Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Huge sets of moves by User Gary_King

Gary King seems to have moved a whole bunch of composition pages to different names, seemingly only ones I personally moved. He left a note on my talk page describing his reasoning. Anyone want to comment yay or nay? It seems especially stupid to have an articles at Trombone Concertino and Serenade No. 10 to be a specific piece, even if WP doesn't have any other articles about one. It'd be like Beethoven's 5th being at Symphony No. 5. It's especially troubling, as he moved Ave Maria (Caccini) to Ave Maria (aria). Would appeciate discussion. (Though perhaps another page would be better for this? Just figured since this was for classical articles it'd be best here) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • What a pain in the ass. Yes, all of those need to be undone per our NC. What's wrong with people that they don't consult before creating this kind pointless work. I'd ask gary to undo his own misguided efforts. Eusebeus (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. These need to be put back the way they were. There's a discussion in the archives where we had agreed that the parenthetical composer was necessary even if unambiguous if the title of the work was not descriptive (e.g "<type of piece> <number/opus>"). It just was too odd sometimes when some works have collisions and others don't and too much to ask readers to know that "Etudes, Op. 8" was one composer and "Etudes, Op. 10" was another. Normally, I don't mind boldness, but page moves are so messy and difficult to undo. DavidRF (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The moves that I made were for articles with descriptive titles (I'm referring to those like the example you mention, and those at WP:NCM). I suppose you could also lump Oboe Quartet (composition) and Trombone Concertino (concerto) in the same category, too. Gary King (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but look at Ave Maria (Gounod) as an example of why moving the Caccini to (aria) was absolutely wrong. And moving Mozart's Oboe Quartet to Oboe Quartet (composition) just makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. I'll give you the two Joplin pieces, which are in fact descriptive, though it still bothers me a bit to have them disambiguated as (rag). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
(OT) Ellens dritter gesang? I had no idea. *headdesk* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with David, Melodia, and Eusebeus. "Serenade No. 10" is an incredibly user-unfriendly title, and it makes our encyclopedia look stupid (did GK really imagine that only Mozart wrote more than ten serenades?). As Eusebeus says, GK should go back and undo the damage he did rather than asking us to do it. Opus33 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Serenade No. 10 was one of the ones that I was going to move back; if you actually check, I placed a G6 CSD on there almost immediately after moving it. I suggest that WP:NCM explain things more clearly, with better examples instead of simply bashing people new to the project. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe he should have, but I just did most of them for good measure -- especially since some of them needed admin assistance, thanks to the bot's "help". I moved the Ave Maria to Vavilov, though, instead of back to Caccini.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a different discussion. I think it should be at Caccini for the sake of "what most people know it as", but I guess if Eine Kleine Nachtmusik is a redirect, then I can accept that too... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, while I moved L'Arlesienne to (Bizet), I left the novel at (novel). That inconsistency is bugging me -- anyone else? I left the Joplin moves at (rag) -- that seemed to fit the general naming conventions better.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I assessed L'Arlésienne (novel) under {{NovelsWikiProject}} since that seems to be the most logical place to put it. Using (novel) to disambiguate is recommended, according to WP:NC-BK. Gary King (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
To answer Sarek's point on the Bizet case, if it was an opera, I'd be OK with a parenthetical "opera" disambiguator as that's quite common, but since its incidental music and suites, the composer name may simply be less of a mouthful. If you look at Category:Operas by George Frideric Handel, they use "Handel" as the disambiguator for cases where its not technically an opera (music drama, masque, etc). There's just no room for explanations in the title. For the literary work, I'd leave that up to the literary editors to decide if they want novel/Daudet or just empty with an otheruses header like with Peer Gynt.DavidRF (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

GK seems like a well meaning editor (judging by his contributions) who's taken the Naming Conventions to the letter but seemingly to lack knowledge about the subtleties and nuances in classical music. I mean it may seem obvious to us that Caprice No. 13 is incredibly stupid name for the article on that Paganini Caprice even if there's no other Caprice No. 13 out there. He didn't appear to move *that* many pages and seeing as he's moving them back that's fine. Centy – reply• contribs – 23:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And now, someone went and moved the Vavilov Ave Maria to Ave Maria by Vavilov (after someone moved it to 'Ave Maria by Caccini'), so can anyone with an adminbit fix the mess? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's really a problem then an admin should just move-protect the article. Gary King (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Hayley Westenra

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Hayley Westenra/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

All of the links to IMSLP from Dvorak pages (e.g. symphonies) are broken. The Czech characters in the URL's aren't translating correctly. Anyone know how to fix that? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it the article Antonín Dvořák by replacing the use of the template {{IMSLP}} with a direct external link. The problem is that the shortcut scores:, which is used in that template and in {{IMSLP2}}, points to http://www.imslp.org/wiki/ where it really should go to http://imslp.org/wiki/ (without the wwww.). I have now raised this twice at meta:Talk:Interwiki map#Scores to imslp.org, but things seems to move slowly over there. Alternatively, new templates could be created, say {{IMSLP-U}} and {{IMSLP2-U}}, which would avoid using scores: and instead go correctly to http://imslp.org/wiki/. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
… or more radically, rewrite the current templates. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I raised the matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 65#Template IMSLP broken and TheDJ (and I) have now fixed it by avoiding the scores: shortcut. However, according to TheDJ, there may still be related issues. I'll try to contact the maintainer of IMSLP (I think it's Feldmahler) tomorrow. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The shortcut scores: has now been fixed and the temporary workaround at the two templates has been reverted — it should now all work as before, although some rarely visited pages might take a while or need manual purging for the changes to become effective. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Harmonia Caelestis

Anyone know any more about this piece? Someone recently created the smallest of stubs for it and then just left it. I don't know how to categorize it and I'm not even sure which of the Esterhazy's is responsible for writing it (I think there's been a few named "Pal"). Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

House of Esterhazy has all those Esterhazy princes lined up in order, including the Pál who wrote Harmonia Caelestis. I added a link from House of Esterhazy to Harmonia Caelestis. Opus33 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I've expanded it to a slightly more viable stub. I wish people wouldn't create messy drive-by stubs based on YouTube, but alas.... If anyone has access to the Hungaroton recording, it apparently has fairly extensive notes. Voceditenore (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the help.DavidRF (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Labrynthia9856 is adding dates and opus numbers to a number of symphony navigation templates. I reverted the ones for Mozart and Beethoven as I thought they added far too much clutter, but he seems to be proceeding onward with Brahms & Rachmaninoff and perhaps more. What does everyone think should be in the navigation templates? My reverts could be reverted if people disagree.DavidRF (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the same user that changed some birth-death dates about a month ago. While at least this case there's no incorrect info like before, I can't help think it may be a trolling attempt (yeah yeah WP:AGF and all that but still). It definitely clutters up the large ones like Mozart, though with Brahms it's not THAT big a deal. Still, I fully support reverts back to single numbers, as these are nav templates, they aren't for info, they are for quick movement between pages.
Looking through some other edits, there seems to be more bizarreness. I dunno really what to think on this one... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and reverted the Brahms and Rach templates since eg. for Brahms 1, a single year is just misleading. Centy – reply• contribs – 20:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
My two cents -- no indeed, not a typical vandal at all. It's conceivable that Labrynthia is just a somewhat dotty person with a bad memory for classical music facts. But it seems more likely that he is a real problem vandal, one whose edits are likely to introduce quite a bit of error into the encyclopedia because he knows (more or less) how to make them look authentic. For a case where I think it likely that he's deliberately fibbing, see this edit for J. S. Bach's life dates: [1].
For now, perhaps the best strategy is to watch and steadily revert; if we can get clear evidence that this stuff is malevolent we should make a case to the authorities for banning. Opus33 (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this one -- I've been unpleasantly and otherwise occupied of late. I've been on the fence about Labyrinthia. She(?) (terminal "a", no other reason) is creating actual content, in short bursts, with some extremely odd periods of experimentation/vandalism/bizarreness. In almost six years here, I've never seen anything quite like it. She has created pages such as Symphony_in_G_Major_("Mannheim_No._1"), clearly in good faith, but what of the other stuff? Some of the date changes are clear vandalism. She has never responded on her user talk page. Probably the right thing to do is issue a short block on the next insertion of clear misinformation (I don't mind doing it; drop me a line if I miss it). The diff Opus provided is a good one; that's vandalism, as no source would have those dates. Some of the others -- like her changes to Dufay -- restore previously understood dates, disregarding current research. At any rate, several people including me have warned her. Thanks to Melodia and others for assisting with this. Antandrus (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Discography and article links to product pages

The site "the classicalshop.net" has been blacklisted because it has been observed that it is often linked by spammers. See this discussion MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#theclassicalmusicshop.net. If you have an opinion about providing links to product pages in articles and/or discographies, or know of a page where one could solicit opinions, please add to the discussion Thanks!. Robert.Allen (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ChoralWiki, WIMA templates

Hi. I often use and add templates linking to the websites with sheet music as imslp.org, cpdl.org (ChoralWiki) or icking-music-archive.org (WIMA). However, sometimes I find it undesirable, that the ChoralWiki and WIMA templates include asterisk at the beginning, because it can disrupt intended formatting. For example see Samuel Scheidt#Scores. Most of these templates are nevertheless used with asterisk before it (as * {{ChoralWiki}}), what makes the asterisk unnecessary. So I think it would be better if the asterisk was removed from these templates. --Tomaxer (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, creating the templates {{ChoralWiki}} and {{WIMA}} emitting an asterisk was not well thought through; as you noticed, the template {{IMSLP}} doesn't do that. There are two alternative templates for {{ChoralWiki}}: {{ChoralWikiNoScores}} and {{ChoralWikiName}} which don't emit asterisks – may be you can use them. As for {{WIMA}}: there are three solutions: 1) cheap & nasty: create new a template, e.g. {{WIMA-inline}}, following the scheme {{Commons category}} and {{Commonscat-inline}}; 2) amend the template coding for {{WIMA}} so that it doesn't emit an asterisk when invoked with a parameter, e.g. |asterisk=no; 3) don't use the template and handcode the link. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for suggestions. I've looked through those templates and especially the ChoralWiki alternatives look good, however, they seem to be not used. So I still think that to change the main templates is the simplest solution. As I've done a lot of this kind of work (adding them), I could also check whether there is an asterisk before the template in the articles transcluding these templates. --Tomaxer (talk) 10:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea to change the current default behaviour of templates; editors will continue to use it expecting the current behaviour. I also think it's impractical to check and change the current usage of Template:ChoralWiki – it is used on hundreds, possibly thousands, of pages. Either, the code should be modified to allow a more flexible use (suggestion 2), or a new template for in-line use should be created. If the ChoralWiki alternatives do what you want, you should use them; that they are currently barely used doesn't matter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
OK then. I agree that such change might be somewhat confusing, so I'll continue using the ChoralWiki template and where necessary ChoralWikiName. As I don't check WIMA templates now and it looks like that the maintainer of that site automatically adds the template to the corresponding Wikipedia article whenever the composer is added to WIMA, I'm not too concerned about WIMA currently. --Tomaxer (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Contemporary music

This project is now inactive. It hasn't seen any real activity since last year. Should we make it into a task force of this project? This would preserve the archives and enable the (potentially important) work to be revived at some point in the future. We could also remove all the unassessed banners which are now superfluous. What do other people think? --Kleinzach 00:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a member of either project, but have a question. I check User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult daily for the Opera Project and banner the article talk pages for their appropriate project(s). In future, should I banner with both Classical music and the Contemporary music if the article's on a contemporary classical music subject? Voceditenore (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The suggestion makes sense to me, but I have an idea that the original creators of the project regarded it as covering some things that weren't clasical music.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I remember we had some problems figuring out exactly what the project should cover. Given the controversial status of many 20th century composers among classical music fans (I only need to name John Cage), I wonder if classical music fans - members of this project - would accept having articles on 20th century avant-garde under their wing, so to speak, even if only as a part of a task force. Other than that, I think the suggestion may work. --Jashiin (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any problems with Cage. Well within the mainstream of classical music as far as I'm concerned and presumably other people brought up on a diet of BBC Radio 3 in the 1970s. Have you any other examples of who might be rejected here?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was referring to a specific comment made by Kleinzach quite some time ago: see [2], last paragraph. He suggested "Contemporary" should deal with post-1975 music, which would leave out Cage, Stockhausen, Xenakis, etc., the post-war avant-garde. My only concern is that 20th century composers and works from, say, 1930–1975 (roughly) should be included somewhere, either here (works) or in Composers WP (or are they all already covered by that one? Not sure). I guess I may be overreacting - in my country, much to my chagrin, Cage and others are very far from being accepted as classical music. --Jashiin (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Well they're clearly products of the decadent West, but I would have hoped that that issue went out with the Soviet Union. But from what you say, this is not the case. This type of compositional style dominated the musical conservatories in the West in the 1970s and their works get programmed as part of classical music festivals such as the Proms. They therefore should be treated with the rest of Western art music as part of this project. If your concerns are only with people like this, then I think there is no problem taking the project over as a task force. I'm not so sure of the likes of Frank Zappa who weren't classically trained.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We've seen no further activity in this project during the past three months, maybe it's time to convert it into a task force? Or are there any other outstanding issues regarding this? Thanks. --Kleinzach 08:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No: we need to fully define the scope, precise fields of work and - most especially - exact terms of reference for this most important of projects. After all, who else is responsible for the work of John Adams, Thomas Adès, Olga Neuwirth, and Brian Ferneyhough and the later works of Reich, Stockhausen and Berio etc? Few at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Participation seem to be taking an interest, other than a small number of those also registered at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#Members. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The difference between a project and a task force is the amount of maintenance involved. It doesn't imply more or less vigour. (Also note that few at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Participation are likely showing any interest in anything on WP now! The list needs weeding out.) Anyway I'm happy to see the project revived as indicated, defining ' "the scope, precise fields of work . . . etc. " --Kleinzach 01:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the Project already exists, we might as well start with that. If it becomes unworkable (as opposed to inactive) then we can reintegrate it into the parent as a task force. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Major issues to resolve

The following articles overlap and the situation need to be rationalized: contemporary music, contemporary classical music, 20th-century classical music, and 21st-century classical music. The following issues are the most urgent (in order of importance):

* It has been suggested that contemporary music and contemporary classical music be merged, but no consensus has been reached as to which way.

Other issues exist, as well, but those above need immeadiate attention.

Thank you for your input. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This call for discussion has been posted on multiple talk pages. In order to keep all relevant discussions in one place, please post any response here. --Deskford (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles contemporary music and contemporary classical music have in fact already been merged into contemporary classical music, so that's one less article to contend with. I would have favoured merging in the opposite direction, but that's not a big issue. I guess both terms are used to mean essentially the same thing in different contexts. Another term that is much in use but that hasn't been drawn much into the discussion is "new music". Promoters seem to use this term as less potentially audience-frightening than "contemporary". --Deskford (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the multi-tag Deskford: I should have thought of that. I'll be away for the next two weeks, BTW, everyone, so I might not be able to participate until next the end of the month. Hope the discussion bears fruit in the mean time. Cheers, --Jubilee♫clipman 14:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above about the Contemporary Music Project. I recommend first redefining the project, and then deciding what to call the key articles that Jubileeclipman and others have been working on.

Some background: The Contemp. Music Project was started a couple of years ago by two active editors: S.dedalus and Badagnani. They placed project banners on nearly 3,000 articles (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Assessment), with grading and importance scales. In their view 'contemporary music' covered everything from the first decade of the 20th century onwards, including the Second Viennese School etc. but also originally conservative figures like Elgar. Some people thought the scope of the project was too wide (see Too much overlap, too wide scope and Contemporary or post-romantic?). Few articles were written under the 'auspices' of the project and it became inactive about a year ago, while related work continued with some vigour here, and on the Composers project.

If the project can be redefined, and the key articles reorganized and rewritten, we'll have a WP-consistent basis for developing further pages on individual works and composers etc. (Hope my reasoning is clear — if not please say so!) Kleinzach 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

reading the last comment, i think there has been a major mistake made in defining what the term contemporary music denotes. This should be cleared up, if possible. I'm not of the view that this term is used to refer to a particular era/period in music.
My understanding of its usage is that it is currently used, at least in the UK, as a word that is interchangeable with new music. Most festivals, organizations, institutes, who are engaged in promoting this music appear to use the term in reference to music now (composed very recently). For this reason I think we should try and redefine what's happening here. If someone has some good sources to refer to, regarding definitions of the terms presented on this page, please list them for consultation.
I'm also with Deskford on the merge direction for contemporary music. There should maybe be two articles contemporary music & contemporary popular music and just scrap contemporary classical. I don't really like the manner in which 20th Century music includes all types of music and would rather see one called 20th century popular music instead of using 20 century classical music to distinguish the two but I don't imagine that would be a very popular opinion. Measles (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding 'contemporary': I think the word has a kind of 'default' meaning of 'of our time' when it is unqualified (for example by 'baroque' or '17th-century Italian' or whatever). However there are other options: one would be to use the title 'Music since 19xx' or similar. --Kleinzach 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
20th Century music? Yet another overlap, though it does concentrate on popular music with only brief mention of the classical styles, so it should be OK. The problem with using Contemporary for music post-1975 is neatly summarized by both Measles and Kleinzach above: it usually refers to recent classical "new music" these days and rarely refers to anything pre-2000 (again in UK, at least). The present contemporary classical music could easily be merged into the end of 20th-century classical music, with little violence done to either article since the former discusses very little music written post-2000 and the latter discusses very little music post-1980 (ie they both discuss C20th music almost exclusively but not exhaustively). Indeed my own 21st-century classical music could be tacked on as well if we define "C20th" in a broad sense as extending from the 1890s to the 2000s. However, we really need a term in common use for the periods in question: Modernist Period (music) would be apt enough for the article 20th-century classical music while Postmodernist Period (music) would suffice for contemporary classical music merged with 21st-century classical music (which I am beginning to think is a necessary task, anyway). A "New Music" article would be out of the question, since, by definition, in will quickly become outdated. <The rest of this reply and those following are cut below to Contemporary Music Project to keep discussion on track.> --Jubilee♫clipman 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Music Project

(See also the discussion WikiProject Contemporary music above.)

BTW, the question "What's left for you?" posed in the Too much overlap, too wide scope discussion has an obvious answer: an enormous amount of classical music. This Project should be reactivated ASAP and the members properly define their fields of work and - most especially - terms of reference. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO we do need to either reactivate the project or create a task force. (One advantage of the latter is that we could get rid of all the banners and instead use Classical Music ones, reducing time-consuming maintenance work.) Either way we'd need a new definition of the 'scope' of the group. Would you (Jubileeclipman) be willing to make a draft? --Kleinzach 00:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) - Thanks, Kleinzach. I'll see what I can come up with in the next few weeks. Note, I am away for much of this time, but I'll be thinking about it when I'm not on here. Acceptable? (Given that the project has been "inactive" for months, anyway, that is.) --Jubilee♫clipman 00:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, why especially contemporary music that demonstrates a modern aesthetic, for instance music written in an experimental or avant-garde style? Why not all post-1975 classical music? Reich and Glass are hardly Avant-garde, nowadays. Worse the "modern aesthetic" tag sounds too much like "modernist aesthetic" for my liking... Just a thought!--Jubilee♫clipman 01:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I think we need to start again with a new, clearer, more easily understood definition. --Kleinzach 01:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'll see which articles are actually tagged with the category first: that will help clarify the present scope and give a firmer basis for inclusion of those articles (or for their removal if they are manifestly irrevelent). --Jubilee♫clipman 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The damn cat has every species of C20th CM cats under its banner, since Category:20th-century classical music is a subcat of Category:Contemporary classical music! That should obviously be the other way around... I have no idea how to solve that since the edit seems to bear no relation to the page! Help? Jubilee♫clipman 02:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I've done category trees for the other projects (see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Categories) but it's a big undertaking. I suggest leaving it alone for the time being, and concentrate on the scope of the project, i.e. the top paragraphs of the project page. If we can get aggreement on that, we can move on to the detailed work. --Kleinzach 02:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) - See the project talk page for my initial proposal. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_21&oldid=1190132389"