Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 42

Yet More Beethoven Nickname Page Move Discussions
Based on a casual, non-consensus-reaching discussionhere, User:MistyMorn went ahead and movedSymphony No. 6 (Beethoven) to Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral' (Beethoven) as a "test". Don't we have sandbox areas for tests? We just had this discussion last month. I realize not everyone has the same opinion here, but page moves are a big pain to deal with editorially. Do we have to reopen another discussion so that we can rereach a consensus?DavidRF(talk) 20:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes (WP:BRD). I dispute the claim that consensus was ever reached. The local guidelines have already been improved once since the RfC was so abruptly closed. In gf, MistyMorn (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Back last October, as a total noob, I moved Piano Trio No. 7 (Beethoven) to Piano Trio Op. 97 "Archduke Trio" (Beethoven), primarily because the sequential numbering of the trios is not standardized. David kindly told me that wasn't an appropriate title, so I moved it again, to Piano Trio, Op. 97 (Beethoven), with the note "agree with other commenters that having "Archduke Trio" in article title confuses Search; better to rely on Redirect". We don't need more "tests" now. I can't think of a nice way to put this, MistyMorn, but at this point you're just making an ass of yourself. I've encouraged you to bring your concerns to the classical group, and then to WP in general, and we've had all those discussions. This is entirely unnecessary - please look at Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I was going to revert your move, but I see someone else (not David) has already done it. Just drop it now, please. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, that wasn't me on Archduke, either.DavidRF (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops - sorry. My brain is clouding over. But if you had, you were right.Milkunderwood (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If patiently using logical argument in a gf way and behaving in line with WP consensus-building procedures implies "making an ass" of myself to you and certain others, then frankly I think that's your problem not mine . MistyMorn (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm very sorry you're taking umbrage. I've been friendly and encouraging with you even though I disagreed with your stance. I couldn't, and still can't, think of a nicer way to put it. You are no longer "patiently using logical argument in a gf way", you're just continuing to beat a dead horse, and wasting everyone's time. I tell you as a friend it's time to let it go now. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks. But give others a chance to discuss. The question isn't whether MM's an ass but whether common names like Pastoral and Archduke should be systematically excluded. MistyMorn (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is that they are not "excluded". Redirects automatically take the reader to the correct article. There is no confusion at all. We've already hashed all this out. One point is the distinction between common names as opposed to nicknames. Another is the question of which "common names" (or nicknames) are recognizable and actually commonly used. Many of Beethoven's works have nicknames, many of which are very obscure, so where do you draw the line? With redirects, you don't need to- just name them by series where there is a distinguishable series, and create redirects from any imaginable "name".Milkunderwood (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME and redirects are two separate questions: let's not confuse them. Agreed, common names (like names in general) are not always clear-cut, but I think Pastoral is, which is one reason why I chose it as a test case. MistyMorn (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that's what I would have to call wikilawyering. Both are intimately involved in directing a reader to the wanted article, and you can't talk about one without also taking the other into consideration. Milkunderwood(talk) 23:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you read this? MistyMorn (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Sigh). This is getting us nowhere. If you need to interpret my use of the word as an insult, I'm sorry - it wasn't intended to be insulting, just a description. "You can't talk about one without also taking the other into consideration."
 * And here I'm sure I'll get in trouble again. WP:BRD is an essay, not policy. My own interpretation of it is that is pertains more to text in an article that to article titles; and my interpretation also excludes relying on it to make a provocative and tendentious (are those bad words?) change that you already knew would be disputed. I'm sorry, I just don't operate that way. If I have something likely to be controversial, I much prefer to ask around first instead of just jumping in. One thing I am absolutely not trying to do is to pick a fight with you. Can we just disagree without all these hurt feelings? Just put it down to my not expressing myself very well. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm also disturbed to find (so far - maybe there are more?) four separate parallel discussions going on simultaneously concerning "Pastoral" Symphony: Milkunderwood (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:Symphony No. 6 (Beethoven)
 * Wikipedia talk:Article titles
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music), and
 * here.
 * The main discussion about Beethoven's Pastoral as a test case to try to improve WP:MUSICSERIES is:
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)
 * Please discuss that specific question there. Thank you. MistyMorn (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mieczysław Michałowicz, Polish violin pedagogue
I'm researching the Polish violin pedagogue Mieczysław Michałowicz, but am having trouble coming up with much by way of detail.

What I do know is that he's described as "the country’s most famous violin teacher". His students included Josef Hassid, Bronisław Huberman, Roman Totenberg, Ida Haendel, Szymon Goldberg, Joseph Akhron and Henryk Gold. Quite a line-up of talent there.

All over the web can be found the dates 1876-1965 for the violinist. But these years actually seem to belong to an entirely differentMieczysław Michałowicz (10 September 1876, St Petersburg – 22 December 1965), who was a political activist and pediatrician and had nothing to do with music. I suppose it's possible that two people with the same name could share the same vital years. But according to Grove 5th edition (1954, reprinted 1966), the violinist was born on 17 June 1872 in "Mielitopol", which I imagine is an old spelling of Melitopol, now in Ukraine. It doesn't give a date of death. Google gives me zero results for a Michałowicz either born in 1872 or born in Melitopol.

Grove goes on to say he studied with Stanislaw Barcewicz and Leopold Auer, and taught at the Warsaw Conservatory from 1906, and mentions Huberman and Akhron as his pupils. The rest is silence.

Is there any good info on this teacher of great violinists (two of whom are still with us: Ida Haendel still plays, and Roman Totenberg is in his 102nd year) who doesn't seem to deserve the oblivion that's befallen him? --  Jack of Oz  [your turn]  10:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Spellings of composers' names
Following some probably long ago archived discussion about moving composers' articles to the usual spelling of their names, I have movedThomas Simaku and Roberto Gerhard to these spellings, reverting moves by editors whose interests seemed to be more nationalistic than musical. I have also proposed moving Andre Tchaikowsky to André Tchaikowsky &mdash; please support or oppose at the talk page. --Deskford (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've found that archived discussion here. The key guideline is WP:STAGENAME, which says: The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not their "real" name. --Deskford (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "terminology" from Glossary of music
Please see Talk:Glossary of music. I have posted a couple of remarks there. The page is one of a number of such pages that were peremptorily moved by an editor with no warning or discussion.Milkunderwood (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarinet choir
I've been in discussion with a new editor who wanted to add promotional links to his own ensemble to the article Clarinet choir. I reverted his addition, and I see that other editors have reverted his additions previously. However he points out, quite reasonably, that this article is full of promotional stuff for other ensembles, and he probably feels that he is being unfairly singled out. In fact this article seems such a mess that I'm not sure what we should do with it. Are any of the ensembles listed notable? None seem to have separate articles. I get the impression that the clarinet choir is predominantly an informal phenomenon, and there is no standard line-up. Many of the ensembles listed do not use the term "clarinet choir", and this article seems to be about any ensemble made up mostly of members of the clarinet family. --Deskford (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well certainly the concept of multiple clarinets as an ensemble is plenty notable -- there are many recordings on major and large independent labels, it's common as a college class, etc. I do agree that the article is hideous, and has way too much concentration on individual ensembles and so on. I wouldn't begin to know how to fix it either, but adding more promotional stuff in the form of links is hardly the way.♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know how to fix it just fine. :-) -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good move! --Deskford (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * LOL, I guess that's one way. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

AfD: Nikoladze preparation
I have nominated Nikoladze preparation for deletion. See Articles for deletion/Nikoladze preparation. --Deskford (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've found something bad -- a copyright-violating site widely used as a source
Hi everyone -- not quite sure how to handle this; there may be a couple of elegant ways. Here is site a number of people have been using as a source: www.operas.com.ar, which has pirated the entire database of the online New Grove, and splattered it with noxious advertisements. One wonders how long the site will remain online, as Oxford Music Online is fairly protective of copyright. Here is a list of all articles containing links to the site; some of the articles use it as the only, or principal source. We could change the links manually to the appropriate New Grove articles, a significant bit of manual labor, or is it possible to program a bot to do it? Opinions? Antandrus (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are only 35 of them, so removing the links by hand might not be too much work, but adding in their place the New Grove links is a different matter. The first one I looked at was Reinhard Febel, where the site was used as a non-essential external link rather than an explicit reference, so I removed it. 34 to go, folks! --Deskford (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Another thing is that it's possible to do it generically -- just use www.oxfordmusiconline.com as the URL -- so one wouldn't have to have New Grove subscription access to fix it (you can get the author name from operas.com.ar) -- I just fixed another one. Antandrus (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed it (also an external link) from Speratus. Some of the articles in the list are user pages, I see no problem there. Should we check of or delete in the list what's done, to avoid double work? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm finding that if you hard-refresh the list (ctrl-F5 on most browsers on a PC), the fixed ones go away, since the special:linksearch function gives immediate and current results. I think we can leave the ones in user space.  So far, by the way, every article on operas.com.ar that I've checked exactly matches the online Grove; I'll speak up if I find any exception. Antandrus (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've fixed them all except for the three in user space. Antandrus (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering about this page from a well known. I linked to it, but on closer inspection I'm concerned that the live streaming link of the complete work could be a copyright violation of this recording of a performance from the same day. It may be all in order, but I just don't know. So I thought I'd better mention it. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate articles
We have two pairs of duplicate articles:
 * Jan Pogány and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jan Pogány
 * Polish Chamber Orchestra Camerata-Wroclaw and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Polish Chamber Orchestra „Camerata-Wroclaw”

I think this arises because the articles in mainspace have been created by copy-and-paste from the AFC pages rather than by moving them. How do we clean this up? Can we just nominate the AFC pages for speedy deletion, or does some sort of history merge have to take place to preserve the full article history? --Deskford (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion is fine. There's really no history there.  That's scratch space that I usually user sandbox area for. DavidRF(talk) 02:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge comment needed
Should Gordan Nikolić be merged with Gordan Nikolitch? Please comment at Talk:Gordan Nikolitch D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  02:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge comment needed, Gregorian modes
Please comment on an old merge discussion restarted at Talk:Gregorian mode. This discussion has been restarted because the original discussion 3 years ago went off-topic and no consensus could be made from it. Please stay on-topic this time. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  02:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam Research partnership
HighBeam Research -- an online, pay-for-use search engine for newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias has agreed to give free, full-access, 1-year accounts for up to 1000 Wikipedia editors to use. HighBeam has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications, most of which are not available for free elsewhere on the internet. Aside from a free 7-day trial (credit card required), access to HighBeam would cost $30 per month or $200 per year for the first year and $300 for subsequent years, so this is a wonderful, free, no-strings-attached opportunity. To qualify, editors must have at least a 1 year-old account with 1000 edits. Please add your name to the WP:HighBeam/Applications account sign-up page if you are interested.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

FA status in Piano music of Gabriel Fauré
Does this article deserve FA status? Please see this comment. Best wishes, Gidip (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that FA articles must be beyond improvement? Please tell me that this post is an April Fools Day prank... Though I fear not. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a featured article six weeks ago (Feb 13th). Read the info in the talk template.  Peer reviewed in November, candidate reviewed in December.  It seems a moot point to discuss it now.  As MistyMorn says, you can always keep improving it.DavidRF (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to associate myself with Ssilvers's considerations on the article's talk page—way more constructive than my rather tetchy remarks above. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I play this repertoire, I took a look at the article. I find the method of quote mining from Nectoux and others unhelpful in describing pieces. Whatever happened to paraphrase? Moreover some of these pieces have been analysed musically: any analysis of that form is at present totally absent from the article. I looked in particular at the later works, like the preludes, the later barcaroles and the 11th and 13th nocturne. What I read was not particularly helpful compared with the sources. And whatever happened to Norman Charles Suckling as a source? Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Omaha needs our help
After a long hiatus, I'm once again trying to cobble together an article about an Edison recording artist, and in the process I came across evidence of a performance for the Tuesday Morning Musical Club Concert Series, now "Tuesday Musical," in Omaha, Nebraska. Checking to see whether that organization had a Wikipedia entry, I found that not only does it not, but that classical music receives no coverage in the section on music in the city's article Omaha, Nebraska, the "main article" about Music of Omaha, the article Culture of Omaha, Nebraska, or the article about Music of Nebraska, although each goes on at great length about every conceivable flavor of popular music. Now, surely there must be at least some classical music activity worth mentioning in that city and its environs aside from the rather sketchy article about the Omaha Symphony Orchestra (which, by the by, cross references some of those other articles that make no mention of classical music); after all, the Tuesday thing, if you credit its Web site "about us" description, has been active since 1911 or before and brought in artists of the caliber of Bauer, Feuermann, Louise Homer, Ashkenazy, Milnes, Fodor....  I don't know enough about the area to recitify the situation, but somebody closer to Omaha really ought to have a look. Drhoehl (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a native of Omaha, I can assure you it needs more help than all editors on Wikipedia combined can give it. As I recall, polka music was about the only important genre in my youth. OK, OK, kidding aside—my grandfather played cello on the Omaha Symphony, I have a sister who played violin in that orchestra for a couple of seasons, and my own musical education started in that city. Two relevant Wikipedia articles to add to the ones you mention are ARTSaha! and Opera Omaha, though this latter one is in need of much attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation alert
As usual, trying to put together a new article proves to be a COW (can of worm). Still working on my Edison artist, and in the process just discovered that the "History" section, at least, of Schubert Club directly cribs from the organization's Web site: http://www.schubert.org/history/. The article hasn't yet been tagged with this project's banner, but I'd say it falls within the porject's scope. What's the next step--delete the offending text? Slap on a copyvio banner? Refer the matter elsewhere? All guidance deeply appreciated! Drhoehl (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If there are clear copyright violations, be bold and remove them. If this is the bulk of the article, try to leave a meaningful stub behind. Make sure your edit summaries are clear why you are removing the text.  Magic ♪piano 12:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the second time this has happened with this article. This is plagiarism in the form of laziness... an article about an organization copying from the organization's own "about" webpage.  Its still unacceptable and the prose ends up having a "promotional" tone to it which isn't good either.DavidRF (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I reverted all the edits of the anon who copy/pasted from the official site.  I then re-added the categories and external links -- because those were fine.  A more motivated editor could perhaps put more content back -- re-writing the text and adding citations.DavidRF (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Marian Anderson
An infobox has been added to this article, which had a hidden comment at that top requesting talk page consensus first. I have restored (twice) the prior version. I have opened a discussion at the article's talk page. Kablammo (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, here we go again: enter the metadata crowd, stage left. Expect vast quantities of pixels to be spilled in short order; see, for example, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Infoboxes_RfC
 * Thank you for dealing with this so patiently, Kablammo. The infobox you removed was particularly worthy of excision; it explains to us that Marian Anderson was 115 years old when she was born, that Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is located in the US, and that contralto is a sort of musical instrument.  Opus33 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please also see my comment about the box here: Samuel Barber. -- Klein zach  08:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The typo regarding her birth date/ age is easily remedied, and does not require the complete removal if the infobox to resolve. Wikipedia is a global service, and it is wrong to assume that all of our readers will know what Philadelphia is, let alone that it is in the USA. Nowhere did the infobox claim that "contralto is a sort of musical instrument". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. That would be the RfC which concluded with the note that "Infoboxes are not to be… removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive" (and, before you say it, no-one is systematically adding them). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

More
Mentioned above, but not so easy to find: the everlasting topic of infoboxes is discussed again on the above and Samuel Barber, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I'm not even going to bother with this. There's no way the infobox issue can be resolved as long as Andy's involved. To him, consensus cannot exist as long as he disagrees with something. I fear another RfC may be the only way to end this.  Centy  – [ reply ] • contribs  – 18:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you didn't get the result you wanted at the last RfC? Your dishonest ad hominem has no place here, BTW. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote myself from the RfC: "Just giving up caring on this issue. The whole embarrassing colour of the bikeshed story has made me just take the attitude: so be it."  Centy  – [ reply ] • contribs  – 14:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

When WP:AGF is or is not applicable
Assume good faith is a fundamental guideline on WP, but it does not apply in all and every situation. We can only assume good faith when there are at least some reasonable grounds for doing so. Considering past info box arguments which damaged this and the other CM projects, deterring and driving away contributors (as shown by sharp declines in activity), and are well-documented not only in the archives but also the related ArbCom block, AGF is simply not appropriate here — unfortunately we have to assume the worst. -- Klein zach  08:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your initial point is correct, those editors systematically removing infoboxes, in defiance of the outcome of the RfC instigated by this project, show no good faith. Nor does your ad hominem post here. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox up for deletion again
It's up for deletion again, in spite of that agonizing process of gathering consensus on this compromise box on the RFC, so here's everyone's notification. (The irony of anti-infobox people defending an infobox from deletion is not lost on me. Sometimes you really do have to have a sense of humor about this stuff.)  Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_20. Antandrus (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And now he's on the Administrator's Noticeboard
ANI. It would be lovely to work with Andy collegially, rather than as an opponent on some sort of virtual battlefield. What a waste of time. It may be necessary to review the arbitration case where he was banned for a year for exactly this type of behavior. I'd like the "3" to remain a redlink. Andy how about working with us as colleagues rather than enemies? Antandrus (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Infobox musical artist
There is a discussion on the Infobox musical artist page about applying this popular musicians infobox — with such fields as genre, occupation, instrument, years active, label, associated_acts, website, current members, past members, and notable instruments — to classical musicians and composers, see Classical musicians/ensembles. -- Klein zach  08:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All of those fields, like most infobox fields, are optional. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In the past few weeks, I've read someplace about the increased use of WP's data (not just DBpedia) to automatically create things like infoboxes, as well as automaticallly link articles in multiple language Wikipedias. I believe the project to implement these things will start this summer.  In that light, isn't working on infoboxes somewhat superfluous? -- kosboot (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are useless for the most part. (see Disinfoboxes) -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  16:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That opinion piece is not about most infoboxes, it is only about "infobox templates that add no value to articles". Rather like an opinion piece about pregnant virgins. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Again? Can't we just reference the archive? Eusebeus (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We can, and we will see there that the RfC instigated by members of this project resulted a consensus that "Infoboxes are not to be… removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive" and "WikiProjects… do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article". Unfortunately, some members of this project are ignoring that, claiming that Infoboxes may not be used on such articles because of a project guideline, and are systematically removing them on that bogus basis. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, could you please identify the users to whom you refer and show us at least a representative cross section of where they deleted infoboxes? Drhoehl (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussed in a preceding section of this page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything there where you address my point, or anything like it. To reiterate my question, with added emphasis: could you please identify the users to whom you refer and show us at least a representative cross section of where they deleted infoboxes? Drhoehl (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Andy (and others),

After consulting with the deleting admin, I have restored the template Infobox classical composer, which you nominated for deletion without alerting anyone on this project. Personally, I consider such an action highly inappropriate. We decide things here by consensus of involved editors, and to delete a page which was the outcome of extensive discussion, without alerting any of those involved in that discussion, borders on the unethical.

Never mind all that. If you still want to include an infobox in the article Samuel Barber, feel free to raise the issue on the talkpage, and, if there is consensus, please add this infobox, which has been designed specifically for this purpose.

Thank you,

--Ravpapa (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That template was properly nominated at Templates for discussion, as unused, and deleted by consensus there. Anyone watch-listing it would have been aware. If you wish to lobby for our deletion procedure to be modified, this is not the place to do so. The template is entirely redundant to Infobox person, of which it is a limited subset. Consensus is required to remove an infobox template from Samuel Barber, not to restore that which has been improperly removed.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently the deleting admin does not agree with you. But now you have renominated the template for deletion and there will be a proper discussion. We will see the outcome. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claim that "the deleting admin does not agree with you" is without foundation, and all they did is recreate the template in your own user-space. It is you who went against the consensus at TfD and recreated it in template-space. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic Musicians' Memorial, Southampton
I think this article's notability is not strong enough as a stand-alone article. I'm proposing a merger to Musicians of the RMS Titanic. Feel free to discuss at destination's talk page. --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Pseudonym "G. B. Marx" (or "G. H. Marks") used by Brahms
From my question posted at User talk:Dr. Blofeld (q.v. for details): Has anyone ever heard of this? I'm not finding a reference to either form of this name through WP Search. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Souvenir de la Russie... was published by A. Cranz in Hamburg under the name of G. B. Marx, an assumed name used frequently during the 19th century. Works by several composers, including Brahms, were published under this pseudonym until 1907. Brahms refers to the name in a letter to his publisher dated February 7, 1867, in which he proposes that a simplified version of the Waltzes opus 39 be attributed to Marx."
 * This rings a distant memory bell somewhere. The French Wikipedia article Johannes Brahms lists Souvenirs de la Russie, op. 151 (édité sous le nom de G.B. Marx, attribué à Brahms) &mdash; which introduces another puzzle: I thought Brahms opus numbers stopped at 122. --Deskford (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was another confusion. Thanks for checking. (I suppose I've introduced a separate confusion myself by posting in two different places. Probably the best idea would be for people to read the full question at Dr. Blofeld's talkpage, but then respond here. Sorry about that.) Milkunderwood (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Brahms#Werke under Klaviermusik: Zu vier Händen shows just Souvenir de la Russie, WoO, with nothing further. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a copy of the published edition. This gives the name as G. W. Marks rather than G. B. Marx, both on the title page and on the header of the subsequent pages. The opus number may have been a fanciful invention. I can't find any reliable sources to explain any of this though.  --Deskford (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

All things come to those who wait. In October 2007 I raised the question of Marks/Brahms @ Talk:Johannes Brahms/Archive 1. It has received no replies thus far, but it's early days; it's only been 1,667 days since I posted it, but who's counting? :) -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  11:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Shame upon you for your impatience! If you'd only waited another six months you could have said "it's been five years". :) DBaK (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed! At least some of Jack's links from 2007 are still valid. And, as I've just discovered, a Google search on "G. W. Marks" is more productive than one on "G. B. Marx". It would appear that the mysterious G. W. Marks also published arrangements of Handel, Beethoven, Verdi and others, the common link being the publisher Cranz. --Deskford (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear that the "Opus 151" is equally made up. However, if anyone cares to investigate Cranz and "Marks"/"Marx", it would probably be useful to add some relevant information to the encyclopedia. (I am not volunteering for the task - I'm incompetent at research, and do well just to access Google itself.) BTW, did anyone find it strange that Brahms may have suggested to Cranz that his Op. 39 waltzes might be reissued in simplified form, but pseudonymously? It would have been too obvious that these were "plagiarized". Perhaps a better question would be, was Cranz Brahms's usual publisher? If not, and was known for publishing under the Marks or Marx names, maybe Brahms approached Cranz because of some difficulty with his usual publisher? Assuming of course that the story of his letter is authentic and accurate. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Simrock
A recent edit summary said: publishing house Simrock is so famous, it doesn't need a first name. But Simrock is a dab page, we have founder Nikolaus Simrock (Beethoven) and Fritz Simrock (Brahms). What can we do if we want to reach the publishing house, not a person? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Page N. Simrock at the International Music Score Library Project -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which edit summary? There is no article on the publishing house, so links have to go to Nikolaus or Fritz, until a company article gets written. Even then, it's unlikely that the current disambiguation page can be usurped for it; it'll have to be something like Simrock Verlag. Until then, linking to Nikolaus seems not inappropriate, unless it refers to Brahms or Dvořák, then to Fritz. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The linking to the people is what we do, there is a redirect N. Simrock, but I think the "something like" would be nice! Will you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation, but as even the German Wikipedia doesn't have such an article, I feel that I'm not best placed to start research on the subject from scratch. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Understand. You asked for the edit summary ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding and the diff. It seems to me that Martin Berkofsky needs to be told about WP:CIVIL; he could improve his article immensely by providing sources – it doesn't have any at the moment and I wouldn't be surprised if it gets tagged soon with BLP unsourced. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created a stub on the publisher at N. Simrock. Brief searching indicates that there hasn't been much research done on music publishers.  Magic ♪piano 23:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a little bit at IMSLP (http://imslp.org/wiki/N._Simrock)--not well sourced, and of course there's more in Grove. I'll try to dig up some material in the next few days. -- kosboot (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I've mentioned IMSLP, I note that there are a number of music publishers who have more information at IMSLP than at Wikipedia. Might there be some kind of template to point Wikipedia users to IMSLP? -- kosboot (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's quite simple to link to an article at IMSLP:  gives:

Brahms Piano Trio in A major
Quoting from CD booklet to Capriccio 10633, Odeon Trio (Kurt Guntner, Angelica May, Leonard Hokanson): "... the Trio in A major discovered in Bonn in 1924, which is thought to be a copy of an early Brahms work. It is not documented anywhere and bears no signs of authorship nor an opus number, but is generally accepted as authentic." This trio is also recorded by the Beaux Arts Trio, on Philips 454017, with much the same information provided. Is there any further/more recent scholarship for this? Spurious? Should it be mentioned at all at WP?
 * 1) Moderato [12'15"]
 * 2) Vivace - Trio [6'20"]
 * 3) Lento [8'56"]
 * 4) Presto [7'58]

A separate Brahms question: Might it be worthwhile to distinguish at Piano Trio No. 1 (Brahms) between the 1854 first movement marked Allegro con moto and the 1891, marked Allegro con brio? (These can also be seen here.) The Odeon Trio performs the Urfassung 1854, with subsequent movements indicated as
 * 2. Scherzo : Allegro molto - Trio: Più lento
 * 3. Adagio non troppo
 * 4. Finale: Allegro molto agitato

compared to the WP article, which omits everything underlined here. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The De Capo Catalog of Classical Music Compositions calls the A Major trio ("No. 4") spurious with a question mark. As for the other question, I see no reason why the tempo difference can't be addressed. Revisions, especially published ones (and especially that far apart) are an important part of a piece's being. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Melodia, for the A major info. As far as I've been able to find, it isn't listed here anywhere at all under Brahms. (Note that spurious Mozart violin sonatas are listed and indicated as such.)
 * About Op. 8, the con moto / con brio difference is obvious enough from the first pages of the IMSLP scores - but I can't read music (see my user page), and have no idea about the following movements. I tried rummaging through one of the full scores, but couldn't even tell which movement I was looking at. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability tagging of musical organisations and establishments
An editor has placed notability tags on Gaudeamus Foundation, Gaudeamus International Composers Award and Gaudeamus International Interpreters Award. Obviously these establishments are notable, but when I say obviously, that is based on my real-world experience of the music industry. From the WP articles alone a non-specialist might not appreciate their significance. The chief problem is lack of coverage in third-party reliable sources &mdash; these are often difficult to find for this kind of organisation. The same editor has tagged other articles for notability, such as the journals Perspectives of New Music and Theory and Practice, so is perhaps just on a tagging spree. Nevertheless any help in finding independent sources for any of these articles would be welcome. --Deskford (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Obviously" notable to you and to me but, as you say, not necessarily to a non-specialist, which is what Wikipedia must assume our readers to be. Sources are hardly difficult to find for Gaudeamus (I have already added the New Grove article to the Foundation article and the Composers Award), though it does seem to be stretching things a bit to have three separate articles when one would do (with two redirects). Perspectives has not been on my watch list (shame on me—I was Managing Editor of that journal for 16 years!), but it will be now, and at least as easy to establish verifiability (Joseph Kerman's notorious 1985 salvo in Contemplating Music should be sufficient unto itself). Can Theory and Practice be any more difficult?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you apply via HighBeam for a complimentary HighBeam Research account. You should find plenty of relevant citations via that service. And please remember that the editor to whom you refer, whether on a "tagging spree" or not, is correctly applying Wikipedia policy. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but in my case I think the search engines available through my academic institution's library will serve as well as what HighBeam has to offer. And thanks also for confirming Deskford's and my opinion that the editor in question has applied Wikipedia policy correctly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Romanticism template
People may be interested in the discussion here.--Smerus (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Édouard Nanny
Hi music buffs. If his name is not too familiar it's because his most famous piece is actually the concerto for double bass he wrote as a hoax after the style of Domenico Dragonetti. First, does anyone know how to lift the photos at de:Édouard Nanny. Second I'm going to have to put this into "contested moves" at Talk:Édouard Nanny since I have an objection from a tennis editor that some English sources don't show an accent on Édouard. Apologies for this. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record it has been at "'Edouard Nanny'" since 2004 so I thought a page move without a RfM might be premature. I did a cursory check and saw English sources of sheet music and such with no diacritics and thought the music projects might know best where it should go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Eric Whitacre
Eric Whitacre is tagged for improvements, going to perform Lux Aurumque, help wanted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)