Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:32, 2 May 2013

Abbreviations

A centralised discussion about the use of abbreviations for this box has been held here. --Kleinzach 04:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The consensus of the discussion was that the abbreviations of instrument names should not be used in the info box. So I've removed the abbreviations from the template documents. --Kleinzach 08:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Instead, you inserted in the documentation an "example" that is not a good example, because it doesn't follow the instruction "For parameters with multiple values, use {{plainlist}} (displays one per line) or {{flatlist}} (displays on one line).". It is also not consistent between example code and example shown. - I believe that internationally understood abbreviations are the better way to Wikidata. For better understanding, I advise to look at the history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added {{Flatlist}} to the example code and to the example infobox in the doc. 13:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the abbreviations are "internationally understood" and therefore appropriate. Apart from assuming highly specialised knowledge with no links to the actual instrument indicated in the hovering text (which in many cases is at odds with the way the instruments are named and described in the article text), the abbreviations in the infoboxes and in List of Bach cantatas vary considerably from those used in various publishers' abbreviation systems (which in turn often vary between each other). For example you use "Oa" for "oboe d'amore", but most other systems seem to use "Oda". You abbreviate "tromba da tirarsi" as "Tt" when others use "Tdt", etc., etc. Voceditenore (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a mere WP:USEENGLISH issue. Not a reason to avoid abbreviations. And if there is a debate within the music community, that's what wikilinking to the full name article is for. Montanabw 21:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Other issues

There are still some issues with this template in terms of clarity for the reader based on the example given. It seems very confusing and potentially misleading to anyone who isn't already very familiar with Bach cantatas in general and this one is particular.

1. How is the reader to know that number(s) inside parenthesis accompanying some fields, refer to the number of a specific movement? Or does it? in the "Movements" field (7, 7), seems to mean that the 14 movements are in two parts of seven each.
2. The text and author fields are confusing. Why is Bible a separate field like this with no indication that this means the words are from the Bible? The value "Psalms 19:1,3 (1)" seems to say that the Bible is used only for the first movement. What about the other movements apart from the Chorales?
3. The "Chorale" field is also confusing. It's not clear that this field refers to the author of the words used for the chorale.

Voceditenore (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am happy about constructive questions to the template and hope that a few changes just made improve it, and that other questions will find a solution.

2. I changed the order of showing the text sources to "text, Bible, chorale" (from Bible, text, chorale), additionally linked the word "Text" to the passage in the general article Bach cantata, which explains that the typical Bach cantata draws on these 3 sources. For most cantatas, a contemporary author wrote a text, often (but not always) including Bible and/or chorale, - only very few cantatas are exclusively chorale text. The author is thus responsible for the layout and the "other movements". (For works on text other than cantatas, the parameter "text" should be used, to avoid that specific link, but those are only few.)

1. I would be interested in a good, uncluttered way to clarify that the number in brackets is the movement number. For "number of movements", I changed from a comma to a +, hoping that is clear enough.

3. In "chorale": if there's an article, that will be shown, otherwise its author is the next best help, I think.

I installed two more parameters, "vocal" and "instrumental", because in keeping with having the soloists form the choir, a parameter "choir" might be misleading. BWV 76 uses that format, to be discussed.

I have no more time right now, not even to change the documentation. About the instruments: the individual instruments give a cantata profile and should be visible. (It makes a difference if there's one viola part, sounding like a string quartet, or two, like a string quintet.) - I thought abbreviations would be the least cluttering way. If that is not acceptable, lets find a different way. I wrote a list in BWV 76, as an example to be discussed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What about allowing an in-article link to the section about instrumentation/scoring? That seems a less-bad solution than a long list of potentially confusing terms. It's very unclear what the function of your two new parameters is - could you clarify that when you have time? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it a "better than nothing," but not ideal, not all articles will always be complete, yes, a scoring section belongs in any good article, but doesn't mean it will be there. See my comparison to mineral infobox below. Where there is less than a full orchestra, the details of instrumentation are very relevant. Obviously if someone doesn't want to or know how to add them, the section stays blank until someone else CAN add the material... but to go the other way just weakens the usefulness of the infobox. Montanabw 21:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Parameters in comparison

After input from the people who think readers will be irritated by abbreviations, and my own thoughts about Bach not distinguishing between solo and choir singing, I propose a few parameters, listed in the documentation, open for discussion. As an example, I take BWV 76, which serves as the example in the documentation anyway. There it has many more parameters than in reality, to show the possibilities.

The template is for Bach's works in general, but the following treats only cantatas. My understanding is that they are shaped by up to three sources of text (contemporary poetry, Bible quotation, chorale) and by singing - solo and together - with instruments.

Text:

Scoring: if you look at the List of Bach cantatas, you see that the instruments are the most varied part that give a cantata a certain profile. I hope that we can find a way to reflect that in the infobox.

In the article we have at present a reduced version that tells the reader about nothing, if you ask me. It includes a link within the article to the scoring section which is against the MOS for infoboxes, and it invents a term SATB group, that is not supported by the article, nor did I ever hear such a term:

In the example we had when I wrote this:

I propose to combine the voices,as Bach didn't distinguish solo and choir:

By abbreviating the instruments we might have (I confess that I like that best, it says "instrumental" as the present version say "instruments", and adds content at a glance for those who want to know more.):

Please discuss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Using the abbreviations would be against the project consensus, and including the long lists would be against both MOS:INFOBOX and your own previous arguments. Your proposed "vocal" section includes separate entries for solo voices and the group of singers, but doesn't distinguish between them nor explain which is which - another point of confusion. I think if you really must have instruments in the box, the link to scoring is the best way to do it. It is against guidelines too, but in a less egregious and more productive way than the lengthy and confusing lists. Or we could omit them entirely, for simplicity. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What "project consensus?" Consensus, if any happens to exist, can always be changed. Linking to the scoring section is a klunky solution, as not all articles will have such sections (the start and stubs often will not) A word like "insturments" is totally meaningless. The point I am trying to make here is that abbreviations are common in technical markup for many disciplines (my example of infobox mineral being just one). IF there are problems with instrumentation abbreviations, then wikilinks to the article about the instrument or family of instruments solves that problem. Linking an article to itself does not. Montanabw 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Vocal: not distinguishing between solo and "choir" is what Bach did, likely the same singers did both, repeated in many modern performances. I believe that the link to SATB serves as an explanation, but am open to suggestions. - I am all for simplicity, but the scoring section is the one place in the infobox where the music plays. Just saying "instruments" ignores that Bach selected them carefully and in variety, many of them have solo function. The highly unusual appearance of trumpet and viola da gamba in one piece should show, if you ask me, it defines the character of the piece. - Why should we replace one exception from the guidelines by another, which doesn't serve the "at a glance" idea of the infobox? - Compromise: what do you think of combining the two: listing the instruments abbreviated (short, simple) and link that whole entry to the scoring section of the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, there is already a strong consensus at the project to not use the abbreviations - that's not an option. As for the vocal, it currently appears as "S A T B - SATB" - an uninformed reader is going to be confused by the repetition and won't understand what you're trying to do, and the SATB link doesn't help because it says that SATB may represent either soloists or choir. If you want to suggest that the soloists and group are the same thing, then why have two SATBs at all? And if you want to say they're different things, then why not say so explicitly? You can't assume that your readers will understood compositional conventions or what you mean to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And there clearly is no consensus. See my expansion on this above. Montanabw 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is one example, with four solo parts. In many cases there are only three (BWV 103) or two (BWV 134a) or one (BWV 82), sometimes four parts sing together, sometimes not, that should show. - Did you notice that the abbreviations are linked to the full text? - I am happy with the complete list unabbreviated, if you think that is the better option. I am not happy with a plain "instruments" because it disregards the important function of single instruments that are quite as important as the vocal soloists.

ps: define "strong consensus": I invite everyone who hasn't done so to read the interesting discussion of 7 or so participants, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A project consensus carries no more weight than an essay written by an individual author. This has been pointed out more than once previously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• SATB is a standard abbreviation and it links to an article that explains its meaning to an uninformed reader. The idea that someone would be repelled by the use of a standard abbreviation to the point where they would not click on the link to find out what it means is, I think, unlikely. The idea that the corresponding article fails to enlighten is also misleading, I think, since it tells readers what the abbreviation stands for and the details (soloist vs. choir) are there in the article itself. Readers of Misplaced Pages regularly encounter terms and acronyms with which they are unfamiliar. And while stylistic best practices might mitigate against the use of abbreviations, I think in this case it can be justified on grounds of space. So, in sum, I think SATB is fine. As an aside, I appreciate Gerda's extensive work on the Bach Cantata series. Eusebeus (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• My reference to "abbreviations" above was regarding the instruments, not the vocal parts. But if people can click on links for more information, then link the instruments to the scoring section. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And, as noted above, internal linking within an article is klunky and poor form. The "baroque instruments" or "Bach's insturmentation" fix might be one long-term solution, but so is linking to the individual articles on the instruments. Montanabw 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How would you like the following for vocal parts of some examples: --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to see you now accept the use of the word "choir". However, why use "A" when there's only a single voice? The letter has less meaning when not in the context of SATB. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean you think it irrelevant that a soloist is an alto?? Montanabw 21:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. I mean if people just see the letter A, they are unlikely to understand that a soloist is an alto. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an important point. 'A' for alto is a silly abbreviation. It saves negligible space and signals that the box (and implicitly the article itself) is for specialist readers. --Kleinzach 22:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Link it to Alto. Simple. There is a tension between writing an article so it sounds like it is written by people who know the topic yet is accessible to non-experts, but dumbing things down isn't the way to do it, this is the equivalent of saying the H₂O should not be linked to water but instead say, "two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Montanabw 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, "accept choir". I introduced it, see example in the docu, I dropped it for brevity, I re-added it as better than "group", but would still prefer brevity. What I accept is to spell out a single voice in a solo cantata, done for BWV 54. It is not between you and me, I make suggestions to be discussed by hopefully a few more people than seven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no universal consensus against technical abbreviations in infoboxes. Wikilinks are a beautiful thing, allowing more content in less space. Note Template:Infobox mineral where there are some things spelled out, but also a LOT of highly technical abbreviations I don't understand. Learning about those things is part of what makes an encyclopedia educational. Dumbing down things is of no help, and I see that being advocated here. To just say "instruments" is really absurd and of no help, Rock bands have "instruments" Here, anything over a string quartet will need to be truncated to fit. So let's do it. Montanabw 21:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Wikilinks are a beautiful thing" - exactly the point. Link to the section where the instrumentation is discussed and where the reader can learn about it in detail and in context, and avoid a long and confusing list requiring multiple clicks to decode. Other templates being inaccessible is not a reason for us to do the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, Template:Infobox mineral, ], most of the sciences. Technical language is unavoidable, the trick is to balance it by linking. Montanabw 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

New day. In some of the examples above, I took the liberty not to use the template Bach composition but a similar one, to avoid three lines of heading each time. My premise is the following:

• The infobox should reflect the content of the article.
• For Bach's cantatas, the specific scoring is a vital part of the article that has to show.

What do you think of linking to the explanation of the abbreviations in the same line (if you think that readers will not find it in "Scoring"? - I don't have to repeat that a link to the respective section in the article does not serve the function to show the content IN the infobox, right? I don't have to repeat that the scoring is a vital fact that has to appear, the question is how best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to repeat that there's still a consensus against the abbreviations, right? Or that it's unclear to readers why SATB appears twice? And having a link needed for abbreviations is still a link elsewhere to explain the content. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

So fix the template and agree on style to at least some degree, don't throw out the abbreviations, you are making a green cheese argument here. Montanabw 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"SATB twice", I thought that was solved by adding "choir", no? - Abbreviations: I was guided by the remark from the original discussion: "IMO this goes against one of the most basic rules of publishing — that you should define abbreviations first before using them.", which tells me it's ok to use them if they are explained. I tried here to offer such an explanation right where the abbreviations are used. (Very strictly following: the parenthesis could appear before the abbreviations.) I am open to a good solution to include the single instruments in a infobox without abbreviations, but haven't seen it so far. The full list is very long and contains terms such as "tromba" that are also not easily understood by the average reader. - It's a difference if a link helps to understand the content, or if it replaces the content. The version of a general "instruments" with a link to the article section excludes the instruments from the infobox and thus doesn't reflect the specific content of the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"I don't have to repeat that there's still a consensus against the abbreviations, right?" Please don't; since no such consensus has been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Below is a suggestion for links from names or abbreviations. What do you think? My first thought is to prefer abbreviations, because then we don't have to decide English name or Italian name in the infobox, but can give both in that article. Sure, Fg abbreviates fagotto, but bassoon would be better known. Lets assume the article to be written, Baroque instruments, had a heading "Fg" for that instrument, how should the code look for a link from an abbreviation of that name? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Instrument suggestion

I'm creating a break here as this section above is very long, and so is the comment I'm going make. :). I can see the arguments for having the scoring listing the individual instruments in the infobox. I can also see the arguments for using abbreviations for the instruments. But, and this is a big "but" they have to be clear to the reader. These are the problems I see with several of the features proposed.

• Inconsistent and potentially confusing use of Italian and English words for the instruments (either as hovering text or as a spelled out word). Why use "violino" when you are referring to a "violin"? Is this because Bach always used the Italian words in his scores? If that isn't made clear, then the general reader may assume that a "violino" is a completely different instrument from a violin. Why use "flauto" when you are referring to a "recorder"?
• Inconsistent abbreviations. The abbreviations in the infoboxes and in List of Bach cantatas vary considerably from those used in various publishers' abbreviation systems (which in turn often vary between each other). Some of them seem invented. For example you use "Oa" for "oboe d'amore", but most other systems seem to use "Oda". You abbreviate "tromba da tirarsi" as "Tt" when others use "Tdt", etc., etc. Thus, they aren't transparent even to expert readers.
• Inconsistency between the article text, List of Bach cantatas, and the infobox. Gerda, I understand your problems with modern instruments of the same name not being quite what they were in Bach's day. You mentioned elsewhere that you don't want to list "taille" in the infobox because the general reader doesn't know that it was a type of tenor oboe. Ditto "flauto piccolo" because the reader might think it's a piccolo, etc. But the confusion just grows and grows. For example, in List of Bach cantatas#Abbreviations, "flauto piccolo" is indeed linked to "piccolo".

Here's an example of inconsistency and confusion at Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140:

The infobox gives the scoring as:

Co (hover text = "corno"), 2Ob (hover text = "oboe" Oc (hover text = "oboe da caccia"), 2Vl (hover text = "violino", Va (hover text = "viola", Vp (hover text = "violino piccolo"), Bc (hover text = "basso continuo")

But the article text gives the scoring as:

"horn, 2 oboes, taille (an instrument similar to the oboe da caccia, today often replaced by an English horn), violino piccolo, two violins, viola, and basso continuo."

The word "corno" used in the infobox is not mentioned at all and has been replaced by "horn". The word "taille" is introduced in the article text and described as only similar to the "oboe da caccia" which is what is used in the infobox, and "violin" is used when "violino" is used in the infobox.

A possible solution. Obviously, this would take a bit of time, but I think it would really pay off in the long term, and would be a valuable addition to Misplaced Pages. Write Bach's instruments, a detailed list article which describes in some detail the instruments used in Bach's music, what he called them, and how they vary from the modern versions of those instruments or indeed from completely different instruments which now use that name. In other words, explain what Bach meant (or what scholars think he meant) by a "corno", "flauto piccolo", "clarino", "taille", "violino", "violetta", "lituo", etc. Then link each abbreviation (or spelled out instrument) in the infoboxes directly to the relevant section of that article. You eliminate the need for hovering text and the need to link to List of Bach cantatas#Abbreviations, which simply makes reader jump through multiple extra hoops. But, do cross-check anyway to make sure that List of Bach cantatas#Abbreviations is consistent with the new article. Voceditenore (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach which - as you said - will take some time. I can't start right away, also I am no expert, I will need help. Thanks for the link for lituo! Thanks for pointing out inconsistencies. I didn't make the table but took it from the German Misplaced Pages, therefore can't answer some of your questions. Let's make it a collaboration please. Perhaps it could be Baroque instruments? Bach had some specialities, but other composers of the period used mainly the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I think the article should concentrate specifically on Bach and the words he used for the instruments in his scores. It serves a special need, especially considering that you seem to want to continue using Italian words for the instrument names, e.g. "violino" instead of "violin" in the abbreviations, "flauto" instead of "recorder", etc. and I assume this is because those are the words that he specifically used. Other composers, even of the same period, may not have used the same words or meant the same thing when they did you use the same word. Also, there has been a lot of scholarly work done specifically on the instruments that Bach used and what he meant by the words he used in the scores, e.g. , , , , , , to list a few. I could help you a bit on the article, particularly with the sourcing, but I'm not an expert on this stuff at all. That's why I don't write articles on Bach's music.

I know a bit about the very basic "mechanics" of music, and am used to reading articles on musical criticism, but I find the current infoboxes and their inconsistencies, both confusing and sometimes downright mystifying. We shouldn't be doing that to our readers. Until the article gets written. I think a good start would be to directly link each abbreviation to the WP article that comes closest to the instrument it represents. A (better?) alternative would be to put anchor links to each abbreviation in List of Bach cantatas, in the same way that allows Acte de ballet to link to the relevant cell in List of opera genres. The current use of hovering text in Italian combined with a general link to the abbreviations in List of Bach cantatas causes more problems than it solves. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with your fundamental premises of 1) scoring listing the individual instruments in the infobox, 2) using abbreviations for the instruments, and 3) to be clear to the reader. That said, wikilinking abbreviations is at least a short term solution. However, creating multiple instrument list articles might be cumbersome, but another might be to create a list or glossary of "classical instruments" - names, variants and abbreviations - for ALL of the major orchestra instruments, at least, so "violin" is listed with all variants seen, whether Italian, German or English, for example. That way, the list of instruments could use the abbreviations common to a given composer or composition, then link to the list once complete. Would that work? Montanabw 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that could work too in the even longer term, but it's an even bigger and more exhaustive job. That's why I suggested a more limited and clearly explicated Bach instruments article. Especially, because scholars are still debating what he meant by the various terms. Note that a lot of the instruments being abbreviated in Infobox Bach composition are not major orchestra instruments at all, many of them are no longer used, some are only available as reconstructions and used by period instrument orchestras. Voceditenore (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point there, but I would note that when a whole wikiproject dives in, a glossary can go up in no time at all; we had glossary of equestrian terms up in about two weeks in raw form, though the details, as always, continue to be tweaked, the only rule we had was to source as you go if at all possible. Montanabw 21:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion and I think it shows an awareness of where the problems lie with the information on the instruments. It's important that we are as clear as possible about these issues and this makes it all the more important to avoid abbreviations. The idea that abbreviations make text look more authoritative is fallacious. In any case, the use of abbreviations has been recently rejected by WP:CM. Kleinzach 22:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no such "recently rejected" consensus there, I just see the same three people having the same argument over there. Montanabw 16:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Three? There are two people expressing support for the abbreviations there (you and Gerda), and five against (Smerus, Kleinzach, me, DavidRF, Voceditenore). A previous discussion saw Gerda supporting again, and a further oppose (Brambleclawx). That adds up to more than three participants, and more than a supermajority opposed. This is at least the second time you've made a clearly incorrect statement about the discussion; please be more careful. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Instrument links

I suggest we can start like this: we create articles such as Trumpet (Bach), Oboe (Bach), that we use consistently in the infoboxes with this template. Such an article can be first a redirect to trumpet, later changed to a redirect to the planned article on Bach's instruments. I can't help that some instruments have an Italian name even in English, such as oboe d'amore, others don't. In text, I prefer to use the English name, as did those who wrote on Bach's cantatas before me. In the example, I created trumpet and showed how oboe would be used. I didn't find a history section in trumpet and find a bit confusing that Baroque trumpet shows an "invention" of the 20th century. Please discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of music defines a 'Bach trumpet' as a 19th century instrument in D, "specially made (with valves) to play high tpt. parts in works of baroque period. Ravel, Stravinsky, and Britten have included it in certain scores, and Maxwell Davies wrote a sonata for it." I think you need to be careful when titling these articles. Have you checked Grove on these instruments? Kleinzach 12:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

To add to the confusion, there's already a Bach trumpet page which redirects to Piccolo trumpet which is about the instrument Kleinzach is describing. There's also Natural trumpet which could be relevant. And there's Slide trumpet which has a section on the tromba da tirarsi. I'm not sure I see the point of the placeholder pages. Perhaps it would just be better to link the instruments in the infobox directly to the best current WP page (or section thereof) leave it at that. Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Who am I to say what this "best current page" is. I don't want to be the one who changes about 200 articles when the "best current page" on violin changes to another. The placeholder here was only to make the example work. I started a page on the instruments in user space, but I will need more time. Can you imagine the links going there? - Anyway, I applied the advice to link the instruments directly, as shown here, much better than the general version it replaced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been commenting here (life's too short), but I want to disspell Voceditenore's doubt about the usefulness of linking to redirects for obscure instruments: those REDIRECTs might turn into articles one day, and until then they give an indication how often a tromba da tirarsi is linked, so I think they are very useful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)