the common ground, and I would implement it while the current wording in the guidance is failing in too many respects. Further developments can be proposed and when they gain consensus they can be added: I'm certainly not opposed to more elaborate proposals and would assess such proposals as they come. Under the current circumstances however I would go for the wording as given above without further delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support this wording, an improvement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support, with the exception that, if the guideline says nothing except to refer to other guidelines, it seems superfluous to me. But if everyone else is happy with it, who am I? --Ravpapa (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You are a very significant contributor to the discussion over there! It says rather more than just referring to those guidelines. The words "as well as providing further insights to the music being described", first introduced by SurreyJohn in version 5 (I think), and "thus forming part of its modern history" help to capture the reason why many of us do want some of this kind of material in these articles. They aren't exactly how I would have said it, but they are close enough that I can live with them. --Stfg (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't foresee this development, but support (obviously). I'm with Francis in welcoming any further expansion that might achieve consensus with further discussion. --Stfg (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support this wording - gets the issue in (more or less) a nutshell.--Smerus (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - why not. kosboot (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• I have to Support this, as it no longer tells me what should be of interest or advise to discourage and revert popular culture content. I dont understand though why this is thought to be better than having the guidance statement about what content is "significant" as opposed to trivial. I thought several (perhaps all) of you wanted guidance on what merits significant, thus helping to avoid indiscriminate lists. Does this mean I can start to work on my Santa article now ;-)  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 19:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• I did make a reply on this subject months ago. I would like convincing that reuses of classical music 'in modern culture' "can often add" to popularity and provide "further insights into the music being described". For instance, I'm not clear how the background music during the fight scene in the Star Trek episode "Amok Time" (first shown on 15 September 1967), which has portions of the Boléro theme (without the snare drum) and the fact that on the planet Vulcan, Spock must battle Kirk in a fight to the death over Spock's betrothed wife because she picked Kirk to champion her has added to the popularity of Boléro and/or provided insights into Ravel's music. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Implemented (and reverted) Change

I have made the change as agreed above. This included removing the {{under discussion}} tag, as there is now no apparent policy conflict, and also moved the position up before references. Assuming this is accepted and there are no reverts I'll cancel the WP:RfC.
I appreciate this wording isnt perfect and some will probably want to discuss further and make make improvements. I would suggest we can try to live with this for a few months, and start a new simpler discussion in the new year. Thanks.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 11:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, SurreyJohn. I agree with that way of going forward. --Stfg (talk) 11:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be difficult, but I don't think we have enough editorial participation to implement. I, for one am quite opposed, I think the standard invites a big inflow of trivia into articles. If several other editors endorse the change I will not revert again. Opus33 (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Opus33:I do think you are wrong, and politely ask you to reconsider and revert. All 7 bullet points (above) are different contributor’s responses and all have agreed to the proposal. This is as good as one could expect as it is unreasonable to require everyone to respond. The current situation is that guideline appears to conflict with policy, so editors may assume that policy takes precedence over the project’s guideline (see WP:POLCON). I see no evidence of any "inflow of trivia into articles". Incidentally, "trivia" are disorganized facts and are permitted (see WP:TRIVIA). It is the "trivial" that is to be avoided and the guidance pointing to WP:INDISCRIMINATE addresses this.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 11:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Opus33 may have been using the term trivia in the sense of "insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information" (that's from Wiktionary) rather than in any sense of being disorganised. In view of this development, where might we advertise this RFC to editors who have developed the general-purpose policies and guidelines? --Stfg (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, please note because this is very important, WP:TRIVIA is only a shortcut. The actual page title is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections: its about trivia sections, not about trivia itself. --Stfg (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it would courteous (or at least less rude) of me to explain my revert a bit further. I feel that User:SurreyJohn has been badgering this Wikiproject about this topic with great persistence and the proposed change in our guidelines may reflects a (well-intentioned and super-kindly) effort by classical music editors to placate him and get the issue off the table. I don't think the proposed guideline is what would have resulted had my colleagues who work seriously on classical music had discussed the issue among themselves, unhectored.

Please note User:SurreyJohn's edit record indicates very little work in classical music, and indeed his expressed wish to put in references to TV commercials suggests to me he doesn't even particularly like classical music. The very fact that we have editors who want to dump references to TV commercials into our classical articles suggest to me that it would be wise to continue to provide some fairly stiff resistance to edits of this kind in our guidelines, and that such resistance would serve the interests of both readers and editors who have a serious interest in, and love for, classical music.

In sum I think the appropriate response to SurreyJohn's visit is simply to say a firm "no", and wish him well and goodbye. It's not right to reward an ability to badger, however prodigious. Opus33 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I see a broad ad hominem adressed at SJ, giving sideways some slaps at others: a glance at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#In popular culture sections in guideline will show there's no "placating" or whatever from any of the contributors to the discussion. I for one am not in the business of placating anyone, neither will I placate Opus33 on this one.

Would the proposal be different without SJ's participation? Probably. Would it be better? Most certainly not. The guidance currently offered at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Uses in popular culture is a bit of a disgrace (to put it mildly) and without SJ's intervention probably nobody would have bothered to update it, something we're all, including myself and Opus 33, accountable for.

I'm quite indifferent to who-did-what in the lengthy discussion. It's about the content. If one takes away the comments on co-editors from Opus33's message above, I see no criticism left on the content of the current proposal. So here's how I see this: best to discuss the content of the proposal. If that's not possible, I see no reason why we should make room for innuendo and ad hominem here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

At a stretch, I see exactly 1 ad hominem in Opus33's remarks: the assumed lack of appreciation of classical music on SurreyJohn's part. Everything else is a valid description of SJ's efforts here, including the description of his endless and repetitive walls of text as hectoring. I decided very early in this discussion that my time was better spent on other things, and I suspect many of the project's regular editors did likewise. I don't think these editors' tolerance for inappropriate material will be changed by the wording of this guideline. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Re. "I see exactly 1 ad hominem in Opus33's remarks" – exactly: an "ad hominem" is by definition directed at "one" person (that's the meaning of the Latin expression). That's why it's undesirable in Wikipedia talk page discussions in general, and has no bearing on the content of the proposal.

Re. "I don't think these editors' tolerance for inappropriate material will be changed by the wording of this guideline" - if that tolerance is illustrated by the current content of Gymnopédies#Influences and cover versions, as one of many examples, I can only hope the so-called regular classical music editors revisit their position. I for one am prepared to do so. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, I quite agree with Opus that this discussion has gone on far too long. Whether or not SurreyJohn has been badgering or not, the reams of talk on this topic have become so tedious that no one but the hard core continue to discuss it. On the other hand, Opus, you should know that I consider myself to be one of the "colleagues who work seriously on classical musical articles", and I have not agreed with SJ's position to placate him, but because I agree with him. I think the guideline as currently worded is misguided (can you say that about a guideline?) and pretentious and should be deleted.

It is clear that, despite the appearance of consensus above, no one's mind has been changed, and no progress has been made toward a revision of the existing guideline. The idea of an RFC was a good one, but it has attracted zero interest, so we can't rely on outsiders to resolve our differences.

In the Talmud, when the Rabbis couldn't reach agreement on some arcane point of law, they declared a "Teku" - to be resolved by the Messiah (when he comes). I think that is our situation. Let us all be brave and move on. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC).

I dont think the Messiah will help us ... well unless he has a Wikipedia Administrator account.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 12:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Please note the Request for closure should become effective after 27-Dec.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 10:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC).
The lengthy discussion that took place on the project's page has now been archived. Please refer to Archive 58.  SurreyJohn   (Talk) 22:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bold change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I do not agree with this change. Not to bold a catalogue number which serves as a redirect seems needlessly narrow and contradicts the current practise for Bach's cantatas, for example BWV 22. Please discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

French capitalization rules

Hi, French capitalization rules are not exactly what is explained here. Shouldn't this be fixed? Details are available on fr:Wikipédia:Conventions typographiques#TITRES-FR (Wikipedia) and s:fr:Aide:Conventions de nommages des œuvres (Wikisource). These are the official rules from the Académie française and professionals like Désiré Greffier in Les Règles de la composition typographique. See more official references at fr:WP:TYPO#REF. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to give the context, this arises from Yann's recent move of an article and the subsequent discussion re WP:CAPM, see Talk:La Bonne Chanson (Fauré) - Aegoceras (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposing to group this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#French orchestras - orthography where I created a subsection for the more general capitalization topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Article title suggestion for a page listing a composer's compositions?

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Relisted move request. Please discuss there not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)