Talk:Edward Elgar/Archive 1

Initial text
Quite right, Land of Hope and Glory isn't the English National Anthem, but it is used in that capacity at a number of events including the Commonwealth Games, I'm not sure what it's exact status is. Mintguy

The reason for Land of Hope and Glory being used for the English anthem in the Commonwealth Games (and others), is that God Save the Queen is the UK anthem, and although England is the major partner in the UK, it isn't the whole of the UK, and God save the Queen is the UK and Commonwealth anthem.

On a different note, what are the rules for putting 'The' in the title of links? I've followed the convention in this document of not doing so, but I'm not sure if its right for The Pomp and Circumstance Marches. csmiller

Marlbank
Hi there, I've removed the line in the biog relating to 'Marlbank', as the house was infact formely in Rainbow Hill in Worcester, rather than Malvern. Sadly it was demolished in the 1960s and replaced with some rather tasteless flats now known as 'Elgar Court'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kiwizzarrd (talk • contribs).

See alsos
Since the articles on Charles Villiers Stanford, Gustav Mahler... as presently constituted don't say much useful about Elgar, removing them from the list is a good idea. They should, unfortunately, or this article should- or something; the composers interacted in important manners while alive. Mahler conducted Sea Pictures in the 1910-11 season, for instance. (All three, if memory serves; Mahler and Stanford certainly, Mahler conducting Stanford's 3rd and 4th symphonies for example. I think Martucci was very familiar with Elgar's music, but would have to do research for details.) Schissel-nonLop! 16:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Currency
He is on £20 notes... where would you include that in the article? 'Elgar' is a slang term for a twenty pound note.


 * I've edited this as they've replaced him with a Scot, of all things, in the 150th anniversary of his birth. Disgraceful if you ask me.TPD
 * Shameful indeed. I've removed some of the detail about Adam Smith to keep the focus on Elgar himself. -- Jmc 01:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Popular song
It's amazing what Wikipedia sometimes turns up. A question at the Science Ref Desk about whether the world could be repopulated if there were only one man and woman left alive, led me to check out the song "If You Were The Only Girl In the World", where I read that Edward Elgar called it "the most perfect tune ever". It needs a citation, so I've tagged it. Do any Elgarophiles know of this opinion, as I've never heard of it. Would this merit inclusion in Elgar's own article? JackofOz 02:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Choral Works
I noticed that a section is provided for Elgar's music for chorus and orchestra, but what about his music written mostly for choir? What I mean is, where would music like "The Snow," which was written for a women's choir, two violins, and a piano be placed? I notice that it is not mentioned in the article and would like to include it, but am not sure whether to start a new category or to place it into the existing "Works for chorus and orchestra" section. 67.150.218.61 09:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe rename the current Works for Chorus and Orchestra section as Large-Scale Choral Works, and add a new Chamber Choral Works section? Barnabypage 14:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi I just added a recording of his The Snow - I hope you like it Dwsolo 09:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)dwsolo

Sea Pictures poems
Someone is proposing to delete the articles on the five poems that make up Sea Pictures:


 * "Sea Slumber Song"
 * "In Haven (Capri)"
 * "Sabbath Morning at Sea"
 * "Where Corals Lie"
 * "The Swimmer"

If you have views on these proposals, please make them known on relevant discussion page: Articles for deletion/Sea Slumber Song

Jonathan Luckett 19:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Policy on links to recordings
Note to moderators:

I just added a recording to The Snow. I trust this is within wikipedia's policy in that it is uploaded to wikipedia's store and not a link to a website? Dwsolo 09:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)dwsolo

Extra brother or just one with two names?
An editor has added an extra brother, Jo. Looking at The Life of Elgar Jo just seems to be a diminutive for Frederick Joseph, who appears to be already listed in the article as Frederick. Cam someone with a reliable source please check and clarify? Nunquam Dormio 08:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael Kennedy identifies the seven Elgar children as: Jo, Frank, Dorothy, Edward, Harry, Lucy, and Susannah, hence the change I made. Scotwriter 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. After your edits, the article stated "four brothers, Henry, Frederick, Jo, and Francis, and two sisters, Lucy and Susannah". So Frederick / Jo was double-counted and Dot omitted. Michael Kennedy lists the siblings as Henry John (Harry) (15 October 1848–5 May 1864), Lucy Ann (born 29 May 1852), Susannah Mary (Pollie) (born 28 December 1854), Frederick Joseph (Jo) (born 28 August 1859), Francis Thomas (Frank) (born 1 October 1861), and Helen Agnes (Dott or Dot) (born 1 January 1864). (Michael Kennedy The Life of Elgar) hence the change I made. Nunquam Dormio 05:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ElgarCD.jpg
Image:ElgarCD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Elgarmenuhin.jpg
Image:Elgarmenuhin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bank Of England20.gif
The image Image:Bank Of England20.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Bank Of England20.gif

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --15:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review
I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is a really nice article. Most of my issues with it are not factual, and are minor; the article is arguably an A-class composer article. Editors wanting to considering putting the article up for GA or FA consideration will need to provide inline citations. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page.  Magic ♪piano 20:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Master of The King's Musick
Just as a lawyer who is QC (queens court) would then be on the KC (Kings court) should the Queen die (...God forbid), the same goes for other royal appointed titles.

just because when he was given the honour, that's how it was spelt, it doesn't mean that we should continue calling him Master of the King's Musick. He should be called Master of the Queen's music.

Anyone else reading it would just think it was a misspelling (and they are correct). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colt .55 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not right, with respect. Living people go from QC to KC or vice-versa when the monarch changes sex.  Living Masters of the Queen's Music become Masters of the King's Music if a queen is succeeded by a king, and vice-versa.  But we don't retrospectively change these titles and postnominals for every KC/QC there's ever been, or for every Master of the (monarch)'s Music there's ever been, every time there's a change in the sex of the current monarch.  Throughout Elgar's tenure, he was Master of the King's Music, because there were only male monarchs between 1901 and 1952.  Thus, he should always be shown as Master of the King's Music, never Master of the Queen's Music (except in the context of a list of all the Masters of the Queen's Music, which would include Masters of the King's Music).  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I love the idea that Wikipedia should rewrite history! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Extra-musical interests
My father-in-law (from Wolverhampton originally) takes exception to the phrase "Despite having lived in Worcester", having sent my wife and I the following (semi-tongue-in-cheek) diatribe:


 * "The contributor is obviously an ignorant southerner [this is tongue-in-cheek]. Worcester is very much in the Midlands and sports fans from that city there will obviously follow a football team from Birmingham or the Black Country. Worcester is the County Town for Worcestershire and before some silly boundary changes in the 1970s, about half of the Black Country was in Worcestershire. The writer probably cannot believe that someone from genteel Worcester with famous cathedral and river with lots of bucolic countryside nearby would follow a team from a rough industrial town like Wolverhampton. Typical southern pansie thinking. Who are people from Worcester supposed to follow? Bristol and Cardiff are twice as far away as Wolverhampton and Birmingham and their teams not nearly as good (in Elgar’s time I am not even sure that they were in the League)."

On behalf of all offended Wolverhamptoners, I have made an edit to strike the unnecessary phrase from the article.

For what it's worth, he also takes issue with the phrase "may have travelled to home games on his bicycle", saying:


 * "Also a lot of rubbish about he “may” have travelled to home games on his bicycle. Why not? He was a keen cyclist and before cars became affordable many English people travelled much further than the 35 odd miles from Worcester to Wolverhampton on bicycles.


 * "That route, despite its lowly numbering, was an important trunk route and was probably metalled very early, so Elgar would have had a smooth ride. Part of the route was even made into a dual carriageway as early as the 1930s complete with cycle lanes away from the traffic. This practice of building cycle tracks ceased after the war as cars became more popular and cycling declined.


 * "The contributor also does not realise that the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton railway company (OW&W and often given the colloquial name “Old Worse and Worse”) would have made travel between Worcester and Wolverhampton relatively easy in the Edwardian era – despite its rather shaky reputation – and was probably used by folks from Worcester to get to Wolves games. Tragically passenger service was withdrawn from the Northern section of this line in the 1960s (after nationalisation) when public transport was being slaughtered. Some of the track has now been removed."

Needless to say, while entertaining and informative, this is not terribly relevant to this article, so I've made no changes to the bicycle reference. I include it here for posterity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.163.141 (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

History and Historiography of Elgar Studies
Suddenly we are presented with this huge section. But I am uneasy about it.

I would not like to doubt that it is the result of much research and thought, and is a very interesting and well-presented piece of work, rich in information. But we don't know whether it is original research or well-sourced (though no source references are given). It follows that thanks are due to the contributor of the section, but sources, sources, please.

However its excellence, is this section needed in this article? It it not actually about Elgar, but two frames of view removed: for it is roughly a discussion about ways of categorising those who write about Elgar.

It's too long, but it would suffer if paraphrased.

I am concerned that there is much that is opinionated in the article, though the opinions may be reasonable.

It would be good to have it discussed here.

That's enough from me. What think ye? P0mbal (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I share P0mbal's unease about this section, and its sudden appearance (from a contributor with no previous history of WP contributions) without prior discussion here.


 * Yes, we do need to know whether it's OR, and whose opinions are being expressed.


 * And yes, it risks unbalancing the article, both because of its length in relation to the length of the article itself, and because of the peripheral nature of its content.


 * I'd be in favour of removing it - at least, temporarily - pending a fuller discussion of these points.


 * -- Jmc (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've commented out that section for the reasons advanced above, pending input from the contributor here. -- Jmc (talk)


 * Sorry to have dropped in such a big section. I have actually added before, working on the bibliography, mostly. Citations for this segment -- other than the continued discussion of each of the works themselves (and you will note that these are all now in the bibliography) -- would add even more words to it. While I do not agree that this section does belong within the article about Elgar (since the article as it is written is currently entirely from the POV of Music Critics and Amateurs, and the Wikipedia audience should know that), I could see -- for the sake of compromising only -- putting it in a separate article, linked to this one.  -- Sebastianelgar (talk) 9:03, 18 April 2009


 * Hi Sebastian, citations really are necessary for statements like "Percy Young, while technically an Academic...falls more naturally into the group of music critics because of his philosophy of historiography". Who said that he falls naturally into that group? And, since they appear as footnotes, they don't in practice add to the length of the section.


 * On the question of whether this material should be in this article or another, I think the question is whether the "three distinct groups" you refer to are peculiar to Elgar studies, or whether the same three groupings can be seen among those studying any other composer. If it's the latter, the material is probably more appropriate in an article such as musicology. But in the former case - if it's an Elgar-specific phenomenon - this article is indeed the place for it. Barnabypage (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I welcome Sebastianelgar's appearance here. I'm still in the dark, though, as to whose opinions are being expressed in such comments as "All [publications] are written with strong agendas, and must be read cautiously as a result." Such an injunction is highly POV (as is such a prediction as "Elgar’s continuing popularity … will likely continue …") and must be attributed to be acceptable. -- Jmc (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Move list of compositions!
The two lists of compositions here and in the separate article duplicate each other in contents. Fortunately, the former is assorted by genre and the latter by opus number. Why not, then, move the one here to the separate article as a second main section? That would make the article on the man more manageable and leave it so even if someone in the future should add, say, a stylistic or musical analysis of his output. -Keinstein (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no issue in principle with that; except that it might make the List article too long in itself. Maybe have 2 List articles - one by genre, one by opus number.  We've done it elsewhere: Debussy and (?) Chopin come to mind.


 * It's fairly common in composer articles to mention their most prominent works in a list at the end of the article, with a link to the comprehensive list (where one exists). I think I'd still like to see a short list at the end of this article, regardless of where the full details end up.  It would obviously include Enigma, Gerontius, Pomp & Circumstance, the 2 symphonies, the 2 concertos; some others might be a matter of debate. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Daughter
The article mentions his wife, but not his daughter, Carice, born shortly after they moved to London. Carice married Samuel Henry Blake, I believe, and became Carice Elgar Blake (not sure if it's hyphenated). This seems to be an omission, but I'm not near a source I can check the details on right now... Mooncow 00:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I added daughter as noteworthy, before seeing your comment, but not gone as far as her marriage - Carice Elgar Blake is correct, no hyphen. P0mbal (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube video links copyright problems
The following YouTube links are in External links but do not have any clear statement about their copyright status on the YouTube webpages. If there are no substantial objections (like pointing to where their copyright status can be verified on YouTube) then I shall remove them following the guidance of WP:Youtube.
 * Tippett rehearses the Leicestershire Schools Symphony Orchestra
 * Tippett rehearses the Leicestershire Schools Symphony Orchestra


 * YouTube Julian Lloyd Webber plays Elgar's Cello Concerto
 * This is a link to a YouTube search and so fails against the guidance of Links normally to be avoided #8. I have removed it on this basis.

—Teahot (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion
Elgar was baptised and brought up a Roman Catholic, but is buried in a Church of England church. Did he become Anglican? Certainly Roman Catholicism doesn't seem to have played a great part in his life. Ausseagull (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The setting of The Dream of Gerontius for example. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * St Wulstan's Church, Malvern Wells (it's on the Wells Road, before you reach Little Malvern) is Catholic. At least, it was when I saw Elgar's grave there in 1990. John Warburton (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Elgar was a devout Roman Catholic in his younger days. He gradually lost his faith due to the rather poor first performance of "Gerontius" and the receptions of his other major religious works "The Apostles" and "The Kingdom". On his deathbed he asked to be cremated and his ashes placed elsewhere but his daughter Carice said he was off his head with the morphine. Of course he had to be buried with his wife Alice who retained her Catholic faith to her death.Ed (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bikes' names?
The article says:


 * Elgar bought two Wolverhampton-produced Royal Sunbeam bicycles in 1903, which he named Mr Phoebus, and visited the Sunbeam Works in Upper Villiers Street for 'tuning'.

This implies that he gave both bikes the name "Mr Phoebus". Is that true, or is the line wrong? Loganberry (Talk) 02:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a source from the BBC. This shows that the bike bit is true, the news item does not explicitly say that there were two bikes but this may have been covered in the Radio 3 programme itself.—Teahot (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's handy. Unfortunately it doesn't really address the specific question, since the source added simply says "Mr Phoebus ale on tap, named after Elgar's bicycle". What brought me up short wasn't the name itself, but the suggestion that he had two with the same name. That's a very odd idea, and so that, very specifically, is what I think needs a solid source. Loganberry (Talk) 12:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Google books yields up p323 of "Edward Elgar: a creative life" by Jerrold Northrop Moore ISBN 0198163665; this makes it clear that Elgar bought himself and Alice bicycles at the same time (some time before 3 August 1900, the date of a letter from Alice to Mrs Kilburn where the bicycles are mentioned). He named his bike Mr Phoebus and so I suspect the original editor might have put two in by accident thinking that Elgar named both bicycles the same thing when actually he bought two at the same time and only one was for himself.—Teahot (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now dealt with the question of the bike's name, as suggested. P0mbal (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Alice, Lady Elgar
Now there is a page for Caroline Alice Elgar, it would seem desirable to move material from the admirable paragraph on Alice in this article to her own page, while leaving sufficient relevant material behind. There is too much about Alice in the Edward Elgar article now. Seeing the need, I started the page for Alice myself, and I am feeling a bit lonely that no-one else has added to it or criticised it yet - both are needed. I'll leave the decanting for someone else. P0mbal (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall stop editing the C.A.E. page (I have beeen building it up in gradually) at least until someone else had edited it. P0mbal (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sortable List of Compositions - Draft sample
Here is a draft version of up to Op. 37. Works will be taken from the List of compositions by Edward Elgar. There will be errors, as it has not had a "pre-flight" verification. Thoughtful comments welcome. P0mbal (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Great work. Quick thought: do we need to distinguish between year(s) of composition, year of first performance, and year of first publication? They won't always be the same. Barnabypage (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really impressive stuff! I think if I had been creating such a table (had I the expertise!) I might have the title in the first column, on the basis that the title will be what most users will be looking for. But I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong. On the question of dates, above, I think the most important date is that of the completion of the work. First perf and publication are less important, I'd say. One wouldn't want to clutter the table up with three date columns, surely? Perhaps footnotes for those FP dates wildly out of synch with dates of composition might suffice. None of which comments detract in the least from my admiration of the work in progress - bravo! - Tim riley (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another little thing - thinking about the usefulness of sortability. Is there a case for merging the categories "cantata", "motet/anthem", "hymn" and "oratorio" into a single one, "choral"? Or is there a case even for having kind of super-categories like "choral", "orchestral", "chamber" and "instrumental", and then another column with more precise details of instrumentation? I'm thinking of the kind of information people are likely to want to get, and it may be rather general ("a list of all Elgar's chamber music").
 * While I think of it, I'd prefer a term like "liturgical" rather than "hymn" to describe the T.D. and B. - it's not a hymn tune in the ordinary Anglican sense of the word, so while the Te Deum is technically a hymn, the term might mislead. Barnabypage (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't happy with hymn either for T D & B, as it's maybe a preparation for Gerontius in its flavour, Latin words, but not a hymn I agree, unrestrained, in a category of its own, deserves more playing, another unique work of Elgar's. Liturgical will do, will try that.  Thanks P0mbal (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, yes, a need for the super-categories such as choral etc. Another column. P0mbal (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Compositions by Edward Elgar
There seems to be a need for a separate list of the compositions of E E, similar to what has been done for Richard Strauss (see List of compositions by Richard Strauss). What started as a list of noteworthy compositons has just growed to include nearly all he wrote, and is surely too big included within the E E article itself. Note that the Richard Strauss list has sortable columns, so a list can be sorted by Opus, Year, Genre, Title, and there would be no need for a separate list by Op, as well as that by Genre.

But, keep in the E E article the most noteworthy compositions. There could be endless contention as to what to include, but I suggest as the most important (not the same as the best):
 * Salut d'Amour
 * Introduction and Allegro
 * Enigma Variations
 * Symphonies 1 & 2
 * Violin concerto, Cello concerto
 * Dream of Gerontius, The Kingdom, The Apostles
 * Pomp & Circumstance Marches, Land of Hope and Glory
 * Cockaigne
 * Falstaff
 * Piano quintet, String quartet

Added to these (there is no sharp dividing line) could be
 * Froissart, In the South
 * Wand of Youth
 * Sea Pictures
 * Romance for Bassoon & orch.
 * The Music Makers, The Spirit of England, Caractacus, The Black Knight, The Light of Life, King Olaf
 * The Starlight Express
 * The Fringes of the Fleet
 * Serenade for Strings
 * Severn Suite
 * a few of the songs (is "sung by Clara Butt" an endorsement?)
 * a few of the part-songs

P0mbal (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is actually a List of compositions by Edward Elgar, it's just that it's sorted by Op. number, and the one of this page is separated by genre. It'd take a few seconds to transfer this list over to a new article though, a number of composers have two in that way.
 * But anyway, I personally am always kinda annoyed at the "notable works" lists, as they seem to never be objective. They are never referenced from other places with a list (and plenty of those exist), and usually they just creep up in size little by little. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Yes, that is the point, there are now TWO big lists: one on the E E page (by genre) and a separate one (by opus/date), and we don't need both. You can't maintain "by hand" two big lists of the same info in different arrangements. The idea is to remove the big list from the E E page: it's far too big, and have just ONE separate list that you can look at in any way you like (one long list is easier to maintain than two). Keep in the E E page a very small list of select notable works, not more than 20, which it is understood do NOT increase by "creep". At the start of the list of the select works, give a direction to get people to the complete list if they want to - to see how it's done, see Richard Strauss. Don't be bothered by it being a bit of careful work - it is - but once done, it's done. And of course it can be changed like everything in Wikipedia.

Here is an example, with just a few randomly selected works of E E. Try sorting it by clicking on the little signs in the column headings. Note it might not be arranged in this exact way. It speaks for itself... P0mbal (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

P0mbal's suggestion sounds daunting to a technically inexpert contributor like me (daunting to create, I mean, but excellent to use) but I'd welcome it enthusiastically if P0mbal or someone else would undertake it. Certainly the list in the present main article has become, as it were, the tail wagging the dog. If it were moved to its own article there would be room for a major expansion of the main article, in which I'd be very pleased to be involved. I note that the Gustav Mahler article is getting a major overhaul and is clearly (and rightly) headed for FAC. It would be good to get the Elgar article up to the same level - Tim riley (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

See the new sortable List of all compositions by Edward Elgar. Corrections/additions welcome of course. I have tried to improve on the similar List of compositions by Richard Strauss. The plan is to (a) move List of all compositions by Edward Elgar to List of compositions by Edward Elgar, and (b) cut down the list on the Edward Elgar page to the most notable "top 20" or so - maybe just those referred to in the article itself. The existing lists are still there - so right now we have 3 lists, but this will soon be cut down to the right number, which is one. P0mbal (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

New sortable list all compositions by Elgar
See the new sortable List of all compositions by Edward Elgar. Corrections/additions welcome of course. I have tried to improve on the similar List of compositions by Richard Strauss. The plan is to (a) move List of all compositions by Edward Elgar to List of compositions by Edward Elgar, and (b) cut down the list on the Edward Elgar page to the most notable "top 20" or so - maybe just those referred to in the article itself. The existing lists are still there - so right now we have 3 lists, but this will soon be cut down to the right number, which is one. P0mbal (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just had a quick look and will read it in more detail later but it's very impressive! There is an error I haven't seen before showing up at citation 20 - just a tag problem, I think.
 * One query: are we following the published music's titles in naming key signatures, or is there a Wikipedia convention on this? (In general writing I would normally use G major, G minor, but of course if there is an established style we must follow that.)
 * In any case - well done. Barnstar work. Barnabypage (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Naming keys - I use the convention e.g. that "in G" means "in G major". We have Elgar's "Symphony No. 1 in A♭" (or "Symphony No. 1 in A-flat" if you must or don't have a ♭ sign), but never "Symphony No. 1 in A♭ major". I don't think there is a Wikipedia convention on this.  It depends: if you are titling works by Bach or if there is a series of works of the same instrumentation in various keys I can understand always specifying major or minor.  But then I'm for economy. P0mbal (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I ask because we have a "G Major" (Organ Sonata) and a "D-flat major" (referenced Chopin work) in the list and its accompanying notes - are these actually parts of the titles of the respective works? Or just oversights? Barnabypage (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have the score with me right now, but I'm sure the Organ Sonata title does not contain the word 'major'. And the 'major' does not seem necessary for the Chopin either. P0mbal (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hidden section on "History and Historiography of Elgar Studies"
This has been concealed under a comment for a year. It is a most interesting (and I think reliable) contribution, but as it is still wholly unreferenced I propose, unless anyone objects, to delete it. If the editor who contributed it wishes to restore it, it can always be retrieved from the archived versions of this article - though in my view it would be better (if once duly referenced) as a separate article. - Tim riley (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Alice at her high desk
Photograpers direct has the photo on their website and date it at 1911. P0mbal (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope this does not mean that the image is after all in copyright. I note that the Photographers direct site does not give any bibliographical detail to substantiate such a claim. (I understand that many such sites assert purported reproduction rights without substantiating their claims.) A pity that my scan is so inferior, but c'est la guerre. Good to have a date, none the less. 1911 - in her early 60s - looks plausible. - Tim riley (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional material
I am assembling additional biographical and other information about Elgar with the aim of revising and expanding each section. I don't want to tread on anyone's toes: please say if add or alter anything untoward. I have made a start in the Early Years section. - Tim riley (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that P0mbal has created the separate article on Elgar's works, with the marvellous sortable columns, would there be any objection to removing the list of works from the general article? This would be in line with other major articles on composers. - Tim riley (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with removing the lists from the article. Of course, I assume you are checking to make sure that all of his major works are described in context in the narrative sections of his article.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point - I believe the main works are now mentioned in the biog section, and I am now working on a reasonably sized section on the works themselves, pulling together critical comment over the years. - Tim riley (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Full list temporarily hidden (comment parentheses). - Tim riley (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose, unless anyone objects, to remove the uncited quotes in the quotations section, and move the one cited one to an appropriate place in the main text. Also, as there is no proof that every street, road, avenue etc named "Elgar" is named in honour of the composer, I propose to reduce the contents of that section to a line or two within a single "honours and awards" section. - Tim riley (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Tim, I think you can  safely  assume that  any  streets named  'Elgar'  in  Worcestershire, especially  in  the Malvern area, are genuinely  named after him.--Kudpung (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review
Now that the long list of compositions has its own (splendid) article this main Elgar article is progressing along the road to FA nomination. The bibliography needs splitting into works cited in the article and other works, and the section giving an overview of the music needs to be completed (middle and late works), and then, unless anyone objects, I propose to put the article forward for peer review. Grateful for any thoughts on this. - Tim riley (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is now at peer review (here), and has already had extensive input. Any further comments will be most gladly received. - Tim riley (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PR now closed, after a tremendous amount of helpful comment. Article now nominated for GA. - Tim riley (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

GA to FA?
I rejoice that the article has been promoted to GA. I am minded to give it another once-over and nominate it for Featured Article, unless anyone thinks otherwise. I remain uneasy about the "selected works" list, but who knows what FAC reviewers will think! - Tim riley (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article is defintely FA quality. The worst that could happen with the "selected works" list is that you would have to drop it, so it should not be an impairment to your nominating the article. Jonyungk (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This: Although Elgar is often regarded as a quintessentially might attract  criticism  as being WP:WEASEL wording. --Kudpung (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll also  mention  again that: While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.--Kudpung (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see a Selected works section. However, I  would be inclined to rmove the entire Notable works section  to  the separate article List of compositions, with  somethng  in  the intro like: The table below shows all known compositions by Edward Elgar, the most  notable of which  are... leaving  in  the main  article a very  short list  of the really  most popular compositions such  as '...including  Land of Hope and Glory which  was proposed as a national  anthem  for Englad...
 * Just ideas, but basically  I'm sure too that  the article is potential  FA  material.--Kudpung (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am once again indebted for the encouraging words and suggestions from Jonyungk and Kudpung. I have some further additions and (I hope) refinements to make, having lately done some more delving in the archives and on library shelves, and then I shall put the article forward for FAC. - Tim riley (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you run this tool you will  see that  some of the links are no  longer responding correctly and need to  be repaired/replaced. You  will also  find that  this tool  will probably  confirm some of the recommendations I  have made. If you  need any  further help  or suggestions, please do  not  hesitate to  ask. --Kudpung (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Littleton House
An anonymous user keeps changing "Littleton" to "Lyttleton". The Elgar books I have consulted spell it "Littleton" (nothing to do with the Lyttelton family). Will the user who changes it, please give reasons or desist. - Tim riley (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Diana McVeagh's article on Elgar in the New Grove also spells it Littleton (section "Early Years", third paragraph). Antandrus  (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interestingly, while the preponderance of sources do seem to suggest Littleton (compare Google resulst for "lyttleton house" elgar with those for "littleton house" elgar), the English Heritage listing for the current Lyttleton House, Worcester, records "Francis Reeve ran a school here attended by the composer, Edward Elgar. Lyttleton was the maiden name of Reeve's mother. (Buckley RJ: Living Masters of Music: 1904-: 8 (ILLUS))." - see http://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=488945&resourceID=5 So maybe it's possible an early error has been accepted as gospel by later sources? David Underdown (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting. If that's true I wonder how the spelling become "Littleton".  I can't find the "Lyttleton" spelling in any of my hardcopy sources, but I'd be surprised if English Heritage had it wrong. Antandrus  (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I wish the anon would quit the reverting/edit warring. Second, if all scholars use the "Littleton" spelling, and we are certain that the same building is known as "Lyttleton" today, we could solve it with a footnote (e.g. "the current spelling for the building containing the school, according to the English Heritage [programme/foundation/site/whatever it is] is 'Lyttleton' " ... )  I can't (yet) find the "y" spelling in use at the time Elgar was there. Antandrus  (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was about to propose that myself. A footnote would resolve the possible ambiguity until we have a firmer idea. It's not impossible that an early reference spelt the name incorrectly and later scholars just copied from that and propagated the error. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking along those lines too - though I note the source EH sites is from 1904, so almost contemporaneous, and gives a plausible explanation for the "y" spelling. David Underdown (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent] I've copied Tim Rileys's notes below from the 'discussion' on User talk:86.136.7.42

But why, then, did Reeve, mentioned on that web page, spell the name "Littleton"? He inscribed a book to Elgar, "Littleton House, Christmas 1868….F. Reeve, Principal". (Moore, p. 51). There is also a letter reprinted in Moore headed "Littleton House, May 28th, 1870" Adams has the following references: The Musical Times (October 1900 p. 642) in a long portrait of the rising composer spells the name "Littleton". Diana McVeigh in an article on the Elgar Birthplace also quotes the name of the school on the school prize Are these leading Elgar scholars all wrong? – Tim riley (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * …Park; and Francis Reeve's school at Littleton House in Lower Wick. 29. "Dame school" is a generic…
 * …1869 to 1872, a school for young gentlemen at Littleton House. All three schools were…
 * …family, 25 February 2006. Littleton House, Francis Reeve's school, unlike Walsh's or…
 * …St. John's, Schedule 82, 1871. Littleton House seems to have been used as a school for some…
 * …Though a student at Walsh's Dame school and Littleton House, typical religious instruction…
 * …of Worcester where Reeve's Littleton House was located, separated from the main…
 * …to 1872, were spent at Francis Reeve's school, Littleton House, which was situated across the…
 * …public schools like Eton or Charterhouse, Littleton House can be characterized as a…

ENDS Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I took a stab at a footnote; anyone feel free to edit the wording.  Perhaps it should be "all" Elgar scholars as I'm yet to find one using the "y" spelling. Antandrus  (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A very accommodating gesture. I agree it's "all" the Elgar scholars one has read (and their name is legion!) but there may be an unknown exception somewhere, so "majority" will do very well. Thanks to all the users, above, for their patience in this unnecessarily confrontational brouhaha. - Tim riley (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:86.136.7.42 is just reverting the edits, despite the consensus achieved here. He's now using a sockpuppet name TheElgarOracle and will doubtless create others. As he's behaving like a troll, I suggest we issue warnings when he inevitably repeats his behaviour. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, that is clearly the right thing to do. What a pity that some people refuse to behave reasonably! Is there some mechanism for seeking the blocking of the ISP address? - Tim riley (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes -- ElgarOracle, if you are reading this, you must discuss this with us; revert-warring will never get you what you want, since we operate on consensus, and since you have already violated our electric fence after being warned, you are blockable at any time. Talk to us -- we're reasonable people.  We operate by consensus on Wikipedia; if you feel that the 'Lyttleton' spelling belongs in the text, you need to provide enough reliable sources to outweigh all of the scholarly references which have the other spelling.
 * I can protect and block myself, but since I'm now an WP:INVOLVED administrator I'm not going to; this will have to go to the edit warring noticeboard next. Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

For my part, I can live with the text as our anon editor has now left it. All the statements in the sentence as now drawn are, I believe, both correct and verifiable. - Tim riley (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Video links
I removed the video links from the external links section because there is no evidence the video is public domain or freely licensed and therefore shouldn't be linked per WP:EL as possible contributory copyright infringement. Hekerui (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FAC - selected works section
The consensus at FAC (here) is that this section should be removed. This is to let all contributors know that I am about to remove it accordingly. - Tim riley (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sea Pictures
Sea Pictures is in the section Selected Works, in the Cantatas and Oratorios sub-section. While it is lengthy, usually performed with a symphony orchesta and does not look out of place amongst Elgar's large-scale works with choir and soloists, it is unlike them in class as it is a set of solo songs, and therefore could be listed with the other notable songs. My contention is that it should be in the Songs sub-section, and back in November 2010 I think I moved it there, but as it has since reappeared with the Cantatas and Oratorios I thought I would bring up the idea here. Move it Songs? P0mbal (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although, as you know, I am highly iffy about the very presence of the Selected Works section, I should say that if I were looking for Sea Pictures, I would look for it first in the Cantatas and Oratorios section rather than under Songs. Tim riley (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with P0mbal on this one. I'd definitely look for Sea Pictures in the Songs section; I'd never think of it as either a cantata or an oratorio, and find it hard to understand why Tim riley would. -- Jmc (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. It's definitely not an oratorio because that would require a chorus.  Whether it's a cantata or not is moot point - I suppose it could fit in there; except that Elgar never called it a cantata, and until now neither has anyone else, so Tim seems to be on a solo mission here.  I've never heard of a cantata whose movements all have words by different writers, and whose only connection is a common overall theme.  Sea Pictures is always described as a set of songs, which has orchestral accompaniment as well as piano accompaniment, but is best known in the orchestral version.  No different from the sets of songs that Richard Strauss or Jean Sibelius or Henri Duparc (composer) orchestrated.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite content to go along with the consensus. As I say, this "selected works" section seems to me wholly otiose, but as long as it persists by all means go with the preferred order. Tim riley (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The three women in Elgar's life
I have just watched the 90min TV documentary on Elgar. This presents some important new information which has surprised even his biographers. This raises the question in my own mind as to how on earth this article can have reached FA status without mentioning at least "Windflower" whose existence is well known. There can be no doubt that Elgar's 'affairs of the heart' were central to his creativity and had a huge influence on his work. So, I repeat, how can this article have reached its present state with barely a mention of this central aspect of his life?Flying Stag (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There can be no doubt ??? I assure you there IS doubt. Perhaps reading a few in-depth composer's biographies will make you realize how surprisingly little influence a composer's private life has on the music he composes. Regards. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Francesco Malipiero. Cf. Auden's comment about the "dark lady" and the "lovely boy" of Shakespeare's sonnets – viz. that even if anyone ever could identify them, it would add not one jot to our understanding or appreciation of the poems. Elgar's supposed loves? There are half a dozen one could trot out – Mary Lygon, Alice Stuart Wortley, Jelly d'Aranyi, Julia Worthington, Dora Penny, as well as Helen Weaver, to whom he was, as the article notes, briefly engaged when a young man – but no evidence that his feelings for any of them went beyond amitié amoureuse, and even if one supposes that his feelings were reflected in his music, one would be hard pressed to say which of these ladies inspired what. See the article on the Violin Concerto for an example of the impossibility of reaching any firm conclusion. And that's before we go into the dubious area of Elgar's alleged gay side:  see Byron Adams's "The "Dark Saying" of the Enigma: Homoeroticism and the Elgarian Paradox". All interesting byways, perhaps, but for an encyclopaedia article one requires proven facts rather than supposition. – Tim riley (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also suprised, having watched the same TV biog about the omissions. It seems to me that this article is about Elgar the man and his life, not just his music. For it seems highly likely that presence of Vera Hockman in his life at the age of 74, rekindled his enthusiasm for composition and led to to his initial sketches for the third symphony. There's not even a page in existence for Vera Hockman. Boatgypsy (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but "seems" and "highly likely" are not good enough for a Wikipedia featured article. If you have access to published evidence to back up your suppositions, by all means add it, with all necessary citations; and, naturally, it is open to you to create a page on Vera H. if you have enough citable material to do so. There is no article about her in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My use of the words "seems" and "highly likely" were used in the context of this talk page. It is a matter of verifiable fact that Elgar met Vera and established a close relationship with her in the last two years of his life. It is also a fact that this period saw a rekindling of his creativity. There is documentary evidence to support just how important Vera became to Elgar and this is therefore worthy of inclusion.Boatgypsy (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is wholly open to you to source and add cited information to that effect in the relevant part of the article. My own view, based on extensive reading of the sources, is that Ms Hockman has no more claim than Lady Mary Lygon, Alice Stuart Wortley, Jelly d'Aranyi, Julia Worthington, Dora Penny, and Helen Weaver - let alone Alice Elgar - to be Elgar's muse. Moore, in one of his books, believes that Hockman inspired one theme that went into the sketches for the Third Symphony, but in a later book Kennedy, though mentioning Moore's view, gives far greater weight to Weaver's importance. Anderson thinks Hockman is a "might-have-been" inspiration and lays stress on Stuart-Wortley. Adams notes that Elgar used surprisingly maternal terms in his relationship with  both Worthington and Weaver. As even these experts do not agree among themselves on the importance of Elgar's various woman friends, I think it would be inappropriate and speculative to reach one's own conclusion in an encyclopedia article that draws on all their research. If we were to add paragraphs on each of them it would seriously distort the balance of the article. And then we should be obliged, in the interests of balance, to drag in Adams's theories about Elgar's gay inspirations. I do not think the Wikipedia reader would find any of this helpful. Tim riley (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that making any judgments about Elgar's erotic life can only be speculative. NNDB's assertion that he probably slept with August Jaeger ("Nimrod") seems absurd and Byron Adams' opinion that there is something more than interesting about "Nimrod's" ending the Variations only goes along with the fact that Jaeger himself was the person asking for a new ending. Adams article is quite interesting nevertheless but anything more than that doesn't take into account the likelihood of his being a "repressed" man as Rosa Burley remarked ("one of the most repressed people it is possible to imagine. ....").[ref:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/3665117/Elgar-the-Englishman.html}

Putting this in the article would be only opening a can of worms and would add nothing to it.Ed (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I watched the re-broadcast of that enjoyable BBC4 documentary this week. Without making any exaggerated claims for Vera Hockman's influence on Elgar's compositions, it did, to my mind, justify saying that his relationship with VH enlivened his last years. (I wish I could think of some way of citing the programme that meets WP's criteria for verifiability; if it were ever issued on DVD, that would make things easier.) Plainly we can't dwell too much on any one of Elgar's numerous female friends at the expense of the rest. I wonder if a single sentence somewhere listing the front runners (with refs from JNM, Kennedy et al) might assuage the desires of the dissatisfied customers above? As Robert Anderson says, one must avoid too close a link between private life and published works, but a single sentence wouldn't be too tendentious perhaps? (I think, by the way, we should be cautious about relying too heavily on Burley, who having failed to get a Variation of her own in Enigma, claimed to be the theme itself, if you please!) Views invited on this possible addition. Tim riley (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Tim riley: "I wonder if a single sentence somewhere listing the front runners ...". Propose your "single sentence", Tim. -- Jmc (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wondered about something like this:
 * Throughout his life, Elgar was close to, and often inspired by, women friends, from his early love, Helen Weaver, through Mary Lygon, Alice Stuart Wortley, Jelly d'Aranyi, Julia Worthington, Dora Penny to Vera Hockman, who enlivened his old age.
 * I'd need to get the harem in chronological order, and add refs, but do you think that would do the job? Tim riley (talk)
 * I'd support that addition. I think it's succint and balanced, and at the same time suffciently comprehensive. -- Jmc (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'll leave this open for a few days – so that other interested editors can comment – and then if there is no objection I'll add as discussed. Tim riley (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Moore (1979), Moore (1984) and Moore (1986)?
The two J N Moore sources are 1979 and 1984, but in the references, Moore (1986) often appears.  Kenatipo   speak! 18:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (Would have changed them all to (1984) but didn't want to guess. Also, ref #93 or 94 says plain old Moore, with no year).  Left note on Tim riley's talk page.    Kenatipo    speak! 18:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This eagle-eyed addition gratefully acknowledged on my talk page, and dealt with in the article. Tim riley (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Bank note
No inclusion of his being on the 20 pound bank note?? ArdClose (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm blind. But I think it should be more obvious--like noting it in the opening of the article. ArdClose (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The opening/lede is effectively a summary of Elgar's life and work - hardly the place for singling out one of a number of subsequent recognitions. -- Jmc (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Concert-overture "In the South". To hyphenate or not?
Anyone who looks at a Novello edition of "In the South", copyright 1904, can see on the title page, below the dedication ... (no indication here of type sizes, and all lines centred)

IN THE SOUTH

(ALASSIO)

CONCERT-OVERTURE

FOR ORCHESTRA

COMPOSED BY

EDWARD ELGAR

(Op. 50)

Later, heading the first page of the score is

CONCERT-OVERTURE

IN THE SOUTH

(ALASSIO)

BY

EDWARD ELGAR

OP.50.

There, Elgar called it a concert-overture himself, so who are we to argue? Same may apply to 'Cockaigne' and incidentally he did at the time compose 'Sea-Pictures' not 'Sea Pictures'. But correct - he did write a 'string quartet' not a 'string-quartet', (...etc. for the concerti) and I don't think anyone made that mistake in Wikipedia. P0mbal (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I take it you're referring to this edit of mine, P0mbal. You make a good an interesting point, but let me cogitate a little before responding further.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  16:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't care to give an opinion on this, but it may put it in context if I mention that in Elgar's day hyphens were used where we don't use them now. For instance, if you look in copies of The Times of 100 years ago, you will find addresses rendered as "Downing-street", "Sloane-square", "Buckingham-gate", "Portland-place" etc. The Times of the period calls In the South a "concert overture" once (20 May 1904, p. 8) and a "concert-overture" once (8 January 1909, p. 9). HTH (though it probably doesn't). Tim riley (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Later – and not necessarily any more helpfully – I see that Novellos in a full page ad in The Musical Times (1 March 1904, p. 210) call In the South a "Fantasy-Overture". In the October 1904 issue (p. 666), Novellos manage to call the piece both a "Concert-Overture" and a "Concert Overture" in the space of eight lines. Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's all very useful info, Tim. If exact conformance to the titles composers gave to their works is to be our policy, we'd have to rename the Goldberg Variations to Keyboard exercise, consisting of an ARIA with diverse variations for harpsichord with two manuals, because that's what Bach called it.  Or rather, the German version of that monstrosity. --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one approach might be to use "concert overture" in the main text and footnote the undoubted fact (as P0mbal says) that the work was published as "concert-overture". Incidentally, P0mbal, weren't you going to trim your "selected works" list as promised during FAC  – here? I don't suggest that In the South should be culled, of course. Tim riley (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the term concert overture or concert-overture more or less cancel itself out anyway? Isn't the concert there to show the thing an overture to nothing? Why not eliminate the term from the list entirely? We know In the South is an orchestral piece because it's been placed under the heading "Orchestral", and we can assume it's not a symphony or concerto or it would be called one, so what else do we need to know? TheScotch (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Selected list of compositions
Apropos of the recent additions of minor works, the list narrowly survived FAC on the basis that it was highly selective. There is elsewhere a complete list of Elgar's works, and duplicating it here would be otiose. Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Honours
Not (accidentally) under my user name, I have added mention that in Who's Who (my citation is from the last edition of his lifetime, 1934), he claimed to have been awarded several (unspecified) Imperial Russian and German decorations, described in parenthesis as "lapsed". I encourage anyone who can identify them to specify them with due citation. None were found among the collection of his honours at the Elgar Birthplace Museuem when I visited in 2007. These would have been apparently awarded before World War I (in the case of German awards) and the establishment of the Bolshevik regime in Russia.Cloptonson (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"in Protestant Britain, his Roman Catholicism was regarded with suspicion in some quarters"
What were the distribution of religions in Britain in Victorian time?. Is it accurate to describe Britain as Protestant overall?. Or does the text refer to the protestant quarters (or areas) of Britain only?. Sorry, English is not my mother tongue and therefore I may be misunderstanding the meaning of the sentence. --Basquetteur (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You correctly read the sentence (and express yourself with perfect clarity, I assure you). The (protestant) Church of England was and is the "established" church of England - you might call it the official church in that its top priest, the Archbishop of Canterbury, anoints and crowns the incoming British monarch, from whom all power theoretically flows. This remains so, though it is, I think, no longer widely assumed that every normal person would be a member of the C of E. In Elgar's day there was little formal discrimination against members of other Christian churches, but to be a Roman Catholic was nevertheless to be something of an "outsider" socially. In Wales, Ireland and Scotland the religious balances were different (mostly RC in Ireland and mostly nonconformist protestant in the other two) but the British establishment, where power, influence and social cachet resided, was overwhelmingly C of E. The phrase "Not one of us" would have applied to Elgar, though perhaps he made too much of it, having what we call "a chip on his shoulder" - an excessive sense of grievance. I hope this explains what the text says, and that other editors agree that I have summarised the matter fairly. Refinements of my gloss are cordially invited!  Tim riley  talk    14:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A spring clean?
I see that it's more than five years since the article successfully got through FAC, and I wonder if it might be as well to do a spot of maintenance. FA standards get higher and higher, and I'd like to think Elgar's was still top notch. The referencing could do with tidying up here and there, and there is some uncited material to be re-examined. Any thoughts on this would be gratefully received.  Tim riley  talk    17:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've pruned a little uncited stuff about street names and moved a chunk of data about railway engines to a footnote. Perhaps next remove uncited "selected" works fave list? Thoughts, please.   Tim riley  talk    22:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hidden comments
The problem with hidden comments along the lines of "Don't add an infobox because a WikiProject doesn't like them" is that it has a chilling effect on editors who don't understand that Wikiprojects have no standing to demand that an infobox may not be added. The decision on having an infobox or not is a matter for consensus on each article, and that is policy. If there has already been a discussion on a particular article, and a consensus reached not to have an infobox, then it is helpful to have an html comment drawing the editor's attention to that (possibly archived) discussion, and I'd be very much in favour of maintaining such notes. That is, however, not the situation here, as I can find no previous discussion of an infobox on this article. It is not acceptable to have a note which effectively prevents any consensus from being discussed, as if the matter were already settled by fiat of a single editor or Wikiproject. We build this encyclopedia by allowing people to edit, not forbidding it for no good reason. --RexxS (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * First we were told that failure to have a hidden comment made it hard for editors to know not to add an infobox. Now you say that the hidden comment has a "chilling effect."  The fact is that you just want to have a pile of code at the top of every article containing redundant infobox information, even in these arts biographies, usually riddled with errors and always emphasizing unimportant factoids at the expense key information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Same hyperbole as elsewhere, same lack of truth to much of it, and same response as elsewhere. – SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * SchroCat It is not clear to which comment, RexxS's or Ssilvers's, you are referring. It might help editors new to this issue understand the various sides in the discussion if you made that clear. (Since I don't see hyperbole in RexxS's comment, I assume you are referring to Ssilvers' comment, but since I thought – perhaps mistakenly – you were generally not in favor of infoboxes, I am confused.) – Corinne (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies: I thought it was clear from the indentation that I was replying to rex. You may not see hyperbole in rex's comment (but I'm not sure how you can miss it), but for the record "Chilling"? "Fiat"? "Forbidding"? A note that "prevents any consensus from being discussed"? This isn't just hyperbole, it's false too. – SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue revolves around Help:Hidden text, which gives examples of where hidden text is appropriate, and where it is not. One of the examples of inappropriate use is: ::::*Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing policy against that edit.
 * When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus.
 * My position is that the hidden comment "please don't add an infobox ..." is a clear breach of that policy. It couldn't be any clearer. There is no existing policy forbidding the addition of an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXUSE) and there is not even any prior debate here, let alone an existing consensus. The notice does have a chilling effect by discouraging legitimate edits; the decision to include that notice in the first place was made by fiat of a single editor, and the notice indeed prohibits the addition of an infobox. There is no hyperbole there. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You can try to twist and distort as much as you want, but there is hyperbole and untruth there. It's not "chilling"; there is no "fiat", and there is no "prohibition". It is an attempt to avoid the edit warring and dramah some people seem to revel in. – SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your usual ad hominem when you can't address the debate. I have every single policy on my side of the argument and you have ... nothing but personal attacks. You're dodging the issues. Tell us how your edit complies with WP:HIDDEN. --RexxS (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's more bollocks rex: there is no such comment against you in what I have written. I have characterised your (over exaggerated) use of language, that's all. There is no ad hominem element to what I have said (and it's ridiculously hypocritical of you, given your comments elsewhere this evening). There is no point in replicating the discussion here when there is an RfC on this very subject. – SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have exaggerated nothing, no matter how many times you try to misrepresent it. I note that you don't consider using "twist and distort" to describe the contributions of another editor to be ad hominem; and you don't consider accusing another editor of "untruth" and of being "hypocritical" is a personal attack. You're sailing very close to the line here, given your previous record of attacking other editors. Nevertheless, you need to address the issues. Tell us how your edit complies with WP:HIDDEN. --RexxS (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done on ignoring your previous record of attacking other editors. And we'll done on not bothering to read what I have shall repeat myself for clarity: "There is no point in replicating the discussion here when there is an RfC on this very subject". There is nothing more to add here: having the same conversation on multiple pages is a pointless waste of time. – SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done on ignoring your previous record of attacking other editors. And we'll done on not bothering to read what I have shall repeat myself for clarity: "There is no point in replicating the discussion here when there is an RfC on this very subject". There is nothing more to add here: having the same conversation on multiple pages is a pointless waste of time. – SchroCat (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

RexxS and SchroCat Let's try to keep this discussion rational. RexxS, I agree with SchroCat that his comments ("You can try to twist and distort as much as you want") are not really adhominem remarks. Correct or not, they are merely characterizing your method of argument. On the other hand, SchroCat, you've resorted to emotional comments when rational, point-by-point arguments might be more effective. To me, RexxS's first comment was entirely rational and well written. However, RexxS, you quoted relevant passages from Help:Hidden text and WP:INFOBOXUSE – and your reasoning is quite persuasive – but you did not mention, and seem to be ignoring, the page linked in the hidden comment: WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines, which says (I've italicized the pertinent sentences):


 * Infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. However, current consensus among project participants holds that biographical infoboxes are often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians, including conductors and instrumentalists, because they often oversimplify issues and cause needless debates over content; and that they should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page. This position is in line with that reached by the participants at the Composers Project and the Opera Project.


 * Links to the various infobox-related discussions from 2007 to 2013 are provided at WikiProject Classical music/Major discussions.

I like infoboxes, but if editors active in this WikiProject, some or most of whom have expertise in the area, have agreed that infoboxes in biographical articles of musicians "often oversimplify issues and cause needless debates over content; and that they should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page", why would you just ignore this consensus? Also, there is a link to many previous discussions. If someone reads the hidden note to editors in the Elgar article, then reads this short section, he or she is still free to begin a discussion on the article's talk page. He or she would have to come up with some very good reasons for including the infobox. I think, if the hidden comment said only, "Do not add an infobox to this article", it would be inappropriately restrictive and "chilling". But it includes a link to this section, and after reading it, one sees that there is still room for developing a consensus for adding an infobox. Nowhere in this section does it say categorically that infoboxes are not to be added to biographical articles on musicians. – Corinne (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfuckingbelieveable how much pointless text is still being generated over this. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion prior to that commentary at the WikiProject was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. It's a lengthy read and demonstrates very different opinions on the subject of infoboxes among the members of the WikiProject - by no means a consensus. The discussion acknowledges that a WikiProject has no authority to create guidance for other editors, yet that is exactly what is being done here. WP:CONLOCAL states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale ... WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay." I'm more than happy to defer to expert editors on the finer points of Elgar's music and life; but I do not acknowledge that their expertise automatically extends to the question of whether or not any particular article would be improved by the addition of an infobox. I don't believe it is healthy for Wikipedia to grant to WikiProjects the right to pre-determine whether articles in their scope have an infobox or not. What if we added an html link to WikiProject Infoboxes with a request to add an infobox to the article? For that matter, it's clear from reading WikiProject Biography and Manual of Style/Biographies that there's an assumption that the article will have an infobox (and indeed most biographies do). What can possibly give the views of one WikiProject precedence over the views of another on an issue where neither can claim project-wide consensus? --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion prior to that commentary at the WikiProject was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. It's a lengthy read and demonstrates very different opinions on the subject of infoboxes among the members of the WikiProject - by no means a consensus. The discussion acknowledges that a WikiProject has no authority to create guidance for other editors, yet that is exactly what is being done here. WP:CONLOCAL states "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale ... WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay." I'm more than happy to defer to expert editors on the finer points of Elgar's music and life; but I do not acknowledge that their expertise automatically extends to the question of whether or not any particular article would be improved by the addition of an infobox. I don't believe it is healthy for Wikipedia to grant to WikiProjects the right to pre-determine whether articles in their scope have an infobox or not. What if we added an html link to WikiProject Infoboxes with a request to add an infobox to the article? For that matter, it's clear from reading WikiProject Biography and Manual of Style/Biographies that there's an assumption that the article will have an infobox (and indeed most biographies do). What can possibly give the views of one WikiProject precedence over the views of another on an issue where neither can claim project-wide consensus? --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
I am happy to create an infobox if people here would agree. I understand that biographical infoboxes are often controversial at WP:CM, but I would suggest something along the lines of what I have encountered for other composers elsewhere, that is: picture, birth date, place of birth, death date, place of death, list of compositions, and signature. Views? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @L.R.Wormwood Have you seen the comment at the head of the code for the article? ("please do not add an infobox without first obtaining consensus on the article Talk page: see WikiProject Classical music"
 * FWIW, I'd vote against it, for the reason cited in those Guidelines: "... infoboxes are often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians ... because they often oversimplify issues and cause needless debates over content" (see the preceding section: "Hidden comments").
 * -- Jmc (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * RE: User:Jmc "Have you seen the comment at the head of the code for the article?": What do you imagine I'm doing by posting here? It is difficult to see how providing an infobox with Elgar's birth and death dates, and his signature, would "oversimplify issues and cause needless debates over content", but you are welcome to your view, I suppose. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT I would surmise that you would be modeling the infbox after this one here: Ludwig van Beethoven? I actually prefer seeing this over a single photo: Johannes Brahms or one that includes just the signature: Mozart. Maineartists (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like that for Beethoven, or Bach. I have noticed that the majority of articles for composers do in fact have infoboxes, despite the guidelines, and really I have no idea how this could be at all controversial. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it becomes "debated" (not really controversial) when the infobox offers too many options that allow personal choice and preference; rather than specific details: i.e. Richard Wagner that also listed: notable works and years active. Which of course opened up a whole can of unnecessary worms. I think if you stick to your proposal, there would (should) be no contest, since the content is non-debatable. Furthermore, I do not agree with the above "cherry-picked" wording from the WikiProject Classical Music Guidelines. It is taken out of context. Infoboxes in these situations are neither required nor prohibited and are delegated by consensus on the article's Talk Page. Plain and simple. Leave out the "Notable works" and "Years active" and you should be fine. There's nothing "over simplified" by stating: picture, birth date, place of birth, death date, place of death, list of compositions (link), and signature. Maineartists (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We can add a hidden comment asking that people obtain consensus before adding additional fields, if that would assuage the concerns of some users? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Without expressing any opinion on whether an infobox would improve this article, I am aware that the hidden comment breaches our guidelines at Manual of Style/Hidden text, specifically "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit." There is no guideline or policy against adding an infobox to any article. It is, however, better to propose any change to consensus on an article prior to making changes that may therefore be contentious. Nevertheless, I note that this article has no prior consensus on the issue of an infobox, and it is unacceptable for a WikiProject to attempt to impose its general decisions on particular articles, per WP:CONLOCAL. I've therefore amended the hidden text to something more policy-compliant. If consensus is reached to add an infobox, I'd support replacing that with any agreed request to editors concerning an expansion of the infobox. On the other hand, if consensus is reached not to add an infobox, I'd support adding a link to this debate to the hidden text as an aid for future editors in understanding how such consensus would have been reached. --RexxS (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No further comments, so I'll just add one. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you explain your changes here? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not making any changes, you are, so the onus is on you to discuss your changes. Rather than edit war, maybe care to discuss here what benefits you think your infobox brings to this article? Leave the article without an infobox in the meantime.  Thanks.   Cassianto Talk   13:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Cass, perhaps User:Tim riley, the main editor here, would step away from his retirement for a moment to reiterate why he chose not to have an infobox. Time wasters like this are why I said to hell with text content work. We hope (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your page is littered with references to your opposition to infoboxes. I have no idea where this bizarre controversy originated, and why you are prepared to waste time over this. I say it improves the article, what is your reply? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And I have no idea why YOU are prepared to waste time over it either. Comments are permissible and the above is mine. We hope (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As we have discussed, an infobox such as the one I have included makes useful information more visible, improves consistency, and the appearance of the article. I realise this is an issue which you feel strongly about, but since it's not entirely clear why, and since infoboxes are widely used in articles for composers, I would be interested in reading a summary of your opposition to their use. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can please explain why you think repeating the dates of birth and death, right next to the first line of the lead section, improves the "consistency, and the appearance of the article"? Can you also tell me why you think this "makes useful information more visible"?  I would suggest that you are talking horse shit.   Cassianto Talk   15:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Consistency" across articles on composers, obviously. In my experience, it's much easier to locate information like birth and death dates, and places of birth and death, if it's displayed clearly in an infobox (which is where I instinctively look). Swear at me again and this is going straight to AN/I. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What makes think I give a fuck about ANI?  Maybe, once there, you'll be able to justify breaching WP:3RR. Just a thought.   Cassianto Talk   16:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And where did I breach 3RR? Show me and I'll self-revert. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the topic in hand, . I'll ask again: please explain why you think repeating the dates of birth and death, right next to the first line of the lead section, improves the "consistency, and the appearance of this article"? Can you also tell me why you think this "makes useful information more visible"? Please stop talking bullshit and answer the questions. I know this is a tactic of the pro-infobox lobby, but it won't wash with me, I'm afraid.   Cassianto Talk   18:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Please stick to the topic in hand" You suggested (mistakenly or dishonestly) that I had broken the 3RR rule (which I hadn't) in order to intimidate me (and thereby prevent me from going to AN/I). If I'm off topic, it's because you have brought us off topic. I have explained myself, I'm not repeating it for you, and I'm not engaging with you because you clearly can't hold your temper over this. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I would be in favour of an infobox here, but not at the expense of another flare-up of infobox wars. If anyone is interested in my reasoning, I have prepared an essay at User:RexxS/Infobox factors that collects many of the factors that I feel ought to be considered when deciding whether or not an infobox would improve an article. I'm sorry it's a long read, and I'm sorry it's not yet complete, but it may help in clarifying some of the arguments brought to bear here. comments such as you made to do not advance your case and are contrary both to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, and the general principle that inflaming debate leads to more entrenched positions, not mutually acceptable solutions. I hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * RexxS I stand by my comments. We hope (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You have made precisely no comments at all. Beyond indicating personal preference, and a slightly odd obsession, you have raised no valid objections to the infobox. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I could say the same for your obsession to include a box on this FA-that it's slightly odd. We hope (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Marvelous. I was referring to the fact that you've decorated your user page with evidence of your dislike of infoboxes, but I don't want to be drawn into a bickering session with you over this. I honestly had no idea that doing this would provoke such a reaction, and I don't want to take up anyone's time with a dispute over something so trivial, so I'll withdraw. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose infobox: The Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including the infobox in this article because: (1) The box emphasizes unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box is redundant. (3) It takes up valuable space at the top of the article and hampers the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw more vandalism and fancruft than other parts of articles. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It discourages readers from reading the text of the article. (7) It distracts editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Shall we do RfC to close this? The contributor above aside, at the moment I'm just getting some fairly undeserved abuse. Changed my mind, a waste of everyone's time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Quoted from above: "I honestly had no idea that doing this would provoke such a reaction, and I don't want to take up anyone's time with a dispute over something so trivial, so I'll withdraw." L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose infobox as irrelevant and unnecessary and not including anything that wouldn't be in a well written lead. Jack1956 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose -- Per this.  Cassianto Talk   16:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose as per Jack1956. This information is in the lead; it doesn't need to be repeated in a box to the right. We hope (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This information? His place of death? More important: the list of compositions? Missing SchroCat who would have added it, as for Pierre Boulez. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Strike, per below. We don't know what he would have done. He added the place of death to Pierre Boulez. I provided a diff, but Cassianto deleted it, so please look it up yourself if you don't believe me. The list of compositions is still not in the lead, there or here. More facts: I do not stalk. I am no part of an "infobox-lobby", if such a think even exists. I made a list of articles where infoboxes were reverted because I have a bad memory and would forget Maritana. I cared about an infobox for Bach, Beethoven and Boulez, because I venerate these people, even met the latter. I miss Tim. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As suggests, has anyone bothered to ask the very person who's responsible for this article's excellence, Tim Riley, whether he minds an infobox being added?  He, more than most, I'd say, has a right to say what goes in and where.   Cassianto Talk   08:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The readers should say what goes in and where, not we writers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And so we come to the place where Tim Riley, the main editor who left here due to these box conflicts, is to be given no credence when he chose to have a photo only here. Let's go now to those connected with FAC, who had to read the article to be able to support (or oppose) its promotion.  No one there saying "Oh my, you DON'T have an infobox?"


 * Every time these disputes break out, we hear the nebulous argument that "the reader" wants them. This isn't a newspaper or magazine and there are no pages for Letters to the Editor, where the readers give the editorial staff feedback. Unless "the readers" are heard from on a talk page or the like, there's really no way to determine what "the readers" want and no one can honestly claim to speak for them.


 * It's claimed that SchroCat would have added a link to a list; there is a link for this in the article. SchroCat left because of infobox and MOS issues at the same time Tim Riley did; unless someone's able to summon the spirits as the witches of Macbeth, the statements re: "the readers" and SchroCat can't be proven.  They're "citation needed" because there's no reliable source to link them to.  What we have as reliable sources is Tim Riley's decision not to include an infobox when he wrote the article and those commenting at FAC when they approved Elgar as a Featured Article with no box. This will stop only when ARBCOM either re-opens the infobox case or is willing to begin a new one. We hope (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh wow. Funny how on this exact page above a good nine months ago I wrote: "Unfuckingbelieveable how much pointless text is still being generated over this.". Still applies. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This text wouldn't be written at all if some were to learn, respect and accept the views and wishes of those who've worked the hardest on this article. I'd like to see what has done for WP:FA?   Cassianto Talk   08:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is closed. WP:LETITGO and stop mentioning me. I realise I've waded into something which is (unaccountably) very controversial, but you ought to understand that your behaviour is extraordinary. Also, read WP:OWN. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * don't gossip behind people's backs and if I mention you then I will alert you to that fact by a ping. I'm not forcing you to respond and if you choose not to, then don't, I couldn't give a toss. With regards to OWN, I don't think for a minute that I or anyone else OWN the articles we write; however, I do believe that we, the writers of them, should be treated with some respect in terms of our beliefs and choices with regards to what has been either included or excluded, and not be bullied and bludgeoned by the likes of you who haven't bothered to lift a finger to write the article, or positively contribute to it in any way. Oh, and seeing as you like to reference WP:OWN, you may wish to take away with you this golden nugget which is contained within OWN which says: You didn't.  Anyway, good luck in your future endeavours, what ever that is.    Cassianto Talk   15:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I really try to be considerate by avoiding more than 2 comments in a discussion, but sorry, this "You didn't." is just wrong. The topic was introduced here on the talk, this thread, on 2 April. Only when no protest showed until 18 April, it was added. That was not a bold edit. Exit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Gerda, sorry, but the last thing you are is "considerate". If you were, you wouldn't stalk the talk pages of infoboxless Featured Articles that the main author has chosen not to include them on, and then advertise them on a sub-page (now deleted, thank god) designed to allow your followers to keep tabs on where they can cause trouble next. You then wouldn't rub your hands with glee in the background, with popcorn, when said followers proceed on mass to drive the main authors down to such an extent that they flee the project in absolute disgust. If you look back at the history, you'll see Wormwood never allowed discussion as they were warring to their preferred version. I can provide diffs, if required.    Cassianto Talk   17:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The deleted list had only articles where infoboxes were reverted, articles from my watch list. What you conclude is unfounded, "rub hands in glee" hurts, for example. It's not true. I don't care if Elgar has an infobox, or any other, - I gave up with Pierre Boulez, more than a year ago. I hope others will follow that attitude, it saves time. - Discussion on this talk began on 2 April, the infobox was added 18 April. That was more than 2 weeks waiting for objections, fair enough, I'd think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no consesnsus to add an infobox, therefore BRD applies. Wormwood was bold, I reverted, then they reverted again, and then again. That is not BRD. Hearing no objections is not acceptance. That is where BRD applies, and in this case, it wasn't followed.   Cassianto Talk   17:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cassianto is right. That is exactly what happened.  If people would follow the BRD cycle, then much of this back and forthing could be avoided.  Would people please drop it now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Edward Elgar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003105702/http://faculty.cua.edu/may/Elgar.pdf to http://faculty.cua.edu/may/elgar.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904102026/http://www.elidor.freeserve.co.uk/pendasfen.htm to http://www.elidor.freeserve.co.uk/pendasfen.htm
 * Replaced archive link x with https://web.archive.org/web/20020604000543/http://www.elgar.org/ on http://www.elgar.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

References of Adolescence in Pre-World War II History
(I am bringing this up here because someone told me to bring it here instead of there talk page) Adolescence as a stage of life did not exist until after World War II; the research itself says adolescence is not only not universal, but is only caused by cultural influences that did not begin to emerge until after World War II, where it first began to appear in the United States. When I am removing mentions of "teenage" and "teenager" in this articles regarding persons from time periods before the World War II era I am correcting an anachronism that does not accurately describe how people age 13-19 were expected to behave and did behave during this time period. If you are so insisting on reverting my edits for the sake of accuracy at least change "teenage" and "teenager" to "adolescent", which is not any more accurate but is more formal.

I am mentioning this here not in the mentions of "teenage" in the page about Elgar itself but also in several other articles where the world "teenage" is used in time periods occurring before the end of World War II. This page is only one of many, and I am only bringing this up to change the use of adjectives that are not accurate within their time period. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. "Teenage" is a precise term referring to chronological age, and adolescence is a biological concept. Of course it existed before World War II. Antandrus (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Have you done the research or looked at contrasting research yourself?  Do the research before you suggest that "teenage" is chronological and "adolescence" is biological, as opposed to either of them being cultural terms.  --Thenewguy34 (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Teenage is defined as: "The period of a person's life between the ages of thirteen and nineteen inclusive, the teens; an age falling between these limits." so I see no reason to change it in this article. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 13:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Teenager does not refer to just age; it also refers to culture and cannot be accurately used with the definition you just used if it is not used within appropriate historical context.  --Thenewguy34 (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The notion that 'teenager' refers to culture as well as age seems to be a piece of WP:OR. Dictionary definitions are clear, and do not mention culture: OED has "One who is in his or her teens; loosely, an adolescent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smerus (talk • contribs)


 * According to the OED, 'teenage' was used as early as 1921; there was also the comic strip Harold Teen that ran from 1919. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 14:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Edward Elgar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203015135/http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/greenplaques/displaybyname.cfm to http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/greenplaques/displaybyname.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100309184736/http://www.elgarinhereford.org.uk/index.htm to http://www.elgarinhereford.org.uk/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Elgar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724151422/http://www.ukwhoswho.com/public/home.html?url=%2Fapp%3Fservice=externalpagemethod&page=ArticleDisplay&method=view&sp=S%2Foupww%2Fwhowaswho%2FU209040&failReason=Err_UserPass_None+Err_IP_BadCred+Err_Athens_None+Err_Shib_None+Err_Referrer_BadCred+Err_LibCard_None to http://www.ukwhoswho.com/public/home.html?url=%2Fapp%3Fservice%3Dexternalpagemethod%26page%3DArticleDisplay%26method%3Dview%26sp%3DS%2Foupww%2Fwhowaswho%2FU209040&failReason=Err_UserPass_None+Err_IP_BadCred+Err_Athens_None+Err_Shib_None+Err_Referrer_BadCred+Err_LibCard_None

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Selected works
I've removed the "Selected works" section. No other composer FA that I know of has such a thing, it was completely unreferenced, and it largely simply repeated the works mentioned in the "Music" section. In addition, there is a perfectly good sub-article, List of compositions by Edward Elgar, which is cross-referenced at the top of the Music section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with this, and am grateful to Ssilvers for being WP:BOLD when I have continually dithered about it. Clearly an improvement, I think.  Tim riley  talk   19:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
I added an infobox to the article, but the change was reverted. 204 articles about classical composers have an infobox. Per Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes, should an infobox be added to the article? --Bsherr (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)


 * While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields, as here, do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". I disagree with including an infobox in this article because: (1) The box would emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The infobox template creates a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This rather tedious subject has been discussed before and my view remains unchanged. No, an infobox is not needed here.  Cassianto Talk  05:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Entirely concur. We have discussed this many, many times. This featured article has been through a peer review and the FAC process and scrutinised by a large number of experienced reviewers: the absence of an info-box has not been a problem. In arts biographies info-boxes add nothing of value and are useless clutter. Worse, they attract POV additions. I had to delete an uncited reference the other day that described a Beethoven symphony as "classical". No citation, unsurprisingly. Consider the one that was briefly added to this article. It simply repeated EE's gongs, gave his place of birth (not, surely, the first thing most readers are coming to the article for), gets the dates the wrong way round, says he was of the romantic era (my eye!), and says all his works are notable. Not helpful – not even right – and info-boxes on composers are always, and of their nature, oversimplifications at best and downright misleading at worst.  Tim riley  talk   07:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As the original author of this article (not that that gives me any special status), I remain firmly against the addition of an infobox, for all the reasons given immediately above. Jmc (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes should be limited to bio articles of politicians & sports figures. GoodDay (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * As a huge supporter not only of 's FA work, but of classical music and in particular Elgar (I peer reviewed it) who spent most of his life in my home town, I thoroughly concur that these articles are better without an infobox. Infoboxes are great for genera/species, sports, schools and movie stars, but not here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox (again: see immediately preceding section)
I am planning on adding an infobox in a few hours, does anyone have any major arguments against that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalderRC (talk • contribs) 18:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was promoted to FA status without one, so such a change might be somewhat controversial. Also, infoboxes are generally opposed at articles on classical composers and there's an infobox discussion (from September 2019) right above this one. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Entirely agree with Toccata quarta. An info-box would not be helpful to readers. We have had this discussion ad nauseam, here and on other FA talk pages.  Tim riley  talk   19:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hmm, a user whose first edit was 4 days ago, just happening upon an article that has had this same discussion many times before. Clearly a troll.   Cassianto Talk 

I apologise if you think I am a 'troll', I didn't see any previous conversation regarding the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalderRC (talk • contribs) 22:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I would be in favour of an info box. I came here today looking for info on Alice, their marriage date and children. Just basic stuff but I had to trawl through the whole article Cannonmc (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think an Info-box would have been any help to you. If you look at an article such as Bach's which has one, it doesn't contain the details you were looking for. I can't, offhand, think of any articles in which the actual date of a subject's marriage is given, though I am quite prepared to be told I'm overlooking some.  Tim riley  talk   13:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bach is not a good example, rather look at Max Reger or Imogen Holst. A date of marriage is not vital to a composer's notability, so would not appear. Reger's wife is mentioned because she was vital to keeping the memory of his work. A box is there to help someone with little knowledge about a subject - hard to imagine for Bach, but the English Wikipedia serves international readers - what kind of work he or she did, around where and when, to provide context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about whether an infobox should be here, but if one were here it wouldn't have marriage details.--Hippeus (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Elgar vs. Mahler

 * ... the Introduction and Allegro for Strings. ... at less than a quarter of an hour, it was not by contemporary standards a lengthy composition. Gustav Mahler's Seventh Symphony, composed at the same time, runs for well over an hour.

This seems to me to be a completely specious comparison. Of course a one-movement work such as this (or an overture, or similar shorter piece) is never intended to be of symphonic proportions. Comparing it to any symphony, let alone the massively long ones of Mahler, will always see the Elgar come off second best. A watermelon vs. a strawberry. For a proper comparison, contrast an Elgar symphony to a Mahler symphony. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. What do other editors think? Comments cordially invited.  Tim riley  talk   22:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say comparing the work's duration to that of other compositions itself feels unnecessary, whether Mahler or someone else is being used as the yardstick. The paragraph does not end with a reference but with a note, which in turn concludes with the following referenced sentence: "Elgar did not know Mahler's works." That remark feels redundant in the context of a discussion of length, though it might fit elsewhere in the article (e.g. in a discussion of Elgar's influences). But overall, the comparison—the only one of its kind in the entire article—feels superfluous, if not bordering on WP:SYN. But I have not seen what the source cited in the note says, so I may be wrong. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Both sentences ("Nevertheless ... over an hour") are entirely gratuitous. I support their removal. -- Jmc (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That looks like a consensus to me. (That'll larn me!) I'll remove the two sentences.  Tim riley  talk   19:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mr Riley, and those who tendered their thoughts. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pomp and circumstances No. 1.ogg

MOS:RHOTIC
Currently the article gives as per the Collins English Dictionary. This is a source I added a few years ago. The source does give, however I rendered it as. When I added the transcription I followed MOS:RHOTIC ("It is often possible to transcribe a word in a generic way that is not specific to any one accent") and H:IPAEN ("This key represents diaphonemes, abstractions of speech sounds that accommodate General American, Received Pronunciation (RP) and to a large extent also Australian, Canadian, Irish (including Ulster), New Zealand, Scottish, South African and Welsh pronunciations"). My MOS:RHOTIC-compliant rendition was eventually reverted. The argument given was that "it is not pronounced with a rhotic r" which is beside the point I am making here. I need to stress that diaphonemic transcriptions are a wikiwide convention. , your thoughts and input on the matter would be very helpful. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Surely the point is to tell readers how the name was and is pronounced. Try as I may, using the H:IPAEN chart, I cannot make Omnipaedista's change match how "Elgar" is actually pronounced, whereas the version before s/he started tinkering with it precisely reflected the true pronunciation. I should emphasise that the IPA additions are not mine, and I am not defending any personal position.  Tim riley  talk   18:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The article Oxford has, not . If you try to edit the page to "correct" the transcription to , you will see a commented out note saying, "See MOS:RHOTIC and Help:IPA/English for why the pronunciation is presented in this way." I did not place that message there, I am just giving an example of the wikiwide convention I am talking about. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There are Oxfords other than the one in Oxfordshire, and if people in other countries want to put a sounded R in the middle of theirs that is entirely up to them. There is only one Elgar of note (pace the actress Avril) and he is not, ever, pronounced ElgaRR.  Tim riley  talk   19:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, his name is indeed pronounced that way to any rhotic speaker of English, likely even including West Country natives and Scots. (Literally within just the last week, I had an almost exactly similar debate at my talk page.) It's becoming frustrating to have to argue this point over and over and over again. Here are all the Americans on Youglish identified as pronouncing his name; surprise, surprise: all three pronounce the name with a rhotic R. Furthermore, American online dictionaries like Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster all transcribe the name with rhotic R. Case closed. Wolfdog (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, Tim, keep in mind that, on Wikipedia, precisely means "pronounced  for most Americans and  for most Brits". Wolfdog (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I still think it is simply wrong for Wikipedia to give deliberately inaccurate information. It doesn't matter that very few people can decipher or indeed give a hoot about IPA: we should tell the truth for the benefit of those few.  Tim riley  talk   08:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, no one's been offering any deliberately inaccurate information here. Everything we've said is backed by dictionaries, Wikipedia policy, or other sources. Wolfdog (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ... and he is not, ever, pronounced ElgaRR.
 * Not quite. It is safe to say that most RP speakers use and approve of linking r in Elgar is... and similar phrases. John C. Wells from England, who is unquestionably among the leading authorities on English regional phonetics, not only records rhotic pronunciations in and  for GA but also notes that pre-vocalic r is "typically" pronounced in RP if "a word ... ends in one of the following vowels: ", see the "pronunciation guide" R-liaison in his pronunciation dictionary. That leaves us no choice, Tim, even if we only consider RP. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can only think of someone from South Africa that would consistently say (pay no attention to the first vowel, it's just an allophone of ). The name indeed needs to be transcribed  per MOS:RHOTIC. Separate transcriptions for British English is something that has been discussed (see the archive of Help:IPA/English) and AFAIK each time the community decided against it. Sol505000 (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(outdent) 1. MOS:RHOTIC is the product of many similar discussions over many years on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation (I was not a participant, just an observer). MOS:RHOTIC is now a long-established wikiwide style guide; if a novel issue is to be raised, I think it should be raised on that talk page (i.e., at policy level), not on individual articles' talk pages. 2. A counter-intuitive consequence of this style guide is that phonetic symbols should not necessarily be taken from sources verbatim and that is OK. If a source is using an IPA symbol in a region-specific way, accommodations must be made because not doing so would be to not comply with Wikipedia's style guide. WP:INTEGRITY is (counter-intuitively) not violated in such cases because said accommodations are a matter of convention. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If the consensus is to give false information to our readers, so be it.  Tim riley  talk   12:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The diaphonemic system used in Help:IPA/English is not 'false information' but an in-house convention. Our is to be interpreted according to your own dialect (plus, you don't think that Americans put on a faux British accent every time they pronounce his surname, do you? General American English is just as standard as RP). Sol505000 (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The IPA given in the text will mislead any reader who has been so remiss as to fail to read the sacred WP diktat. Any visitor who can decipher IPA cannot but read this new version as saying the name is to be pronounced with an audible R at the end. That is false information, and dressing it up as Wikipedia policy does not turn a lie into truth. But you insist on this misleading and dishonest version so be it.  Tim riley  talk   13:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So you do think that Americans put on a faux British accent whenever they pronounce his surname. I guess that's your right. Sol505000 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The puzzled reader can mouse over or tap/click on and quickly find out what they are supposed to read; zero policy-savviness required. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Style conventions vary from outlet to outlet. The whole purpose of having community-derived recommendations is to avoid edit-warring over style. I firmly believe that Wikipedia's consensus building is fair, open and transparent. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. People can always get the correct pronunciation from Collins, as you point out in your opening paragraph, above.  Tim riley  talk   16:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Elgar and Folk Music
The comment is excessive: Introduction and Allegro was written in Welsh Folk style, and he was also a member of the Song Society, which would become part of the EFDSS https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/jan/13/english-folk-music-to-be-preserved-1953 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.82.74 (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pomp and circumstances No. 1.ogg

Elgar’s Compositions for British Contralto Hilda Wilson
Elgar scholars will want to know that in October 1890, he composed several songs for British contralto and composer Hilda Wilson, including one called “Garlands.” See original reference: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Master_Musicians_Elgar/Sx1-CgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Hilda+Wilson+Edward+Elgar+Garlands&pg=PT38&printsec=frontcover T. E. Meeks (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia article is not where these "Elgar scholars" of yours will be looking for information. They will be consulting learned journals and 500-page books rather than a 9,000-word article, even if it is a Wikipedia featured article. We need to focus on the key information, and it would be idle to maintain that a little-known song for a little-known singer comes under the heading of key information. Tempting though it can be to include one's particular pet fancies we must discipline ourselves to concentrate on the essentials.  Tim riley  talk   14:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote
Hi,. I was looking for information about the publisher, brought up this article, and presumed from the hatnote, which is based on a surname, that we didn't have an article on the publisher (when we have multiple people of the same first and last name, one can usually tell from the hatnote). Is your objection stylistic (stacking hatnotes is kind of ugly, after all)? If so, there's another option using redirect-distinguish-for that can combine them e.g. "Elgar redirects here. Not to be confused with Edward Elgar Publishing. For other uses, see Elgar (disambiguation)." Suitable? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Much better, I'd say.  Tim riley  talk   05:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of the publisher until this. Adding them to the hatnote gives them some free publicity. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ? To the extent following standard protocol for linking, disambiguating, and having articles on businesses is publicity. I have no attachment at all to the publisher -- if it's not worth an article, feel free to nominate it for deletion. As long as we have two articles on different entities named Edward Elgar, though, where one of them occupies the main title, we should have a hatnote pointing to the other. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The publisher keeps popping up on Google and other searches. I think Rhododendrites's link is sensible.  Tim riley  talk   19:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

London telephone exchange name
Hi,. I assumed your objection was lack of proof, so I added that in my second attempt. I feel the reference is on a par with streets being named after, and statues erected to, him: there are cultural references, such as people in films of the vintage of (but not necessarily including) "Brief Encounter" answering the telephone with "Elgar 123" or similar. If your objection is other, could you clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by G6JPG (talk • contribs) 14:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only was the addition trivial, it was inadequately cited: the website cited does not meet the standard of a WP:RS (an amateur, self-published site) and on top of that it nowhere suggests that the telephone exchange was named after the composer. It may have been, but making assumptions of that sort does not comply with WP:OR. But I return to my first point: the information, such as it is, is not of encyclopaedic interest. There were London exchanges called Dickens, Dryden, Flaxman, Gibbon, Gladstone, Hogarth, Keats, Meredith, Sullivan etc, but even if there were firm evidence that they were named in honour of those one might suppose, I think you will find that neither Wikipedia, The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography nor the Encyclopaedia Britannica finds it necessary to mention the telephone exchanges in their articles on those luminaries. I have five full-length books about Elgar on my shelves: not one of them mentions a telephone exchange. If it is too insignificant for mention in full-length books, how much less proportionate it would be to squeeze them into a 9,000-word encyclopaedia article.  Tim riley  talk   15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @G6JPG As the editor who reverted your first attempt at this addition, I'm in full agreement with Tim riley 's explanation. Your feeling that "the reference is on a par with streets being named after, and statues erected to, him" is exactly that i.e. your feeling. Wikipedia is based on firmer foundations than editors' feelings. -- Jmc (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Which editor feels that it isn't on a par then, and why is that editor's "feeling" stronger (more valid) than mine? (You implicitly call me an editor by using "editor's feelings". As for the ODNB and Britannica not mentioning them, I still think they're as relevant as streets - their reference in films of the period suggests to me that they're at least as well-known as streets in remote towns.
 * I actually feel your list of other named exchanges supports the assertion that they were named after these people: it sounds like quite a significant list of people.
 * As for the website not being up to scratch - where did you get your list of names (Dickens etc.)? I'd be glad to cite whatever you used rather than the website I found.
 * I feel that blanket deletion of contributions - as also happened with my Jacqueline du Pre addition (which I'd say is more significant than this one) - rather than the insertion of "citation needed" or other such comments, seems very high-handed, and likely to dissuade contributors from contributing altogether - and make Wikipedia appear to be a clique, which is surely to its general detriment. While willing to do some research into supporting sources, we're not all able to spend vast amounts of time doing so - perhaps more so in the case of working folk rather than retired like I, and their contributions are perhaps likely to be more valuable in some cases, such as those related to their work. G6JPG (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's an FA: the standards are high and tags should not be left on FA articles - the information has to be pertinent when it goes in, and supported by a citation from a reliable and high-quality source. - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just for fun, I thought it'd be interesting to see what ChatGPT came up with when asked: "How was Edward Elgar commemorated in the names of London telephone exchanges?"
 * Here, FWIW, is what it came up with:
 * "In the early 20th century, the General Post Office (GPO) in the United Kingdom named many of its telephone exchanges after notable people and places. Edward Elgar, being a famous composer of his time, was one of those honored with a telephone exchange named after him. Here are some examples of London telephone exchanges named after Edward Elgar.
 * "Elgar Exchange (EGR): This exchange was located in Notting Hill Gate, in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and was opened in 1927. It served the surrounding area until it was closed in 1988.
 * "Enigma Exchange (ENG): This exchange was also located in Notting Hill Gate and was named after Elgar's "Enigma Variations". It was opened in 1932 and served the surrounding area until it was closed in 1994.
 * Elgar House Exchange (EHO): This exchange was located in the East End of London, in the borough of Tower Hamlets. It was opened in 1934 and served the surrounding area until it was closed in 1987.
 * "Elgar Exchange (EGL): This exchange was located in the suburb of Wanstead, in the borough of Redbridge. It was opened in 1936 and served the surrounding area until it was closed in 1991.
 * "In addition to these London telephone exchanges, there were also exchanges named after Edward Elgar in other parts of the UK, including Birmingham, Bristol, and Manchester. These exchanges have since been decommissioned and replaced by newer technology, but their names remain a tribute to the composer's legacy."
 * But how do you cite ChatGPT? -- Jmc (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's what Bard had to say:
 * "Edward Elgar was commemorated in the names of London telephone exchanges in a number of ways. First, a number of exchanges were named after his compositions, such as the "Enigma Variations" exchange in Southwark and the "Pomp and Circumstance" exchange in Islington. Second, a number of exchanges were named after places associated with Elgar, such as the "Malvern" exchange in Worcestershire and the "Broadheath" exchange in Herefordshire. Third, a number of exchanges were named after people who were important to Elgar, such as the "Alice" exchange in Worcester (after his wife) and the "Frank Schuster" exchange in London (after his patron).


 * The practice of naming telephone exchanges after famous people began in the early 1900s. At the time, telephone exchanges were relatively new, and the Post Office was looking for ways to make them more user-friendly. Naming exchanges after famous people was seen as a way to make them more memorable and to give them a sense of identity.


 * The practice of naming telephone exchanges after famous people continued until the 1970s, when the Post Office began to switch to a more standardized system of naming exchanges. However, the names of the exchanges that were named after Edward Elgar have been retained, and they continue to serve as a reminder of his importance in British culture."
 * ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Aside from the staggeringly trivial nature of the subject matter, I'm not sure AI output should be regarded as in any way "reliable" for any article, particularly an FA, where there tends to be a rigorous examination of the sources used. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, and just for the record, proof today, if it were needed, that AI is not a research tool we should be using. - SchroCat (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * More substantial proof: ChatGPT is making up fake Guardian articles -- Jmc (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Note that there's an ongoing discussion about these issues at Talk:Artwork title -- Jmc (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sexuality
Elgar was married, although rather late in life, and did father a child, but could it be that Elgar was a homosexual? Viewing his portraits, the traits in his face, and his preference for choral, and especially roman-catholic choral music, I have the impression that Elgar might have been gay. See also his grand Nietzschean moustache. Somehow he reminds me of Puccini who was also prone to choral music. Anyone have an idea or sources? Hansung02 (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See the long list of sources in the article. Not one of them, as fas as I recall, suggests that he might have been homosexual. As a gay man myself I rather object to the supposition that "traits in his face" may reveal homosexuality, and as to his preference for Roman Catholic choral music, the fact that he was a Roman Catholic may have something to do with it. I do not, to put it as kindly as possible, regard the preceding contribution as helpful.  Tim riley  talk   17:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hansung02 First attempt to get your conjecture published in a reputable journal. I'll bet that it'll be laughed out of court. --- Jmc (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @User:Jmc: I fondly recall an article by the great Bernard Levin in 1976 sending up such conjectural nonsense as the above. He wrote, "Renoir was a member of the National Front; Velasquez was known to speak lightly of the International Socialists; Rubens had a bank account in the Cayman Islands and Titian shares in several multinational companies; Giotto was racially prejudiced; Durer rhymes with Führer; Mantegna voted for Nixon as President in 1968 and Fragonard for Roy Jenkins in the Labour leadership election last March. Van Dyck was a male chauvinist pig; and as for the Douanier Rousseau, he was a member of the middle classes". –  Tim riley  talk   21:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tim riley Thanks for sharing that entertaining Levin send-up. His nonsensical conjectures are certainly of a piece with Elgar being gay because of his preference for roman-catholic [sic] choral music. -- Jmc (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What reputable journal? Hansung02 (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hansung02 Any reputable journal. Jmc (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I still stick to my original idea. I forgot that Elgar had always been a Roman-Catholic, contrary to some artists who turn to roman-Catholicism later in life. The photo in the article was another propeller. Do not forget that we are talking about society around the 1900's; societal ideas were much more strict than nowadays and many LGBT people stayed 'in the closet' for their entire lives, certainly if they didn't belong to the more liberal upper classes.--Hansung02 (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As for his being married 'rather late in life', 32 was not all that old - and far more relevant was likely to be the fact that in his twenties he was in no position financially to support a wife at the level he would have wished - something taken very seriously then.Sbishop (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hansung02, nobody is disputing your right to talk drivel, even the offensive drivel that you can detect a man's sexual orientation from his face. If, however, you wish your speculation to be taken seriously, please produce some evidence from a reputable authority. You could start by reading Kennedy, Michael (1987), Portrait of Elgar (third ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, ISBN 978-0-19-284017-2 (393 pages); McVeagh, Diana M. (2007), Elgar the Music Maker, London: Boydell Press, ISBN 978-1-84383-295-9 (240 pages); Moore, Jerrold N. (1984), Edward Elgar: a Creative Life, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-284017-2 (841 pages); and Young, Percy M (1973), Elgar O. M.: A Study of a Musician, London: Collins, ISBN 978-0-31-322573-4 (447 pages). If you find any suggestion in those 1,921 pages that Elgar was gay feel free to report back here, but having read them myself I know what the answer will be.  Tim riley  talk   12:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)