Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 12

Merge Classical Guitar Project?
I've suggested the inactive Classical guitar project be merged here. -- Klein zach  01:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Before I say yea or nay, what is/are your reason(s) for considering a merge? &mdash; La Pianista ( T • C • S • R ) 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, simply that the project is inactive. No one has posted any messages since July 2007. This frequently happens with projects that are too specialized. -- Klein zach  09:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How does this usually happen? Is there a way that it can be made a "child" of this wikiproject.  I mean, is there any organizational stuff, tags, lists, or whatever, that would be lost if it was made a part of this project? DavidRF (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Re your second question - I've also been asking the same thing but had no answer to my question on the WikiProject Council. I'd like to know how a merge is done.


 * Re your first question - A 'descendant' project is normally active and it only involves a statement on the project page that Project X is an descendant of Project Y - nothing more than that. -- Klein zach  03:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ad creation (suggestions needed!)
I'm thinking of creating a WP:BANNER for this WikiProject. I'm not promising whether or not I will be able to actually get a firm grasp of how the software works - but if I can, I'm looking for some interesting, original catchphrases to use. Any ideas? --La Sockista (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We already have a banner! See section 6 of the project page, here. Please see the project page for all information about banners, templates, categories, assessments, guidelines etc. If you are new to the project I'd suggest reading it all! I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.-- Klein zach  03:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * She's referring to those animated revolving ads placed on userpages and whatnot (check the link). It might be a good source of publicity. ALTON   .ıl  07:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah! Well, I suppose it wouldn't do any harm, though I'm not sure it would bring any new editors. (Possible quote to paraphrase - Why waste money on psychotherapy when you can listen to the B Minor Mass?" - Michael Torke) -- Klein zach  09:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we'll never know 'till we try, will we? :)
 * As for ideas...hmm...still clean out of thoughts. Keep 'em coming hot, folks. &mdash; La Pianista ( T • C • S • R ) 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Genre fields in musical artist and album infoboxes
There's currently an important discussion going on about the removal of genre fields in artist and album infoboxes. You can read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and provide any opinions you may have. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion about genre fields in popular musician infoboxes - it doesn't concern this project. -- Klein zach  08:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But it is located in the mother portal, WikiProject Music, so it indirectly concerns us. What escapes me, though, is what genres we will be talking about. Chamber music? Vocals? "Art songs"? Or periods like Renaissance and Romantic? &mdash; La Pianista ( T • C • S • R ) 19:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this quote (from deep within the discussion somewhere) says it all. I've never even heard of most of these (and I do try to get out from time to time):
 * I can't count the number of silly edit wars I've seen, never with any references, arguing over whether a band is black metal or blackened metal, emo or screamo, hardcore or post-hardcore or melodic hardcore, punk or pop-punk or skate punk, death metal or doom metal, emo-goth or vampiric goth, etc. etc. etc.
 * Considering most of the classical-related projects don't like infoboxes, it doesn't seem to matter much here.  Magic ♪piano 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't - we have guidelines against them to spare us precisely the kind of permanent warfare that goes on in the pop music projects. Also note that the main discussion is about the genre field in album infoboxes which we don't use anyway. (I don't think we even use the old-fashioned word 'album'.) -- Klein zach  02:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Double banners
There have been several stub articles created recently on operettas by Johann Strauss II (Waldmeister, Blindekuh, Der Karneval in Rom, Prinz Methusalem). The creator added both the OP and CMP banners to the talk pages. To avoid double bannering I'm going to remove the CMP banners. Feel free to re-add, if I've got it wrong. Voceditenore (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Automatic stub classification
We've just finished the final bot run of the summer series (thanks to Stepshep). As allowed by the project (and as noted on the assessment page: "There is no internal WikiProject rating system for articles at the moment, so articles should only be rated with a class on the assessment scale if they are listed as a stub or have been selected as a good article or a featured article.") articles with stub tags have been automatically rated as stub class. There are now 3,931 stub-class articles (in addition to 4,907 unassessed and small numbers of FA, GA, B, C and start). Please let me know if there are any questions. -- Klein zach  08:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Classical banner
Hi folks. I spot a few problems with the following Talk-page banner:

Namely:

(1) It's not grammatical: "articles of music Classical music and Songwriters" doesn't make sense.

(2) What does "Songwriters" have to do with "Classical music"?

Could these two issues please be fixed? Thanks very much in advance. Softlavender (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting this. The text was changed on 21 June. I don't know why. The original text was as follows:


 * "XXX is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details."


 * I would revert but the present text is protected. I'll try to find out what is going on. The present text is nonsense. -- Klein zach  10:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've written to the person who protected the banner and the person who changed it. I think it was just an error - the text being carried over with some coding. The present text is taken from the Composers Project banner, see Template:Composers. -- Klein zach  10:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the page history last night before writing the above, and the banner is as it was at its inception (mid-2007, as I recall). It was created by Centurion-something, who is no longer on Wikipedia. Suggest getting an admin involved to unprotect it via the "editprotected" callout. Softlavender (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The original text was the one quoted above.
 * "XXX is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, . . .  all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects.  . . . "
 * It was changed on 21 June, see here . The "editprotected" callout has already been done. -- Klein  zach  22:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to be argumentative, but as far as I can see, CenturionZ added the banner on May 18, 2007, in the form it now has:  . Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Template links automatically go to the latest version of the template (i.e. the post-June 21 one). Look again at the diff I provided, . If you check the template histories you will understand who edited what and when. That's what the histories are for! -- Klein zach  00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see; I didn't know that. Pus, I forgot to see if the template had a "history." Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

For easiness's sake, here is the original template text as of 16:35, May 18, 2007. It was updated a lot, and then modified again on 20:22, June 20, 2008; which copied the text from Composers. §hep  •   ¡Talk to me!  00:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, that original wording is a lot better. It got really bunged it up along the way! Can someone please fix it? Reverting it to the original would be ideal. Softlavender (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Softlavender: I told you yesterday that the "editprotected" callout has been done and the correction specified (by §hep here). It's a protected page so it is not something we can do at the flick of your little finger or emboldened text. -- Klein zach  08:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * With an edit protected you can wait up to about 2 weeks until something is done. Although they usually get to it closer to 9 than 14.  §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  19:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

All the assessments have disappeared
Well, I didn't check all of them, but it appears that articles with the template { {Classical|class=B} } now display as '''??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.'''

Worth fixing... --Ravpapa (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I tried fixing it but the assessments did not return. Since I don't have any time right now to troubleshoot I reduced the protection to semi; perhaps one of you with more experience with template syntax can have a look.  I'll full-protect it again when the problem is solved.  Thanks all, Antandrus  (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * All better. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  16:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Stepshep. There may have been a caching issue; now every time I update Category:Start-Class_Classical_music_articles it picks up more.  I'll go ahead and re-protect the template; if anyone wants to edit it further just drop me a note.  Antandrus  (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing orchestration
What do people think of this edit?  To my mind there is an obvious source for such factual info (the published score) for each of the thousands of pieces of orchestral music and therefore we do not need to explicitly need to provide a source.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that if there's some notable reason the orchestration may be different (like Symphony Fantastique asking for ophiclides, and not tubas, for instance), than a source should probably be used. For most, I'd agree that it's not fully necessary, though I can't see why it'd hurt either (simply cite the score itself in most cases). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My first reaction was, "way harsh." But after I thought about it for a minute, I decided it's completely appropriate.  Whoever included the scoring information in the first place would not have found it hard to specify in a footnote what published edition the information came from.  This would make it easier to resolve any factual controversies that arose later on (and there are occasionally such controversies -- for example, when some of the parts are thought to be inauthentic additions by some later composer).  And, as Melodia says, it certainly doesn't hurt to provide this information.


 * Summing up, I think sourcing scores shouldn't really be any different from sourcing on WP in general. Opus33 (talk) 04:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A footnote sourcing the scoring of a piece is completely unnecessary - as would be, for example, a footnote for the list of movements of a piece. The source is obviously the score.  However, including a reference to published versions of a score is an excellent idea. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Later: Following my own advice, I have added to the References section of the composition articles I have contributed to the first publication date and publisher (if I knew it), and at least one urtext score available today. I think we should make this standard.


 * I should add that, as Opus33 suggests, if there is any disagreement about the scoring of a piece, it should certainly be footnoted. For example, in the Janacek second string quartet, we might source the fact that the viola part was originally written for viola d'amore.  But those cases are really unusual, I think. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Music of the United Kingdom
This article seems to be mis-named, as it discusses only popular music, and in fact it ignores many historical genres of even British popular music. If members of this project agree that it is misnamed, kindly move it to an appropriate name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a Music of Europe template, so I wouldn't change the name. If you look at each country, there is a large disparity as to how well classical music is integrated into each article.  For the UK, I would just add a section between folk and popular which forks off to the Classical_music_of_the_United_Kingdom article. (Although that link is already in the infobox. DavidRF (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a short stubby blurb to that article and, more importantly, added a redirect to the extensive Classical music of the United Kingdom article.DavidRF (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand this. Why can't the article be renamed 'Popular Music of the United Kingdom'? The little classical section looks rather odd. Also why aren't there separate articles for England, Scotland etc. ? After all this is about culture. Best. -- Klein zach  00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are separate pages for Music of England, Music of Scotland and Music of Wales (though the England page is really just a disambig page). There's much more balance in the other European countries on the template.  The UK page has a strong pop/rock slant to it due to all the rock bands that have come out of there in the past fifty years.  I think the page should stay, but all the popular stuff should get forked into a new 'Popular Music of the United Kingdom' page.  Since most of the other "Music of X" pages have more balance, I prefer a fork over a rename. DavidRF (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) By a 'fork" do you mean a subpage? If so moving all the popular stuff might be a good idea - but how about to 'Popular Music of England'?  Music of Scotland and Music of Wales seem unproblematic. -- Klein  zach  00:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Its forked.  The header paragraph needs a rewrite as that's now the header paragraph for British popular music (which already existed as a redirect page).  Its a bit sloppy, but I'm not feeling wordy right now.  The body of the top-level Music of the United Kingdom page shouldn't say much anyways so as not to duplicate information that is in the child pages.  Header does need a rewrite though. DavidRF (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I'm a bit confused - but I agree strongly that we shouldn't duplicate. -- Klein zach  00:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I had never scene the article before I got home from work today.  It was indeed a mess (all those templates and not a single category!).  I pushed for fork instead of rename because I saw the articles for Music of Italy, Music of Poland and Music of Hungary and figured that was the intent there.  What's left to do is the header of Music of the United Kingdom (the part above the TOC) needs a rewrite.  Some all-era encompassing introduction.  Next would be a short few sentence blurb by the "Main article: British popular music" redirect.  I overdid on the fork. DavidRF (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like the page has its own their own WP: WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom. I didn't see that before.  I should drop a note there and let them now what I've done.  DavidRF (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's inactive. Probably not worth bothering with. -- Klein zach  02:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! . . . welcome box
Welcome to our new member J. Schaeffer! That reminds me, many projects have a welcome text box that is placed on new members talk pages. Here's an example. Should we have a similar one? -- Klein zach  02:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm currently working on that on my substitute sandbox, here. I'll need someone to help write the body text though - I would like it to be original, not a copy-paste of the WP:WPO. &mdash; La Pianista ( T • C • S ) 03:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want to write it or shall I? Or you can do a draft and I'll correct it. Whichever. -- Klein zach  03:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about you do a draft and I do the gnoming? That's what I do best. :) &mdash; La Pianista  (T•C•S) 18:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Have a go at this:

Hello, XXX! We're delighted you've signed up to join us!

Classical music is an active, medium-sized project with more than 9,000 articles.

We have a discussion page linked to the main project page where you signed in. Please take part!

The scope of the project is vast: nearly 1,000 years of history, many countries and many languages. Some music editors use reference books such the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, or the German Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart. These are helpful for checking facts and providing the essential references required on Wikipedia. It's great if you can get access to these books. However if you don't have access to books, there are still many other ways you can contribute to the project: copyediting, compiling lists of recordings, picture and sound clip researching etc.

We hope you have a great time on the Classical music Project.

Please don't hesitate to ask us if you have any questions! We are always here - here!

Best regards!

-- Klein zach  00:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ See User:La Pianista/sandbox 3. I touched it up a little, too. :) &mdash; La Pianista  (T•C•S) 03:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is now at Template:Classical welcome and can be called up with. Unfortunately there are some problems with the coding you put in. It looks complicated so perhaps you can fix it? Or remove it if that's not possible? -- Klein zach  04:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a note regarding its use. Thanks for reminding me. &mdash; La Pianista  (T•C•S) 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't understand. Let's look at it (above). How does the coding at the foot of the box works? Is it really practical? How about using the simpler version I originally posted? What do you think?-- Klein zach  08:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read the note I added to the bottom of the template? You are supposed to subst the template and add your username after the pipe, which creates:

&mdash; La Pianista  (T•C•S) 19:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you intend to recreate it and 'fill in the blanks' every time you use it - because it can't be used as a template called up by, right? Sorry, but I just don't think that's practical. Nobody but you will be able to use it. It's unnecessarily complicated. -- Klein  zach  22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, template substitution involves nothing complicated at all (as indicated by the link I provided you, WP:SUBST). Just type  and that's all you need. &mdash;  La Pianista  (T•C•S) 01:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Now I understand (although I still think it's rather complicated). Anyway I've simplified the instructions with the template so they are clearer for everybody. -- Klein zach  01:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One last change: to reduce confusion, I've removed the necessity to manually add your username. You still have to subst the template, however. &mdash; La Pianista  (T•C•S) 02:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't work. -- Klein zach  02:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(←) Hm. Sorry about that - I've fixed it now. :) &mdash; La Pianista  (T•C•S) 02:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's great that you two are collaborating on this, but in my opinion it would do better to be less styled. Font alteration and tildes aren't necessary for this sort of thing. It just needs to be simple and compact.  ALTON   .ıl  23:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Simple and compact' would be OK by me. La Pianista? -- Klein zach  00:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All right. How about:

&mdash; La Pianista  (T•C•S) 02:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How about removing the first sentence? The second sentence could then be: "We're delighted you've started contributing to the WikiProject Classical Music!" -- Klein zach  03:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed half of the first sentence. You'll still have to type in your username after the pipe, if that's what you're getting at. Unless, of course, you want me to remove that part of the timestamp at the bottom as well. &mdash; La Pianista  (T•C•S) 03:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear this is becoming a huge saga . . . However the point is this (1) the editor has already signed into the project - otherwise the welcome would be irrelevant, and (2) the editor may not have contributed yet. -- Klein  zach  03:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Saga...? Anyhow, I've removed that sentence. &mdash; La Pianista  (T•C•S) 03:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote immediately above. If you disagree then by all means please say so. -- Klein zach  04:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(←) Not at all! I'm quite indifferent, actually. By all means, keep your changes - I don't mind. :) &mdash; La Pianista  (T•C•S) 04:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with how that looks, thanks. ALTON   .ıl  06:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But it hasn't been altered! See Template:Classical welcome. Now I'm more confused than ever! -- Klein zach  07:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * * sigh* That's because it hasn't yet been changed.
 * ✅ &mdash; La Pianista  (T•C•S) 22:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)