Talk:Kammermusik (Hindemith)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 1 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tcamilo192.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

University
Hello! My name is Thomas Camilo, I am a third year Music Education Major with a concentration in Clarinet at the University of North Texas located in Denton, TX. I have been tasked with improving this article for my Chamber Literature class and I intend to do so by providing some historical context to Hindemith's life, along with some context in which his Kammermusik may have been written for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcamilo192 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Structure
What in the structure do you think doesn't comply with which guideline. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As indicated by the tag, the current organization doesn't comply with MOS:LAYOUT. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not the normal topic, so needs an unusual layout. Could you be a bit more precise? I thought about all the information in one infobox, but thought it would be unclear and less helpful even if complying better with the MoS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you feel this unusual layout accomplishes? The point of having an infobox at the top is nominally to provide quick facts at a glance; interspersing many infoboxes throughout the text, in addition to mangling the layout due to the short length of each section, undermines that aim. In this particular case, if at-a-glance comparison of the individual pieces is desired, this could more easily be accomplished by a single table, allowing for direct comparison instead of forcing readers to pick out parameters of interest from essentially a long column of data. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Example. Additional fields could be added if desired. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Brief look: would need much formatting. Sorry, I am busy with a Recent death article, a planned one postponed from yesterday, a GA review I haven't replied to ... - General request: could you please propose such a thing here on the talk, instead of making a rather drastic change in an article up for the Main page? I think an overview table may be good in addition, but not with so much detail. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It was proposed here days ago. What formatting do you feel is needed? Why do you feel the article should include multiple disparate tables rather than a single one to provide information at a glance to readers? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have still no time for anything decent, sorry. I want a reader to have the opportunity to see the facts of each individual composition structured and at a glance, as would be there if an individual article. A table in addition seems a good idea, but should not be loaded with details, such as performers' names and precise scoring, nor with repetition, such as "chamber" in every single one. Please propose here and we can polish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposed above. Keep in mind that these aren't individual articles, but one, and a table with one line for each piece shows the facts structured to serve both the need to see an individual piece and to compare across pieces. The information was taken from the existing tables, which repeat "chamber" as you note; having both only increases duplication. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I copied your proposal to below, because we can't expect readers to dig into the history of the page to see what you added replacing the infoboxes, and what I referred to. - The article is about eight compositions. Each composition will have a redirect pointing at the precise composition. That's where an infobox belongs for that individual composition. I reader arriving that way will not have seen the table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A reader landing directly on one of the subsections will miss out significantly on the material earlier in the article, even in the previous design; on the other hand for a reader arriving to the whole article the proposal of multiple smaller tables creates even more duplication and displacement. We should either create separate articles, or redirect to the top, not this in-between case that serves neither group well. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a borderline case of splitting or not. To send a reader who wants to know about Kleine Kammermusik to the top of a longish thing takes away from that reader's time, - I'd think that's more important than a bit of duplication. BWV 1049. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A reader specifically interested in that work misses information specifically about that work that appears before that section. That doesn't seem borderline at all. Given this information, let's split the works out to their own articles, and have a summary table (of either design) here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest we wait for Did you know day (tomorrow) for further ideas by others. Would you split the Brandenburg Concertos? I tend to leave compositions together that would be just stubs, and have much in common. The reader who finds a separate Kleine Kammermusik would miss just as much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * These have less in common with those, and can reasonably be standalone articles. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Many sources have them together, and the composer seems to have seen them together. I took the short table to the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We now have multiple tables conveying the same information, with an upcoming DYK which will direct most readers to the whole article (not a section). Let's serve those readers first by getting rid of that redundancy and solving the article's layout problems, and then after DYK see about what to do with subarticles or redirects. The other option would be to delay the DYK pending determination of article scope. Which would you prefer? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I said what I prefer. We have a table, and we have infoboxes. Those are completely different concepts. I can remove the table if you find it redundant. I wonder if anybody besides you sees the redundancy as a problem, and the best way to find out is to expose it. We had Song cycles (Killmayer), also with a table here, and infoboxes there, and no complaints. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you have not specified what part of MOS:LAYOUT (a guideline "best treated with common sense, and [to which] occasional exceptions may apply") you think applies, nor how you suppose this article is not compliant, I am removing the tag. It should not be restored unless consensus to do so is demonstrated; and should never be used unless you are wiling to provide such an explanation when requested, as above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not required to add maintenance tags. See WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I did not claim otherwise. But since it as been challenged, consensus is required before it is restored. As an editor of some experience, and a former admin, you should know this. And still you have not specified what part of MOS:LAYOUT you think applies, nor how you suppose this article is not compliant. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Compositions
Just copied, for ease of reference. What I meant saying too much detail and repetition, illustrated: I'd place number of movements before performance, but am too lazy right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)