Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59

Haydn piano sonatas, again
I was looking through the category of Haydn piano/keyboard sonatas to add a link to a recording, when I got thoroughly confused by Hob. 20/33 and L. 20/33. At first I tried to move them to their Landon numbers, but then I noticed that Hob. 15 and 17 don't have equivalent Landon numbers, and I also read this iscussion. Per the above-linked talk page section, I very boldly (perhaps too boldly?) moved them all to the titles "of the form "Piano Sonata Hob. XVI/XX" and I moved the category to Category:Piano sonatas by Joseph Haydn. The slashes in the new titles won't cause any problems because there is no such article as "Piano Sonata Hob. XVI". I turned Keyboard Sonata No. 20 (Haydn), Keyboard Sonata No. 33 (Haydn), and Keyboard Sonata No. 34 (Haydn) into disambiguation pages, and have fixed a few double redirects, but will let the bots fix the rest in their own time. I've received this message on my talk page about the moves, relating to the use of the term "piano"; I think it's alright in the case of Haydn because his later sonatas were clearly written for the piano and they tend to be the ones that are most studied and performed. Also, consensus in the above-linked discussion was leaning that way, anyhow. Graham 87 12:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Repeating, as in my reply, that the move to some standard name is ok as long as the articles reflect in there first sentence that - at least for the early works - Haydn didn't think of the instruments we associate with "piano". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Prior to Joseph Haydn's 1790 Sonata in Eb major, Hob 49, which was written for the fortepiano, and a very specific one at that, we have only the vaguest knowledge about the instrument or instruments for which Haydn intended his solo Claviersonaten or keyboard sonatas." This is the first line of an article by Howard Pollack in the Journal of Musicology, vol 9, Winter 1991. The term "piano sonata" should not be used for most of these works. Could someone please change Hob. XVI/20 accordingly? I don't mind using Hoboken numbers over Landon numbers, but Hob. XVI/20 would be better as a "keyboard sonata". Syek88 (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * We have other articles where the article name is debatable but at least the first line of the lead clarifies, example The Flying Dutchman (opera), - please change the lead to cover the music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't think the move to use the term "piano" would be so controversial, per my readings of the previous discussions. I don't really want to make any more page moves for now on these articles, but perhaps it would also be a good idea to mention their key in the title, like the Schubert sonatas do, which would make it easier to look for a particular sonata in the category if all you know about it is its Landon number and its key. I'll ping the people who have been involved in the recent discussions on this topic: . Graham 87 07:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We now have a consistent system of naming the piano sonatas by Joseph Haydn that is supported by publishing practice. The finer points of each work can be mentioned in their articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * After having asked (experts) to do that, I tried myself one, noticing keyboard sonata which could offer a good general handling. As for mentioning Haydn, I could imagine redirects, while the article name is still kept short; --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

sheer cluelessness
Mark Doran's latest blog entry: http://markdoran.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/heading-off-2/

"I myself am not hostile to Wikipedia. Seriously, I’m not...Well, except where music is concerned. You see, there seems to be something about the subject of music...which encourages the cheerful acceptance of a level of sheer cluelessness that in any other field would surely attract energetically critical — and, hopefully, corrective — attention." He points out to the lack of correction in the article on Salome. kosboot (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well,, unnoticed for months, supports the impression, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I wrote a response, saying there are thousands of articles on music, but only about 20-30 active editors who can't watch everything. kosboot (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, he sounds hostile to me. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Btw, I made the correction to the musical example. He does sound a bit too sarcastic for my taste, but one should always "assume good faith" and give people the benefit of a doubt.kosboot (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I find Mr Doran's article to be rather obnoxious. So Wikipedia has errors about classical music. OK. But the history of classical music is littered with composers writing down the wrong note, with publishers transcribing the wrong note or otherwise committing horrendous crimes against the original score, and with performers reading the wrong note and repeatedly playing it (Richter - Italian Concerto!). I have recently been working on the page for Haydn's Symphony No. 98. The page contained one fairly minor error. It suggested that Haydn played the harpsichord at the symphony's premiere, but he probably played the fortepiano. But that's no big error: quite a few musicologists have suggested he played the harpsichord despite all evidence being to the contrary, and most modern performances use the harpsichord, probably because it just sounds better. Now, back to Mr Doran. He only mentions two Wikipedia errors: a confusion in one article between a transition and a subject, and two wrong notes in a transcription. If I were minded to be uncharitable I might suggest that using two minor errors to support a finding of "sheer cluelessness" amounts to a form of sheer cluelessness in its own right. Syek88 (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A similar example
I just added the Wikimedia example pictured here to Magnificat (Bach). I never sang a Magnificat in German, but to me it seems that the third through fourteenth note of the second line should be G's instead of A's per example 2.4 p. 11 in this book

Is that so (or does the version with A's exist as well as the version with G's), and if I'm correct, does anyone have the technical skills to update it (before another Mr. Doran stands up and writes a dismissive piece about it)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Same here, should be G, better don't use unless fixed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, commented out at Magnificat (Bach) until repaired. Can anyone help with such repair? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tried to contact the original uploader about this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for noticing my error. The tenor of the 2nd half of the verse should be g, not a. The source is quite standard: 'Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch', Nr.529. Berlin: Evangelisches Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530. Olorulus (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NB! Hit [F5] to see the updated version :)
 * Tx! The example is at Tonus peregrinus now too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge?
Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243

In October, Francis Schonken placed merge requests on the two articles for the two versions of Bach's Magnificat. On 16 October one of them was removed (not by me), as nobody had bothered to discuss. I reacted today by removing the other and starting to improve the articles. Francis brought the tags back and reverted without waiting for other viewpoints. Please discuss. I believe that going back and forth between articles is not a problem but the principle of Wikipedia, and that the readers are served better by two articles which share the details of the movements which - naturally - are the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Commented out the non-neutral description of the problem per WP:CANVASS. The discussion is at Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243, see there for the viewpoints --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Restored. Don't modify others' comments. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC?
Resulting from a local consensus the pages weren't merged. The process has seen a series of somewhat clueless reverts by, by  , by  , etc., only the last one apologising for their actions. These reverts have been undone.

What we have now is two unbalanced articles. I suppose the unbalance of Magnificat (Bach) is self-evident (if not this can be illustrated by examples). For Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a I'll illustrate with this example: in the history section Bach's Magnificat is qualified as "an unusual extended composition". None of the sources call it thus. Several sources indicate the relative "compactness" of the composition.

So I'm still a proponent of merging two articles that practically overlap (or should overlap) for 90% of their content. If it would be the case that interest of this WikiProject's editors is too low to discuss it any further here (or on the respective article's talk pages) I'd propose an RfC to get wider interest. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Francis, the overlap is what you produced, please take care of it. BWV 243a tries to provide information on the piece which Bach created in 1723, conceived the structure and chose the musical means to express the text. If there is duplication in the other article BWV 243 please remove it there.
 * Content is a different story. If it is not understood that "an unusual extended composition" compares to the normal Magnificat in vespers, such as a simple four-part setting, please reword it.
 * BWV 243a refers to the other one, Bachs later transposed and revised version BWV243, a few times.
 * I find the table of movements (which tries to cover everything) confusing and not helpful to the readers. I suggest to create one for D major, and stress the few differences in prose.
 * All this has been said before, more than once, most concisely here. Please keep it simple. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The archived talk page section you linked to is wordy and full of inacurracies. I agree to the fact I was even more wordy in refuting these. After all that wordiness the reasoning is simple: "I'm still a proponent of merging two articles that practically overlap (or should overlap) for 90% of their content," as I said above. I'm interested to see whether in this case a local consensus can be challenged by a wider consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I talk about this, as concise as I could - perhaps we have another misunderstading:
 * Differences


 * The two works differ:
 * different composition history (243a in 1723 at the very beginning of Bach's tenure in Leipzig as a bold statement, 243 in 1733 as the first piece performed after the silent months of mourning Augustus the Strong)
 * different key (which means different keys in all movements)
 * different dedication (243a Purification and Christmas, 243 only Purification)
 * different number movements (16 vs. 12, at least at Bach's time, - I don't think that later transpositions of the Christmas insertions in 243 are a strong argument, - that can be mentioned in one sentence)
 * different publishing
 * different scores
 * different recordings
 * different sources
 * therefore different categories


 * I (still) think we serve our readers better if we keep two separate articles, as in other case of Bach's works with different versions. We don't have to do it as book sources do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how your wordy repeating of inacurracies here would be supporting your case. Qui veut prouver trop ne prouve rien (as I learned the hard way in this case), so I see only uncertainty whether broader community attention would safeguard the local consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Francis there are personal attacks against Gerda here "clueless", "wordy repeating of inaccuracies". Further you are bucking a consensus here, over again. Do you really think this needs more hashing over. This is an encyclopedia rather than a single source on multiple topics. We might harvest content from that multiple topic source and delineate them for an encyclopedia even if there are some similarities. This is the difference between an encyclopedia and a source/ book for example. Anyway, seems like its time to move on rather than reheat this discussion over again. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC))


 * Francis, drop the stick. You are NOT going to prevail on the merge issue, and if you keep calling people "clueless", you are going to get blocked for NPA at the very least (yes, I made one accidental revert that Gerda fixed on your behalf, so AGF  once in a while, will you?)  There is sufficient material to justify the 243a article and, as Jefferson said about religion, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."  I thknthat's good advice for you as well.   Montanabw (talk)  20:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the beginning of the month I've identified over a dozen inacurracies in the 243a article. For most of these agreement is quickly reached, and the article amended.
 * Below in we see an external commentator getting in a twist over two wrong notes in a music example. The inaccuracies that have been divulgated in and through Wikipedia about Bach's Magnificat amount to more than that. So I'm inviting all parties (including myself) to desist from clueless edits regarding Bach's Magnificat. I'm sure that once that happens the two articles will be merged into one. If you can't help yourself and want to edit on the topic: there are still many issues to be resolved for both the BWV 243a and the Magnificat (Bach) article, for instance they have both a NPOV problem template on top of the page linking to a talk page section where the perceived problem is discussed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The more issues are resolved... the more WP:content fork is back on the table... --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Bach's Magnificat(s)
Johann Sebastian Bach made several versions of the same Magnificat: I think it is best to treat Bach's Magnificat on one page, Magnificat (Bach), instead of treating it on two pages (BWV 243a/BWV 243) for the obvious overlap when the basic 12 movements of the Magnificat are described.
 * A version in E-flat major without Christmas additions (BWV 243a, 12 movements)
 * A version in E-flat major with Christmas additions (BWV 243a, 12 + 4 movements)
 * A version in D major without Christmas additions (BWV 243, same 12 movements as other versions, with minor differences in orchestration etc. – this is the best known version)

Prior discussion: see links provided above in this talk page section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach template(s)
From my talk page:

A navbox should go to the linked articles, as far as I understand only to the linked articles. If to a short article like Wo Gott der Herr nicht bei uns hält, BWV 1128 (which I doubt), it should be collapsed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * (...) it's general, has nothing to do with a specific article, (...). I never saw a navbox in an article that is not linked. (...), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I opened a discussion about this and similar topics at Template talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, for which Gerda Arendt seems to suggest wider input from this project is needed. Please discuss there if you want to contribute to the discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Classical training
I have recently discovered that Wikipedia doesn't have an article defining what it means to be "classically trained". I have started the article in my sandbox here User:Boguslavmandzyuk/Sandbox/Classical training (music), which I intend to move to the mainspace when it is ready. Particularly, I will need to find actual reliable sources that back up the information that we all already know. Feel free to add to it and help me out. Any help is appreciated.--BoguSlav 22:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is on the right track. 'Classical training' as a phrase implies to me simply traditional methods of training in a variety of arts (or sciences for that matter - try googling the phrase). 'Training in classical music', which I think is what you mean, seems clearly to me to come under music education. Parts of what you are writing about are already covered in music education - wouldn't it be better to improve that article than create an article based on a rather random phrase? Whilst 'classical training' might perhaps merit a Wiktionary definition, I'm not convinced that it's a suitable title for WP in its own right. Your absence of identifying sources for this phrase points to the same conclusion.--Smerus (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC#
 * I'm not sure if I understand you clearly. Are you saying that this topic is not notable? The phrase "classically trained" is all over the internet. A simple google search will reveal so much descriptions of musicians who are "classically trained", discussions and opinions of "classical training", as well as advertisements of teachers who either instruct "classically" or don't instruct "classically". The phrase "classical training", as it refers to music, is very common. Perhaps it is synonymous with "Training in classical music", as you have suggested.
 * I only mentioned finding reliable sources above because many of the sources that you immediately find and are easiest to come across aren't reliable, so one has to sift through all it (which can be pretty tedious). I know that the phrase "classical training" can refer to a variety of topics, other than music (see the "See also" section).
 * As for the music education article, there is actually very little that I took from there. That article appears to be a very long overview of pedagogical practices from around the world (getting very detailed about the United States from some reason). If anything, I think the music education article should be split into several articles.--BoguSlav 18:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm offering the opinion - to spell it out - i) that 'Classical training (music)' is not a suitable article title, being too imprecise (and not sourceable as a specific topic),  ii) that 'Training in classical music' could be a topic, and  iii) that it should come under 'music education' (as a sub section, possible expanded, if there is enough material, to a separate article as well). --Smerus (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input Smerus. If I had the time and motivation, I would redo the music education article entirely. However, I am not interested in music education in other, non-western forms of music, or the history of music education in the United States. I think the article needs to be thoroughly cleaned up and reorganized. At present, it seems like a "List of topics in music education", rather than an article that reads smoothly. Also, there appears to be very little discussion of higher education in music, in terms of curriculum and methods. That's why I chose to start a new article dealing with music education in classical music. Maybe "Education in classical music" is a less convoluted title than "classical training (music)". I hadn't thought of that.--BoguSlav 21:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason I chose the title "Classical training (music)" is that a musician can be educated using classical music and then apply these skills to other music. Many musicians can acquire their technique through classical training and then have a musical career that has nothing to do with classical music. For example, Herbie Hancock is classically trained, but he is primarily known as a jazz musician.--BoguSlav 21:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel that the phrase "classically trained" is a neologism. If a the person is known in a non-classical music genre, to reveal that they are "classically trained" presents irony and elicts greater interest.  But in fact, the only way to be musically trained in a substantive manner is through the classical training. kosboot (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a subjective perspective (which I happen to agree with). But there are also methods of training, such as Jazz courses offered in universities, that teach theory entirely differently than "classical training". They also focus heavily on improvisation and "authenticity" (from what I understand, authenticity has to do with listening to a lot of jazz and sounding unique in your improvisations). They also have an entirely different "music history", they study. Also, another user pointed out to me that Berklee College of Music has the Berklee method, which is a mix of jazz and pop music, is definitely not considered to be "classical training". Being "self taught" would also constitute not having a classical training.--BoguSlav 01:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I happen to teach in an institution where jazz is a major part of the program. Students tell me how all the jazz instructors admonish the students that they have to get the fundamentals (i.e. classical training) before they can fully master jazz.  In any case, I still think the phrase is a neologism--as the word "deplane" is now used for disembark. Or worse and on Wikipedia, the use of the phrase sheet music. The article doesn't really mean sheet music at all, just "printed music."  Personally speaking, I never start an article without having a reliable source to depend on, for without that, there's no article. kosboot (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that an article must have reliable sources to be considered an article (that's the reason I started this article in my sandbox and intended to move it when it is able to stand on its own two feet). As for neologisms, I think the policy standing in your way is WP:COMMONNAME. No matter how redundant or contradictory or inaccurate you may consider a name to be, Wikipedia favors the name that people associate most commonly with the topic. That's why, for example, "Western classical music" or "European art music" (or any other pc description) is simply called "Classical music". --BoguSlav 17:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Bogu, I read your draft in your sandbox, and I must say I agree with Smerus. As you note in your lead, a person who is "classically trained" is someone whose Music education was grounded in the classical tradition. So the place to write about this is in the article Music education. You don't have to rewrite the entire article to add the stuff you think important. If you make your effort a separate article called "Classical training", no one will ever find it and no one will ever read it, so what's the point? On the other hand, almost 6,000 people read the article on music education in the last month. Doesn't that seem like a better place to park your pony? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article on Music education has very little to do with Classical music, and last I checked, it doesn't even have a template on its talk page. The folks from WP:WikiProject Education have been involved with that article. I'm not implying that they WP:OWN that article, but it does not interest me in any way at the moment.--BoguSlav 17:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I agree that the present article Music education is a mess, all the more reason for clearing it up. Put stuff you are interested in, about classical music training, into it. By the way, I just googled 'classical training' and the results I got from the first 30 links were: music 7, general education 2, dressage (!) 8, acting 5, dog training 1, yoga 1, cooking 2, ballet 1, hindustani voice technique 1, and a couple of others..... -Smerus (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, WP:WikiProject Education certainly don't WP:OWN the article nor, I am sure, would they claim to do so, but in case you have any qualms, I have also bannered the article for this project on its talk page.--Smerus (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Chamber Music Project
As I've mentioned in earlier messages I'm currently working on cleaning up some of the "lacunae" in the chamber music section. To date I have completed the following articles to what I'd term "preliminary" status.


 * String Quartet (Blumenfeld)
 * Piano Quartet (Carmichael)
 * Rondino for Piano Quintet (Czerny)
 * Horn Trio (Holbrooke)
 * Violin Sonata in D major (attributed to Mozart)
 * Piano Quartet in E major (Saint-Saëns)
 * Barcarolle in F major (Saint-Saëns)
 * Serenade in E-flat major (Saint-Saëns)
 * Rondo in A major for Violin and Strings, D 438 (Schubert) (Technically scored for violin & string orchestra, but scoring is for Violin/String Quartet and I have found one live recording in this form on youtube.)
 * Adagio and Rondo concertante in F major, D 487 (Schubert)

I've left notes on the talk pages of some of these outlining points that need clearing up or expanding upon.

As soon as I have the information I will be working on the Lalo Piano Quintet.

My next planned project is the Saint-Saens Piano Quartet in B-flat major, Op. 41. The planned title will be "Piano Quartet in B-flat major (Saint-Saëns)" rather than "Piano Quartet No. 2 (Saint-Saëns)" because up until 1992 (At least as far as I can tell), the earlier E major Piano Quartet was unknown, therefore using Piano Quartet No.1/No.2 would be anacronistic.

I would like to know everyones thoughts on the above before I proceed though.

Graham1973 (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Good work; I suggest a passing admin give you WP:Autopatrolled status. I you're comfortable doing so, please also create a Wikidata entry for each new article. Let me know if you'd like me to show you how. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am planning to search up some additional sources for the String Quartet No. 1 (Dvořák) article, when I do this I plan to change the referencing format to match the articles I've created so far. Does anyone have any objections?Graham1973 (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Assistance wanted with Violin Sonata in D major, K. Deest (Attributed to Mozart)
This article has been completed, but I've had to leave the linkage to the score/critical report in the NMA because I don't understand exactly how to sort out the links, if anyone reads this and understands how to do so could they please add the links to the article. Graham1973 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Michael Bednarek for sorting that one out. Graham1973 (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Research Help wanted - Planned article on the Lalo Piano Quintet
I'm planning to tackle the Lalo A flat major "Fantaisie-quintette" composed around 1862 as my next chamber music article. From an intial websearch I've found that the work was in manuscript up until very recently and in fact the first recording was only released this year. Thankfully the label in question, Continuo Classics does make their liner notes available, so I should be able to write a basic article. But I would like to ask if anyone has access to biographical information/scholarly articles or even knowledge of online theses in English discussing the work to let me know where I can find them. I want to make the article as comprehensive as I can. Graham1973 (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Research Help wanted - Flute Sonata in B-flat major (Attributed to Beethoven)
I am currently accumulating information on this work, but my usual sources, dissertations and liner notes seem to be scarce on this piece. All I've so far been able to find out is that it was allegedly found amongst Beethovens papers after his death, was dated to the 1790s but was not published until 1906, but many of the intervening steps are missing. Can anyone point me to something online that I could use.


 * Planning to move on the Flute Sonata next, if anyone can find more details feel free to add them to the stub article when it is up.Graham1973 (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Lento for Strings
Have added Lento for Strings to this project after discovering one of the references is a page number without the details of the book(?) it came from. Will be linking the liner notes mentioned once I have located them.Graham1973


 * I've converted the references to the Chandos CD liner notes to Harvard ID formatting with a link to the notes at the Chandos website. I cannot do anything about the reference given as "Harris & Meredith, p.411" as the author of the article never bothered to give any details about where this comes from so I do need help on finding the book this comes from.

Graham1973 (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The unspecified source could be Malcolm Williamson: A Mischievous Muse by Anthony Meredith and Paul Harris, but we probably shouldn't assume this until someone can find a copy and check. --Deskford (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll see if I can find that book.Graham1973 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Still active
Just to let everyone know, this project is still active.Graham1973 (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Horn Trio (Brahms) - Reference fixup
I'm getting back into this project and noticed that the reference section has several "page number needed" tags dating from 2011, there is also a comment on the talk page that at least one of the citations could not be found in an available online copy. I've managed to locate one of the books quoted on the Internet archive. However if I do update the references I'll be changing the reference section to a split "Notes/Sources" style similar to the articles I've already created, I would like a consensus on this last point before I proceed. Graham1973 (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the referencing and made some tweaks to the wording. I found most of the texts online and they are now linked. In the case of Geiringers book the two pages covering the Horn Trio (pp 231-232 in the 2009 edtion) are not available in the Google Books preview, so if anyone has a copy of that please feel free to confirm the missing page reference.Graham1973 (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments

 * For the Schubert compositions: I always like to see a link to the article on the composition in the Deutsch catalogue (alas in German, I haven't seen an on-line copy of any English-language version of the catalogue yet):
 * For D &rarr; https://archive.org/stream/FranzSchubert.ThematischesVerzeichnisSeinerWerkeInChronologischerFolge/SchubertDeutsch-verzeichnisDv#page/n284/mode/1up
 * For D &rarr; https://archive.org/stream/FranzSchubert.ThematischesVerzeichnisSeinerWerkeInChronologischerFolge/SchubertDeutsch-verzeichnisDv#page/n311/mode/1up
 * Also for both articles above I would like to see a Wikipedia article title without key signature, but with instrumentation (for recognizability):
 * Rondo for Violin and Strings, D 438 (Schubert) (which BTW also starts with an Adagio)
 * Adagio and Rondo concertante for Piano Quartet, D 487 (Schubert)
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it might be better to do these as major sections rather than as subsections of "Chamber Music Project"? They are never long, but making them subsections prevents them from being archived. Cheeers, --Stfg (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of ignoring the proposal until it's implemented and then reverting without saying why you disagree, please could you discuss. The way this is going, it looks as if this set of distinct things seems like it will never get archived. Some of these things are more than two months old. --Stfg (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They were grouped together because they all form part of the same personal project. Also I am still waiting for interested parties to reply on some of these topics. How do I spark someones interest if they have disappeared into the archive.Graham1973 (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not bothered either way (and couldn't be bothered by this sterile discussion). When Graham likes to keep it together that's fine by me. On the other hand: how about some response to content: I proposed name changes for two Schubert-related articles in this subsection, is that OK then? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend creating a page for your personal project, which can then record its progress, issues and discussion in perpetuo, and then making announcements of new undertakings here (in major sections), linking to that. Or even, since chamber music is such a huge subject, making a WikiProject Chamber Music, which could be a child project of this one. WikiProject talk pages are not well suited to serve as project organisation pages, precisely because they are needed to focus on current discussions. That's why they are regularly archived. --Stfg (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Graham, your section already dominates this page and as it expands this will get worse. This makes the page inconvenient to navigate and prejudices more recent entries (at the distant 'bottom' of the page. Perhaps even Francis might agree with this when he has overcome his irritation. If I (or Francis for that matter) were to maintain an open-ended section here including every article we had initiated, the situation would soon (and rightly) become intolerable to others. The solution proposed by Stfg giving each section a separate header, and which I executed, gets round this problem. If that doesn't suit, by all means create a chamber music project page (to which I shall be glad to contribute where appropriate) but don't please (in effect) monopolize this page with your priorities. --Smerus (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for the polite suggestion, if you could please advise on how to create a sub-project page I will be quite happy to do so.Graham1973 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see the logic why Graham should move elsewhere, for my part he's very welcome here. Maybe have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force, too much fragmentation in subprojects leads to stagnation.
 * I was happy to see the work on the Schubert Rondos here on this page, so that I could annex my suggestion to it. I still think that suggestion has more merit of receiving some response than this sterile discussion about something that is not bothering here at all, as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * - for someone who insists they are 'not bothered about' it, you seem very concerned to comment! You might also note that referring to those who disagree with you as carrying out a 'sterile discussion' risks being considered as WP:RUDE. The comments made by Stfg and myself are clearly in no way an imputation against Graham1973, they simply point out that the procedure he has undertaken (I am sure quite unwittingly) risks leaving this page full of cruft. As Graham apparently accepts this, and as you are 'not bothered', let's go ahead and find a system whereby live comments stay live, and others are archived. Dividing this section into separate headers (which Graham originally reverted) is a start to this - perhaps we can now do this again? (Please see also the paragrpah 'Section headings' here). In the meantime Graham can consider whether or not he wants to start a sub-project or a task force or whatever - I for one would be glad to participate in this.--Smerus (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * in the first place, please read what you're commenting on. Nobody has said that Graham should "move elsewhere". I encouraged Graham to "mak[e] announcements of new undertakings here (in major sections), linking to" whatever other page(s) he may wish to create to organise his project. As I read him, seems to second that. In the second place, it really doesn't help to maintain a collegiate atmosphere here if you pop up telling people that the discussions they initiate are sterile. The people who enter into those discussions presumably think they matter. How would you feel if someone were to opine that the issue of whether the Bach Magnificats should be treated as one article or two were sterile? In the third place, what Smerus said.


 * thanks for your kind reply to me and Smerus. I think the most important things are: to keep the specific discussions about each article on the talk page of that article, which makes is easier for people to see the consensus if they want to discuss possible changes later; and to advertise your work in whatever place will draw it to the attention of potential contributors. I think that's probably here (just now, this page has 188 watchers), so I'd go on posting your notifications here. Making them level-2 sections rather than level-3 is the only change I'm suggesting. Have you noticed that, when other editors have responded to these notifications, they've always done so within about 24 hours? I think that this will almost always be the case, so allowing the archiving to take it's course won't lose much, if anything. Archiving on this page takes place after 14 days. On occasions when you need something to stay live longer than this, you can always add an "any more comments?" message to keep it there for a while longer. A virtue of that approach is that the new ping will appear on watch lists.


 * Beyond discussing the specific articles and notifying us of article to look at / research for / etc, it's not clear to me what else you want to achieve. Is it a record of the status of articles within your project, or what? Depending on the answer to that, perhaps you might want to create a subpage of this talk page, or a page in your user space, and a page in some WikiProject space. But even so, still posting notifications and requests here, of course. Could you clarify its purpose, please? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Vom Himmel hoch
A suggestion to rename Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her to Vom Himmel hoch has been posted at Talk:Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her. If you want to weigh in on this, please do so there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Cello Sonata (Grieg) - Date of first performance/Performers need to be sorted out.
I've started gathering resources to expand this article, but I've hit a problem with the date/location/cellist.

Three sources give the date as 27 October 1883 in Leipzig with Julius Klengel as the cellist.

Others (Including the article) give the date as 27 October in Dresden (Or an unspecified location) with the cellists name being given as Ludwig Grützmacher/Friedrich Wilhelm Grützmacher/Friedrich Ludwig Grützmacher/Ludwig Gritzmacher.

I've listed the various sources on the articles talk page as I'd like help in uncovering more to sort this out. I've tried my usual online search for dissertations, but have not had much luck in this regard.

Graham1973 (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Quasi-template at Schubert piano sonatas
Apologies, I haven't been following the situation here. I just want to point out that the quasi-templates for the sonatas, giving different numberings, are really somewhat confusing. Alternate numbering systems are labelled 'AGA', '21 Sonatas', 'Wiener Urtext Edition' and '23 sonatas'. Of these, only the third is immediately intelligible to this reader, and that is only because I happen to know what the Wiener Urtext Edition is. There is no explanation of the term on Wikipedia as far as I can see.

The systems have hyperlinks which lead to the article List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert, or, in the case of 'AGA', to IMSLP. The latter gives the Breitkopf & Hartel/Dover listing - though as to why it is referred to as 'AGA' there is no explanation.

'21 sonatas' and 'Wiener Urtext Edition' lead to a note 'numbering of the piano sonatas as encountered on Schubert page at Classical Archives and Schubert's Piano Sonatas template at IMSLP, with divergent numbers from Wiener Urtext Edition added in square brackets.' This is very confusing, and does not explain why such sources offer numberings which should be regarded in any way as authoritative and/or encyclopaedic. The IMSLP listing is already given as a source for the numbering under the heading 'AGA'. Classical Archives is not an acceptable research source.

'23 sonatas' leads to the following note: ' numbering of the piano sonatas as encountered in Franz SCHUBERT: Catalogo delle composizioni at flaminioonline.it and Franz Schubert Catalogue: 610 - Oeuvres pour piano at musiqueorguequebec.ca'. This as above is rather confusing and does not explain or establish why such sources offer numberings which should be regarded in any way as authoritative and/or encyclopaedic. I cannot understand why the Italian and Canadian sites should be offered, or recognised, as acceptable sources.

I don't think in the circumstances these templates clarify the situation at all, since they (and the links which they contain) do not even establish on a proper citation basis that the numbers given correspond to any actuality of usage. The non-expert reader coming across these quasi-templates will be utterly mystified.

In addition I point out that the format and placement of these quasi-templates is itself rather confusing, appearing as they do under the heading 'External links' (which they are not). Can the design not be refashioned so that it is clearly a template like others?

I suggest therefore that the best thing would be to withdraw these quasi-templates until they are properly sourced and sorted out.--Smerus (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that those "succession boxes" are confusing and against the guideline at WP:NAVBOX. Linking to external sites from a footer box is against several guidelines, and linking to footnotes in other articles is too convoluted to be a useful navigation tool. If there are competing numbering systems, they could be explained in a plain note in each article which might link to a more in-depth discussion elsewhere. Succession boxes have generally attracted some criticism for their extraordinary use of space and frequent duplication of existing navigation boxes on the same page. This applies here too, as we already have the more helpful navigation template Schubert piano compositions. I think it was User:Francis Schonken who contributed these succession boxes; I suggest he be asked to remove them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Franz Schubert's Werke: Kritisch durchgesehene Gesammtausgabe (= Alte Gesamtausgabe = AGA): (see List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert)
 * For the rest I'm not sure whether I understand the criticism correctly: none of the numbering systems for the piano sonatas is authoritative, but all of them they are used. Wiener Urtext is a commercial enterprise of one publisher, none of the other publishers use that numbering of the sonatas. IMSLP has the AGA numbering (on the page where the AGA link goes to), but uses another numbering for their piano sonata pages (which, BTW, is not the Wiener Urtext numbering although both have 21 numbered sonatas). Wikipedia has 23 solo piano sonata articles, so the "helpful" Schubert piano compositions uses these, but this numbering is only sometimes used on recordings etc. Because all of this is confusing (see e.g. lenghty discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 54), there are the succession boxes to help you out, which, BTW, are not "quasi" templates, but actual templates.
 * So no, I see no reason to remove any of these succession boxes... Maybe the links could be kept internal and the explanations when clicking a link a bit more direct, etc. but none of this indicates succession boxes wouldn't be a good way to handle such confusing situation. The basic reasoning is: on a concert program, or on a CD, or a website, or in a book, or by a radio speaker, a piano sonata is indicated by a number (which they very often are but usually without indicating in which numbering system) &rarr; Wikipedia helps to navigate to the article on the sonata that was meant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Francis, this won't do. The purpose of non-text entities on an article page should be to clarify issues, not to complicate them. A look at the guidelines WP:NAVBOX, as suggested by Michael Bednarek, will make some of our reservations clear. But just in case I was insufficiently clear in my initial remarks - You don't explain anywhere, (and certainly not in the links in the quasi-templates), what these different numberings mean or give any reference source for the numberings. You don't even explain what the abbreviation AGA stands for, nor do you explain for the casual reader what the Wiener Urtext Edition is. You must remedy this if you expect to make a case for the quasi-templates to remain. By the way, as they are not in  format, they are indeed quasi-templates by WP standards. And, lastly, they are confusing in the way they are placed on the page, which classifies them as an external link. So please take note of the good-faith comments made by myself and Michael Bednarek, and rectify these additions to the pages. If they cannot be rectified, I will initiate a discussion proposing their removal. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've put nowiki tags round in your post above as it was transcluding something strange and putting the TOC out of position. I'm not sure what you intended, but I'm sure that wasn't it. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ta, - have made further adjustment - am still recovering from last night's sliwowitz....--Smerus (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * the template is s-lit (applied as explained in the documentation of that template)
 * true, I'll make time ASAP to give a better explanation of the terms
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * see also WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * see also Sonatas, duos and fantasies by Franz Schubert, where I'd explain the AGA abbreviation etc. now, and link the succession boxes to. Note that that page didn't exist yet when I originally built the succession boxes series, but it seems a better place to give the full explanation now (... needs more refs etc. too). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Francis!--Smerus (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Since none of the numberings are a universal standard, why not have be just neutrally ordered by Deutsch number, and leave the discussion of the numbering controversy to the main articles on the sonatas involved? Double sharp (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that'a very sensible idea and would support it - what do others think?--Smerus (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A problem with that is that some sonatas are combinations of two or more Deutsch numbers, the result would be even messier, recognizability plunging. So no, not a good idea for Schubert's solo piano sonatas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but does anyone really call the F-sharp minor sonata "D 571/604/570"? Wiener Urtext just calls it "D 571" on the title page. The preface to the Henle Urtext edition uses "D 571/604/570", "D 613/612", and "D 625/505" the first time but then switches to just "D 613" and "D 625" on later occurrences ("D 571" doesn't get mentioned again). Also there is disagreement on exactly which movements belong: is D 346 the finale of D 279? Just what is the relationship between D 459 and D 459A? Does the third movement of D 566 actually belong to that sonata? Is D 600/610 part of D 613?
 * I think a sensible way to resolve all these problems is to just use the numbers on Wiener Urtext's title pages, because those are for movements everyone agrees are part of the sonatas: thus (154), 157, (277A), 279, 459, 537, 557, 566, 568, 571, 575, 613, 625, (655), 664, (769A), 784, 840, 845, 850, 894, 958, 959, 960. (That would also remove the non-chronological silliness of the present numbering system where 769A is placed between 459 and 537!) Inclusion issues can be mentioned on the relevant pages (in particular, discussion about 459A should probably be on 459). Double sharp (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe use a sandbox to show us what this would result in? Sorry for not producing the further explanations about the numberings yet, was occupied here, will get to it ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

How's this?

We could perhaps also put D 655 and D 769A (the uncompletable fragments) in their own category, and somehow mark off the completable unfinished sontas.

(BTW, if we don't dignify D 154 with a separate place on the list, why do we do so for D 567/568? Both are early versions of other sonatas – D 157 and D 568 respectively – and it might be easier to just cover them as earlier stages of development of the final versions.) Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. If you want a detailed template that covers only the sonatas, I recently expanded the IMSLP template: scores:Template:Piano_Sonatas_(Schubert,_Franz). (I also typesetted a new edition for D 769A from the autograph and uploaded it to IMSLP; previously it was missing.) I could try to get the numbering changed, as it is illogical that D 655 gets a number there but D 769A doesn't, but it should be an OK illustration as it is. Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re. your PS BTW question:
 * D and D  direct to the same article;
 * D and D  direct to different articles
 * So the question is really whether Piano Sonata in D-flat major, D 568 (Schubert) and Piano Sonata in E-flat major, D 568 (Schubert) should be separate pages? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Double sharp (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There is incidentally also a 20-sonata numbering system that you can find in Nineteenth-Century Piano Music (chapter 4, The Piano Works of Schubert by Eva Badura-Skoda), and also in the liner notes for Paul Badura-Skoda's recording of Schubert's sonatas on period instruments. This listing is exactly the same as the Wiener Urtext 21-sonata listing, except that D 567/D 568 is treated as just one sonata (and so all the later sonatas get bumped down by one). Double sharp (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Study Request
Hello Wikipedians of WikiProject Classical music!

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Thank you very much! PanicSA (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The relevent research page can be found at meta:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects Md gilbert (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Bach's Magnificat(s)
Johann Sebastian Bach made several versions of the same Magnificat: I think it is best to treat Bach's Magnificat on one page, Magnificat (Bach), instead of treating it on two pages (BWV 243a/BWV 243) for the obvious overlap when the basic 12 movements of the Magnificat are described.
 * A version in E-flat major without Christmas additions (BWV 243a, 12 movements)
 * A version in E-flat major with Christmas additions (BWV 243a, 12 + 4 movements)
 * A version in D major without Christmas additions (BWV 243, same 12 movements as other versions, with minor differences in orchestration etc. – this is the best known version)

Prior discussion: see links provided in archive. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course! That sounds prudent to me. We should include all information about the three versions in one article, not two. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Templates IMSLP and IMSLP2
Someone put a note on these templates that they are being considered for a merger. Unfortunately, the note shows up on all the article pages where the templates are used. I would fix this myself, but, alas, I know not how. Can one of the techy honchos here fix this? tnx, --Ravpapa (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The note is there to attract comments to the discussion, that's fortunate. The sooner it can be decided, the sooner the note goes away. Go discuss. Same for infobox musical composition, as in Herr Gott, dich loben wir, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It certainly attracts attention, but it also distracts users and must be mystifying for those who don't know what's going on. That's distinctly unfortunate. If I could find out what happened here (and Gerda Arendt perhaps knows), I would seek to revert it. Surely this sort of juggling about, clever as it is, still need consensus according to WP practice?--Smerus (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It comes automatically with every nomination for deletion or merge of a template, and I would not know any better way to inform those who deal with the templates. I bet it has met approval when applied, no idea when but I remember to have seen it long ago. Repeating: go and discuss so that they can be closed. Two simple questions: Do we need two templates for IMSPL? (I say no.) Can hymns be treated as musical compositions? (I say yes, look here also.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I just hadn't come across it before.--Smerus (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is policy, it is certainly one of the more idiotic ones I have encountered in my life. Probably 50,000 people read articles with those templates every day; of those, maybe one is interested in a technical discussion about mergers. Everyone else is just confused. I have raised the issue at Village pump (policy)/Archive 117. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking about templates, I'd like to make one that points to a database. I haven't found a good explanation of how to set it up. Can someone point me to a page(s) where template creation is discussed in depth?  Thanks! kosboot (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That page starts with very simple examples and jumps to a very complex one. I was hoping for something else that has a more graded approach to complexity. kosboot (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant, as a place were your questions may be answered more adequately. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Music studies in Vienna
We have Vienna Conservatory, Konservatorium Wien (just moved to Conservatory of Vienna, for more confusion), Vienna Academy of Music, etc., who is who? Am I the only one confused? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we need a navbox of "musical institutions in Austria (or Vienna)"? I suppose I am in the minority here, but I really dislike Anglicized names for foreign institutions.  In musicological literature they almost never translate the names of schools.  Translating them on Wikipedia make them that much more difficult to find. kosboot (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be in the same minority ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * English translations of institution names are maybe OK if they are used by the institutions themselves and can thus be regarded as official in some way. In this case though the Konservatorium Wien seems to call itself that even in the English-language section of its website, and so should we. If we make up our own translated name we run the risk of confusion with other similarly named institutions. I find similar confusion often arises with names of orchestras where there are more than one orchestra in the same city or region and we attempt to translate their names. --Deskford (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Would someone please move back to Konservatorium, for the moment. (The new user came to my talk and said they understood.) I did it once and am on voluntary 1RR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see the article has already been moved back and forth a few times, so this should probably be done properly with the formal requested move process. --Deskford (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How would you deal with Chinese, Russian or Japanese institutions? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess if they have an article in English they have a name in English. Nothing wrong with using an English name for an Austrian institution if they have one, but Konservatorium Wien doesn't have one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) That's a good question. I guess we can never be entirely consistent about this, and we won't always agree on which languages are familiar enough to drop into English language text without translation. For me, the key would be to see (a) what the institution calls itself in English publicity such as the English language section of its website if it has one, or failing that (b) what other reliable sources in English call it. I think we should avoid making up names for institutions by translating their names ourselves. --Deskford (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This version of the Vienna Conservatory page lists four institutions with articles. Three of the institutions have Konservatorium in their name, and the other one once did too. So confusion will continue to reign if we insist on calling any one of them "Vienna Conservatory" or "Conservatory of Vienna". Two of the institutions are now defunct, and their article titles already use the German name. The two extant institutions both have English versions of their home pages (, then click the link at the top right), and both English home pages use the German names, not any English ones. If we agree that we should prefer not to invent an English name if the institution itself doesn't define one, then the logical thing to do here would be to title the articles of all four of these articles with their German names and to restore Vienna Conservatory to the disambiguation version linked above, but with the German name for the university. The name Vienna Conservatory is, I think, slightly more natural to a native English speaker than is Conservatory of Vienna, so I would suggest making the latter a redirect to the former. --Stfg (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I generally like this idea. But in my cynical way of looking at things, when I find that a German institution has an English language page with an English name, I tend to think it is pandering to mono-lingual English speakers.  Again I may be in the minority—or in the minority of the minority—but I think that if an institution is generally named by it's (for example) German name in most secondary literature (which is what WP is based upon), we should use that name, and not the newly-invented English name created for a website. kosboot (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I beleive the guideline should be how the institution refers to itself in English. If it professes (e.g. on its website) a recognized English title, there can be no reasonable objection to using that as it its article title. That is, regardless as to whether it is sometimes, or often, referred to in secondary literature by its native language title. Thus, the Konservatorium  at Vienna refers to itself as 'Konservatorium Wien' on its English website - so that should be the title of the article. The Nemzeti Filharmonikusok (e.g.) calls itself the Hungarian National Philharmonic, and that is rightly its title on English WP.--Smerus (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories for spurious and doubtful works
The naming scheme decided at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 55 is up for discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 17. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)