Talk:Igor Stravinsky/Archive 3

Two Honours sections
Please merge the two Honours sections together. Aminabzz (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I merged it into a 'legacy' section. Let me know if there are still issues you see. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  16:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the two subsections for "Awards" and "Honours". However Debussy's 1915 dedication of a score to Stravinsky seems odd under the heading "Legacy".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jerome Kohl on the Debussy point. Interesting information, but if it's to go in the article, I think there's likely another, better location. Noahfgodard (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am at a loss to suggest a better location. In the meantime, I have added another score dedicated to Stravinsky.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I have changed the main Heading to "Honours" and changed the sub-heading to "Orders." Upon re-reading the above concerns, I realize that I had misread them earlier - I thought the concern was in regard to the 'legacy' title. In any case, hopefully my change was an improvement, and if not, feel free to change. Best! ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  18:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Orchestration shorthand?
In the Innovation and influence section of the article, the instrumentations of the Firebird, Petrushka, and the Rite of Spring are written out. I fully support their being there, as I think the section is an interesting and valuable look into Stravinsky's orchestration. That being said, they're a bit unwieldy in paragraph form. Should we use standard shorthand instead, or is it worth it to write the instrumentations out fully in words, so that people who aren't familiar with orchestration shorthand can understand it more easily? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahfgodard (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that any of the shorthand notation methods is going to make it more difficult for the general reader. What we are looking at, of course, is Stravinsky's scoring. His orchestration is a far more interesting subject, but too complex to go into here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you for the correction, Jerome Kohl - my mistake. And yes, I think you're right. Noahfgodard (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Russian-French-American
I understand the reason for referring to stravinsky as a Russian-French-American composer, but I don't think it reads particularly well. Would it be better to refer to him simply as a Russian composer and then note that he later lived in both France and the United States? Noahfgodard (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought there had been a discussion of this in the past, with that solution being agreed on, but I have searched this Talk page and its archive and found nothing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He was a Russian composer - who cares where he lived at various times or what citizenship(s) he held in this respect! 50.111.34.214 (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Pianist/Conductor
Would it not be useful to have separate sub-headings to document his achievements as a pianist and conductor? He is, obviously, identified as a composer but both these aspects of his life are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:5B95:FA01:D4D7:1208:5984:4E8D (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2022 (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) 16:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Igor Stravinsky - 3 Pieces for Clarinet Alone.ogg

Early life/Interest in ballets
In the section on early life, there is a peculiar sentence: "At around eight years old, he attended a performance of Tchaikovsky's ballet The Sleeping Beauty at the Mariinsky Theatre, which began a lifelong interest in ballets and the composer himself." To me, it would seem that the sentence should end with "interest in ballets". What is meant by "and the composer himself"? Does it mean that his interest in composition also started on this occasion? It would be good if an expert on the topic could clarify this sentence. KaldeFakta68 (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

GAN
Hey everyone, I've gone through the article and fixed it for a GAN. If there's anything that you think should be fixed, I'm here to do anything I can. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The current music section should be immensely larger than it currently is (at least 2–3 times), particularly given the enormous literature written on Stravinsky. The lead is also hugely unsatisfactory, including practically no biographical information. I recommend you take a look at FA/GA composer articles (Gustav Mahler's article is a great example). Still quite a bit of work needed, I'm afraid.  Aza24  (talk)   02:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Shrinking reflist
Hi @Michael Bednarek, I see that you've reverted my edit where I replaced the and  tags to shrink the references section, as well as converted the McFarland source to. I have changed the McFarland source back to as to match with all the other sources. Secondly, what was your reason for removing the tags that shrank the sources list? In my opinion, it makes it easier to read, and see it used on other articles (like Claude Debussy and Maurice Ravel). Thanks for your concern about this article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Refend and refbegin are standard for the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, so I don't know why Michael gone about reverting it.  Aza24  (talk)   02:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The font size of refbegin has been discussed previously. Editors who disagreed with the reduced font size, which once could be overridden, were told just not to use it. A reduced font size for short citations is much different from that for a bibliography, which requires more focussed reading. I can't see how a reduced font size makes for "easy readability"; quite the opposite I think.
 * The McFarland citation was deficient. Its title was slightly wrong, and it lacked a JSTOR identifier. As I was not sure how to add a JSTOR number into a free-fromat citation (before of after the ISBN?), I opted to use the appropriate template cite journal. On the wider question of wikicite vs media-specific templates: I think that is a crutch. I burdens the editor with formatting a citation by hand, and thus leads to inconsistencies. Each invocation also uses a few more nested templates which increases the article's load time and post-expand include size, which has led to problems for some articles (although that's unlikely to happen here). In short, I don't think that the use the generic template  constitutes a specific citation style. Replacing it with media-specific citation templates will eliminate inconsistencies and create proper meta data. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't really be bothered to argue about the refbegin matter any further, 99% of readers will ignore the references to begin with.
 * The archaic wikicites are definitely a net negative inclusion. I would agree with converting all the references and am happy to lend a hand (or perhaps split the tedious labor with someone) –  Aza24  (talk)   02:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aza24 and @Michael Bednarek: I'll let the (future) FAC decide upon the reflist matter. As for the use of Wikicite, I do agree that it's a rather inconsistent format; when I converted all the citations into sfns, all the sources already used Wikicite, and I wasn't sure if a consensus had been reached on using that template, so I just used it as well. Right now, I'm working on expanding "Music", but I would greatly appreciated it if you took on the task of converting the citations. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: 20th-21st Century Art, Performance and Media
— Assignment last updated by Ceiap (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2023 (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) 15:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Rite of Spring 1.jpg

De Bosset?
I had a question: is there any reason why Vera Stravinsky is referred to as "De Bosset" throughout the article, even in sections covering periods well into her marriage with IS? Walsh refers to her first as "Vera Sudeykina" then later simply as "Vera". Sitting next to my desk is a book entitled The Salon Album of Vera Sudeikin-Stravinsky; its book information page says that its subject is "Stravinsky, Vera". Maybe things have changed in the last few years, but I seem to recall she is generally referred to as "Vera Stravinsky", "Vera Sudeikina", or "Vera Sudeikin". According to WP:COMMONNAME, if any of those names are more often used to "De Bosset", then the article ought to be amended to reflect that. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Kiev and Ukrainian Ancestry
I see there have been multiple reverted edits regarding the spelling of Kiev/Kyiv. Firstly, the capital city of Ukraine is to be spelled Kiev in this article, as WP:KIEV states that for "unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Principality of Kiev)" the spelling should remain Kiev. The country of Saint Petersburg does not need to be clarified in the prose. Also, the location of Ustilug should be written as "modern-day Ukraine", since it was part of Russia during Stravinsky's youth. Last, there is no evidence that suggests he was of Ukrainian ancestry- please support it with citations if you wish to add this. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You are correct - we shouldn't be using the spelling "Kyiv" until events after 1991, or even 1995. Regarding Stravinsky's Ukrainian ancestry, I'm not sure myself but you are right again - we need citations to reliable sources (and not partisan ones influenced by current geopolitical events). Antandrus (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * According to both Craft and Walsh, the origin of the Stravinsky family was Russian and Polish. The latter stresses that claims of his Ukrainian Cossack origins are "recent" (he also implies that they are nationalist in nature), but are disproven by the genealogical records kept by a member of the Strawinski family in Gdansk. See Walsh 1999, p. 6 and p. 552, n. 17.
 * The confusion about his ancestry may have to do with his first wife, Yekaterina, who was also his cousin. She was paternally descended from Ukrainian Cossacks. However, Stravinsky was related to her matrilineally, via the Kholodovsky family, which did not have ethnic Ukrainian ancestry, although some of its members had been appointed to official posts in the Ukraine by the Tsar. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Russia Empire
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding something, but a number of users have attempted to change his place of birth in the infobox to "Russian Empire" rather than just "Russia". I believe it is correct to use Russia, as the Russian Empire is a political entity, while Russia is the place itself. Besides, I can't find many sources that state his place of birth as "Russian Empire". MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Craft, Walsh, Taruskin, White, Slim, Joseph, Théodore Strawinsky, and Stravinsky himself refer to Russia, not the Russian Empire. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)