Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:03, 14 March 2021

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

• WT:CM

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81

This page has archives. Sections older than 50 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Deletion discussion of Busoni's list of repertoire pieces

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni. Please participate in the discussion there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: <score> broken_broken-2021-01-24T16:38:00.000Z">

This is a six-month follow-up to the archived topic <score> broken.

The <score> element was initially expected to be broken for three days but has in fact been broken for over six months. This is due to T257066 Extension:Score / Lilypond is disabled on all wikis, which depends on several issues marked as "Restricted Task". Given that this outage has continued for over six months with little or no public movement, can we conclude that the <score> outage will continue indefinitely and therefore begin to make plans to transition from <score>? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)_broken"> _broken">

Comment. I was never really a fan of <score>. Music notation is extremely intricate; producing high-quality results takes a lot of time and dedication. Just look at something like File:Chopin - Ballade No. 4 - M. 1-3.svg (which at one point combines four voices on a single stave): even using professional software like Dorico, it takes a lot of manual adjusting to get it to look right. While LilyPond can produce high-quality output, it may require manual tweaking to do so; using default engraving rules, LilyPond scores can be very ugly. And as you mentioned, <score> was never really a priority task for Wikimedia. SVG support has been proposed 8 years ago, and nothing has been done since. As a result, scores are an eyesore on high dpi displays. Not to mention the horrible support on Mobile. In summary: I would propose replacing <score> whenever high-quality engravings (preferably SVG or high-resolution PNGs) are available. They look better, don't clutter up the source, and work properly on mobile. intforce (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User adding many articles about women composers and promoting them widely

I'd like to get more opinions on the work of T. E. Meeks, a relatively new editor who has been embarking on a project to write many articles about women composers ... and has been promoting them very widely indeed; some of their edits have been very much concerning. Any thoughts would be appreciated at User talk:T. E. Meeks#Your edits. Graham87 05:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Jerome Kohl

Jerome Kohl, as you could read in the DYK section earlier today, was a music theorist, known internationally as an expert in the music of Karlheinz Stockhausen. As a Misplaced Pages editor, he handled that topic almost alone. Let's watch the articles, - it's quite a legacy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions

Recent discussions at the talk pages of the BWV 1 and BWV 53 articles lead me to a few questions:

1. Do we want extended lists of recordings of a composition in an article about a single composition? Is there any rule of thumb about how many recordings can be listed? If a work has only been recorded twice, then I don't think it would be problematic to mention these recordings in an article about that composition. If there are over hunderd recordings, then likely listing all recordings of the work should be split to a separate discography page. Where is limit? Maximum 10, or 25 or 50 or ...? Or are there other factors to consider?
2. What level of detail is desirable when listing recordings in an article about a composition, e.g. do we want to mention the title of a CD (which may contain other works, not relevant for the article on which the listed recording appears); mark recordings following historically informed performance practice as such or not? etc.

I find the current guidance at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Recordings rather unsatisfactory and think it is possibly time to update it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Giving an example of a recordings section which might need work (it is tagged for multiple issues): An Alpine Symphony#Recordings – was thinking about improving that section a few days ago, but lacking a clear view on what might be perceived as an improvement (and what not) I didn't get around to doing anything substantial there yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Good questions. As for the marking for historically informed performance (HIP): in some older list articles, there were two lists, one for common instruments, another for period instruments. When both were merged for sortability, the marking was done to indicate the difference that earlier editors found important, example Christmas Oratorio discography. More elegant solutions are welcome, or we can decide we don't need/want it. (What I don't want to do is find references now for something other editors wrote years ago, without citing any reference.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Am surprised that An Alpine Symphony even has that many recordings, thought it was a neglected Strauss tone poem. Some ideas:

1. We've had a long standing practice to provide opera discographies separately (and some major works such as Four Last Songs discography or Mahler Symphony No. 8 discography), and in general I think such a division makes sense as it addresses length complaints. Finding a specific cut off is tricky, 10 seems OK for a composition article. Maybe around 15, should a list be created. Alpine is looking like it should be split imo.
2. HIP recordings is a useful parameter, since that does make an awfully big difference in sound quality; though, it may be most useful when the a discography is close to, or is, evenly split between HIP and non-HIP recordings. I think title of CDs may be a little overkill, and while it could be helpful for identification/verifiability, in general, it may just take up unnecessary space. Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
   • Re. "Am surprised that An Alpine Symphony even has that many recordings, thought it was a neglected Strauss tone poem" – excellent argument to keep a more or less comprehensive list of recordings in the Alpine Symphony article. Here's the problem: sometimes there is no direct source saying that a composition, such as An Alpine Symphony is popular (or not), or often performed (or not), or neglected (or not). Yet, without reference to a reliable source, such information can not be conveyed in a Misplaced Pages article. In such case an overview of the discography (whether or not a more detailed discography exists in a separate article) can do the trick. Makes it clear without much further ado, and without the slightest bit of WP:OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Aza24's proposal of a split at aorund 15 seems reasonable, though anywhere in the region of 10+ could be resonably assumed to be within the discretion of an editor. Longer lists distort article length, and moreover separate articles appropriately enable additional text to create a more thorough context.--Smerus (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• An RfC relevant to this discussion has been opened at Talk:Schlage_doch,_gewünschte_Stunde,_BWV_53#RfC:_Inclusion_criteria_for_recordings_list. Input welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Recordings" vs. "discography"

The last !vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography made me think back to one of the underlying questions why I started this talk section: why, in the first place, would we make (extended) discographies about classical compositions? A discography focuses on releases (release dates, commercial identification numbers, release medium, etc.), while a description or listing of recordings rather concentrates on when the work was recorded, and characteristics of the recording. Illustrating:

References

1. ^ Miller, Philip L. (1955). The Guide to Long-Playing Music: Vocal Music. Alfred A. Knopf. p. 8.
2. Rössel-Majdan, Hilde; Scherchen, Hermann; Vienna State Opera Orchestra (1955). J.S. Bach: Cantates Nos. 170 "Vergnügte Ruh" – 53 "Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde" – 54 "Widerstehe doch" (LP). Ducretet Thomson. 320 CW 086. BnF 378636606 (audio samples available at Gallica). Also issued by Westminster, as LP (OCLC 4941250) and as CD (OCLC 919784157). {{cite AV media}}: External link in |postscript= (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)
3. ^ Friedman, Lawrence (7 April 2015). The Recordings of Hermann Scherchen. p. 3
4. BnF 378636606 (audio samples available at Gallica).
5. OCLC 4941250
6. OCLC 919784157

The recordings/discography distinction is in part semantic, but I think the question I want to ask is clear: do we want to concentrate on recording data or on release data when writing about or listing recordings or discographies of classical compositions? Concentrating on the first seems imho more relevant. Misplaced Pages is not a sales catalogue (as a policy requirement, see WP:NOTSALES), so taking focus away from record labels and commercial identification numbers seems pretty much OK to me. And the distribution medium specifications are losing relevance at the speed of light (except for a collector, but we're no sales catalogue for second-hand record collectors either), as more and more of these recordings become available as digitized sound files at Apple Music, Deezer, and similar streaming services. And for multi-edition multi-medium recording releases titles of the original and subsequent releases are often deceptive, unclear, and almost never quoted correctly in external databases. On the other hand, someone encountering a recording on a streaming service might come to Misplaced Pages, in the hope of learning more about what they are listening to: the Rössel-Majdan recording of the example above is a relatively slow performance of the work (etc) which may become clear if this and other recordings of the same work are described appropriately in Misplaced Pages. That would, I suppose, be much more enlightening for a listener of a performance of the work when coming to Misplaced Pages for more info, than obsolete commercial numbers, defunct record labels and the like.

The guidelines for discographies linked from the {{see also}} boilerplate at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Recordings are mostly focussed on release titles, release dates, and the like, which, I suppose, may work fairly well in pop music (etc), but seems imho to work less well for classical music recordings, that's why I think specific project guidelines would be much better than depending on this other discography guidance. Lastly, regarding the "embedded" or "separate page" issue: when recordings are listed with no surplus of release data in the table, this usually gives a slimmer table, so can contain more recordings for the same amount of place in the body of an article. For me, in that case, I wouldn't object to "slim" recordings lists of up to say 40 or 50 recordings in an article about the composition, without needing to create a separate discography article, per the !vote mentioned at the beginning of this subsection ("... discographies ... are certainly unencyclopedic"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Whew rather long, but yes, you are absolutely correct: most of what is on WP is a list of recordings, not proper discographers (and it annoys me that bootleg recordings are listed as if they were intentional recordings). In light of that, I think what you have as "Recordings" is acceptable. (I think what you list as "Discography" is also just a list because it lack accurate recording dates and various reissues.) - kosboot (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Recordings" is to be preferred, just as "References" is much better than "Bibliography". We don't aspire to completeness, & shouldn't imply that we do. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• I also would prefer Recordings, but vaguely remember that when I wrote my first and called it that, it was renamed by someone else (Kleinzach possibly). Years ago. We have many pages about opera recordings titled Discography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Compact tables

I'm a proponent of compact tables (see also example in OP of previous subsection), a further illustration:

References

1. ^ "J. S. Bach - Cantatas, Vol. 34 (BWV 1, 126, 127)". BIS. Retrieved 7 February 2021.
2. OCLC 811226000
3. OCLC 936410457

As above: a compact layout may set the bar a bit higher regarding from which number of recordings a separate discography page is indicated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

John Barcellona

I'm not sure this person is notable. It's been tagged for nine years. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bearian: after looking through the article, and online, I'm inclined to think they're not. However, they were nominated for a Grammy (see Criteria for musicians and ensembles #8), though coverage in reliable sources may be too lacking to support this. A good candidate for AFD I think, regardless. Aza24 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

New Project Page design

Wow, that was the most HTML I've done in a long time. Presenting my rough idea for what a better and more user friendly WikiProject page might look like: User:Aza24/Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music. The design centers around the idea that this WikiProject is especially connected to related ones, so these (WikiProject Composers, Opera etc.) are emphasized and prominently displayed. I'm rather happy with the image box I've created; I tried to show diverse media and content with a (hopefully) reasonable size constraint. Especially interested in the thoughts of @Smerus, Gerda Arendt, Tim riley, Antandrus, Toccata quarta, and Michael Bednarek: but comments/ideas from anyone are most welcome. Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

As a note, the history section and below is mostly a copy of the existing project text with slightly different formatting (as in, there's much work to do there). Aza24 (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Those huge icons that are used instead of the normal table of contents are quite irritating in desktop view, and they don't work at all in mobile view.

I can't work out why the links in the text from the transcluded imagebox are not clickable, but they ought to be.

The small caps Copperplate font is an acquired taste. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Have removed icons and replaced with simplified horizontal TOC; the links in the imagebox should be good now (I think). The copperplate is certainly an acquired taste... but it does the trick of emphasizing the words in question. Aza24 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• IMHO, Aza's proposal looks rather garish. Not an improvement over the current layout. Aza24, here's an idea: were you ever involved with Portal:Classical music? The kind of layout you propose would seem to be an improvement over that page's current layout... Note that portal pages are generally not very well maintained, and the classical music one is no exception. Also, the portal page is often linked from mainspace articles (the project page is not), so the layout of the portal is, due to its greater exposure, of somewhat more importance than the layout of the project page. Maybe get involved in the portal page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll look into the portal at a later time, but honestly, anything would be an improvement to the current page. It is virtually unchanged from 12 years ago and almost looks like a student HTML school project. We need an engaging project page if we want to keeps people's attention and appear as an inviting topic to contribute to. More and more WikiProjects have been upping their designs to stand out more, the idea here is to do so the same. Aza24 (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Re. "looks like a student HTML school project" – really? Have you actually looked at your proposal (I mean, on screens of different sizes, with different enlargement factors, different settings, different browsers, etc.)? To me it looks like a student HTML school project just after the student learnt about <div> tags, but not yet aware that the effect of using these tags can look very different depending on screen size, user settings, browser etc. I can know, I was in such classes. Anyhow, the proposal does not, as in not at all, work on the screen size, user settings, browser etc. I mostly use when editing Misplaced Pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
      • The current page is boring and unengaging—so I'm not sure where your reluctance to improve it is coming from. Am looking at other browsers and formats more now, and have addressed various issues, though I don't think I'm seeing as many issues as you are and it doesn't seem like others are either. Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
        • The current version is layout-wise still very problematic (please do, as I recommended, look at your proposal in different magnifications, on different screens, with different systems, etc!) – the amateurism of the layout is way below "student grade": a html student who would present this would still be very far off from getting a grade... --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
          • OK—I think we can drop this school project analogy, lol (I shouldn't have introduced it in the first place...). I have checked on 3 devices (2 different sized computers w/ chrome & safari + phone on safari) and found no outstanding issues, what are you seeing? More specific examples would be most welcome. Aza24 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
            • Every browser has the ability to increase and decrease scale. That is a first step to emulate large and small screens, before even going to different software and hardware (e.g. various screen height/width ratios) set-ups. When performing such first step checks you should see that your proposed layout (especially the second) is extremely problematic. For clarity, such checks, when working with <div> tags, are html student 1.0 steps. Note that the MediaWiki software allows to use <div> tags directly, but usually that shouldn't be done: <div> tags are, in wiki environment, commonly operated via templates and other features, without most editors actually ever seeing them. That is because they are tricky, and the template implementations of them at least avoid to make the most common mistakes. So, if you can't find a template to implement a layout feature, it should normally better not be implemented with html code directly, while those that are a bit more experienced in html specifically tried to avoid them (by not including them in a template or some such). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
              • Thanks for the explanation, it sounds like the main issue here is the related projects section, which uses the bulk of the divs (the others are just those three blue lines) I may be able to replace the format with a border wikitable, I'll let you know. Aza24 (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• The proposed design looks fine to me, and certainly an improvement on the existing page. Tim riley talk 09:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim! Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I started a Wikiproject over ten years ago and I think the design has held up well over the years: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Speed Skating. Perhaps you can look at that template, which is a little more consistent in design in comparison to your new version. I do agree the page could use an update. For one thing, you can see the "Parentage" on the project I created and how that lists the hierarchy of related projects. I think keeping that simpler is better than over emphasizing it with icons and all that.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 09:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Oncamera, I think some of your formatting could definitely be used for the new project page here (especially history section and below). The reason I'm torn is because the Classical music WikiProject seems to be mostly a hub/central place for the smaller ones (I mean, we don't even assess articles here!), so I wanted these to dominate the screen (hence the icons/big bold text). Though at the same time, parentage may be a clearer method... not sure. Aza24 (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this project needs to have an assessment on the articles. Perhaps there's a way to get a bot to go through and add those? On Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Olympics they have a bot that keeps their articles updated in the "Recognized content", perhaps that can be activated on this project to get that work done for us.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 10:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe this has been discussed much in the past, but since most articles are assessed under the composers/opera/compositions projects, it's not a huge deal. Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Oncamera, I hope you don't mind, I've now added some similar formatting (to the bottom half especially) of the WikiProject page. Aza24 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Pinged: Thank you for the idea, Aza, and I don't know if it's an improvement because I don't remember the present one, having looked last probably in 2010, - so I'm reluctant to invest much thought into it. For whom is it? That's the key question. Around 200 views in a month, - I suggest we rather write articles about music, composers, performers ... for 200 views per day. (Beethoven had a six-digit number last month.)

After having looked at the present one now I see that most of my criticism relates to the wording back then, which I'd rather like to see improved than layout. Besides the wording: I don't need five images, which makes each individual one too small, - a better way might be a rotation of them, and Bishonen and Iridescent know how to do that. Showing the St. Matthew Passion in a concert hall seems a strange idea, and the article about the work not our most glorious example, - how about a Mahler symphony instead? I'd also not need the un-word WikiProject, at all, - it could be piped. Missing Contemporary music which should be revived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I recommend a look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Opera for inspiration. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt, I've switched out the orchestral picture to a more engaging one (where the piece is uncertain)—I looked at some Mahler pictures on the commons but none seemed to work. You can think of it as "only 200 people" but I prefer something like "anyone of these 200 people might join the project". I think a more engaging and appealing project page could do wonders for making the latter true; and it's not like I'm going to be spending my time working on Misplaced Pages Project pages, this is a one time thing after all. Any wording suggestions would be appreciated, though it may be best to keep the wording minimal, I've already tweaked a few things. Aza24 (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I like the present image collection much better, but would prefer a pianist to a landscape which is supposed to suggest opera but how would a reader new to all this know? On my browser, right now the pic presentation hides some of the other projects" information. I'll be back tomorrow, have a discussion about lead pic selection going on project opera, and today is Sunday ;) - When you visit project opera's talk, the top is a pointer to new articles, -- perhaps we could do something like that herealso? For ten years, the one thing this project tells a guest that it was covered by the Signpost. Really? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the top of the talk page is dissapointing here; I'd recommend opening up a new thread about it... and the images have been changed again if you're interested. Aza24 (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your hard work, Aza. I cannot be held to be any sort of expert on matters of design, but imo this is certainly preferable to the present one and I would be happy to support it.--Smerus (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Smerus! Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I like the design. Some notes:

• The image gallery should be reduced in height, otherwise there is a lot of empty space under the "Participate" button on lower widths. (Reduce your browser's width or enable the new Vector skin in the preferences to see what I mean.)
• Semi-active task forces should not be collapsed by default, as that would only further reduce their visibility and disincentive new editors to join.
• I would not include {{Classical-music-stub}} in the table of project templates; stubs should be sorted more precisely.

• Otherwise, good work! intforce (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Many thanks Intforce. I've removed the classical music stub & displayed the semi-active ones. There's not any easy solution for your first point (which I'm now seeing when I reduce my window size)—the image doesn't seem to change the issue. I've added block quotes so that the projects get "squished" rather than pushed down... is this perhaps better? Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm afraid the block quote seems to have made it worse, as now the related projects are simply cut off when the width is not enough. I can see three options here: 1) Add more welcome text 2) Reduce the font size (or use something else than the rather wide Copperplate) and spacing of the related projects, and scale the spacing with the width 3) Reduce the height of the image. intforce (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I like it; attractive, useful, sensibly organized. I'm sure I could nit-pick, but no need; we can all fix nits as they arise. Looks good, and excellent work! Antandrus (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes well, we're all perfectionists here :) — the nitpicks thus far have been valuable so I'm not concerned or anything. Aza24 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Composite lead image

Image contents From top left: Folio 34r from the 14th-century Roman de Fauvel Set design for Act III by Max and Otthold Brückner for a performance of Tannhäuser A String quartet performing for the Mozart Year 2006 in Vienna Score for Act I, Scene I, of Griselda A 2008 performance of St Matthew Passion at the Royal Concertgebouw

Some ideas about the proposed composite lead image: →

• The image does not comply to Misplaced Pages:Image use policy:
  • WP:IMGSIZE – uses px instead of "upright" to define image sizes: this is allowed if there is a good reason for it – I do, however, fail to see a good reason.
  • Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#Infobox and lead images: Stand-alone lead images (not in an infobox) should be no wider than upright=1.35 (= 300px). The proposed image width is 364px.
• The first image does not work very well: it is a medieval composite showing three scenes, four persons, surrounding decorative elements, and text. Of all that, only two scenes seem to relate to music, but the size of the composite-within-composite is so small that it is hardly detectable that the image has anything to do with music. Only if cropped, with one, or maximum two, music-related scene(s) showing at a reasonable size this could possibly work as (part of) a lead image.
• Second and fourth image relate to opera: comparatively too many, while there is a separate Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Opera – the message this is sending to editors reads like an attempt to lure them away from the opera project, suggesting that the classical music project itself is for a substantial part engaged in opera. It isn't, while that's the domain of the other project. I suggest removing the opera-related images from the proposal. Each project its own focus!
• Three images (2nd, 4th, 5th) relate to vocal music, only one clearly to instrumental music (the 3rd) – the medieval image could refer to both. All in all, the composite lead image gives too much focus to vocal music, imho. Note that, generally speaking, classical instrumental music is mostly quite somewhat more popular than classical vocal music (e.g., Bach's most popular concertos are generally far more often recorded than his most popular cantatas). If my suggestion in the previous point would be followed (remove all opera-related from the selection), that would restore balance.
• 3rd image (disclosure: I was the one cropping it for the classical music article – to end a protracted discussion-with-RfC to do away with a large *composite* lead image for that page): doesn't work very well in the smaller size. Also, this image is currently also the lead image of the Portal page. Please give another image for a change!
• 5th image: with its secular setting not a very representative image for a St Matthew Passion performance. Also, with the *very* large choir, not very up-to-date historical performance practice-wise. Don't we have a Concertgebouw image with them performing a Mahler symphony? Their Mahler performances are the Concertgebouw's stronghold, as you may know, and then a large performance apparatus is well in its place.
• Also, don't know why the composite image is realised with a rather complex syntax of successive tables within a table (instead of using the {{Multiple image}} box)? Aza, can you explain? Tx.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• All very helpful, thanks Francis. I didn't even know multiple image boxes could do rows so that's why I didn't before (have switched to that now and adjusted the size). I've now switched some images around in my new version, we have:
  1. Medieval, Spanish, Instrumental (Winds)
  2. Romantic, German, Opera
  3. Renaissance, Franco-Flemish, Vocal

4 & 5 don't really follow the same pattern, but have a street performance & an orchestra in Mexico and Italy respectively (neither pieces are known). While there are 3 performance images now, I think the genres/format/context is different enough to not cause redundancy. Aza24 (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Update, Francis Schonken, a second alternate version...? Aza24 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, much better. I'd drop the opera scene (#2) though: as such the scene is not very illustrative of "music" – it is very illustrative of "opera", not of "classical music", and also size-wise it does not work very well imho as a small image in a composite: at this small size it looks like any romantic era painting (nothing to do with music). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Have changed this to a pic of the MET house opera house but IDK—if you have any suitable alternatives, they'd be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Other suggestions:
    1. All images now refer to pre-baroque or post-classical era music. There should be some reference to the core era of classical music, that is classical period (music) (e.g. the lead image of that article). One image of pre-baroque times might suffice, and instead an image relating to the baroque era in music might be better.
    2. Talk:Classical music/Archive 10#Option C has some images that might work fairly well at the smaller scale of a composite image (that "Option C" is part of the RfC on the classical music article lead image).
    3. Something with a piano would be nice (if you look at my image suggestions in the previous two points that doesn't seem too difficult).

  --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Alternate version number 3; I was looking for a new piano one and thought that three performance photos seemed like too much, so went with a Renoir painting... maybe not ideal though? I switched the sheet music back to the Baroque Scarlatti score, since it's an FP and addressed the pre-baroque issue. Switched the string quartet to the one you linked to since the camera angle is less like the orchestra one. Aza24 (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• Re. version 3:
  1. still no reference to the core era of classical music
  2. misses reference to non-opera vocal music
  3. Alessandro Scarlatti's Griselda is far from a broadly recognisable representative of the baroque era
  4. the Renoir deflects attention a bit: this is about French painting rather than about the classical music theme (besides, who says the girls are performing classical music?)
  5. More ideas:
     • commons:Category:D 328 – Erlkönig, Op. 1 (Schubert) – secular vocal music of the romantic era
     • commons:Category:Requiem, K. 626 (Mozart) – sacred vocal music of the classical era
     • commons:Category:BWV 846 (first prelude of the Well-Tempered Clavier) – baroque keyboard music, highly recognisable for about anybody with the least bit of interest in classical music
     • commons:Category:Dido and Aeneas (opera) – if you must have baroque opera, this one would be far more representative & recognisable
     • commons:Category:Carmen – if you must have romantic opera, I don't think there's much that can top this one for recognisability by a very broad audience
     • commons:Category:Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen – probably top recognisability if you must have classical era opera
     • commons:Category:The Four Seasons (Vivaldi) – very highly recognisable baroque instrumental music

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Very generally: not opera, but core to what THIS project covers, so yes to Bach's first prelude. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've tried some new images, which I believe satisfy Gerda and Francis's concerns... Aza24 (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the discussion (and got lots of Wiki catching up to do), but I really like the page design proposed by Aza24 and think it represents a vast improvement on what is in place at the moment. My one quibble would concern the choice of fonts and letter sizes (some headers and paragraphs stand out a little bit), but all in all, I will be happy to see this proposal put in place. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

No consensus

Seems like we have no consensus on the new layout (I, for one, oppose it, and have not been convinced otherwise by the above), at least it was not up to Aza24 (pushing their own proposal) to determine whether we have consensus on it or not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Curious, I see approval from Toccata quarta, Smerus, Tim, Antandrus and intforce, with addressed concerns from yourself, Gerda Arendt, Oncamera and Michael. Re "at least it was not up to Aza24... " — a month had passed, what was I supposed to do? It's not like admins close discussions on WikiProject pages. Aza24 (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied

Hi. I have a situation that I think needs fixing, and it's the following. The article Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied is about a hymn by Matthäus Apelles von Löwenstern. There are, however, many other works with this name, which are all listed at Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied (disambiguation). Based on pageviews, the hymn by Löwenstern is clearly not a primary topic, as it consistently gets less than 5 views per day. I also can't see another reason for why it could be considered the primary topic. Therefore, the current Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied (disambiguation) should be moved to Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied, and the current Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied should be moved to a more specific title. Having no knowledge of classical music nomenclature, what I'm here to ask is: what should this new title be? Lennart97 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The habit is (mostly) to have a hymn (text & music) at the page name without disambiguator for these German titles that may as well refer to a hymn as to any number of other compositions – that is, even if, e.g., a Bach cantata with the same name is many times more popular than the hymn itself. If you want it differently, I suggest a WP:RM. Note also, that the DAB page was only started recently, and that the somewhat more page views it got (less than 25 over the last month) are probably largely due to me getting it started & expanded in the course of that month. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Thanks for the reply! This is exactly why I decided to come here and not go straight to WP:RM. I understand why the hymn would be the primary topic, looking at it that way. I also hadn't noticed that all of the musical compositions listed at the disambiguation pages just redirect to lists of works, not standalone articles.

I do notice, however, that there is also Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Kempf), a hymn in its own right, though much more recent and (probably) less influential. Does that change anything? Lennart97 (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, when the article on the 20th-century hymn was written I opposed it usurping one of the spellings of the German title without disambiguator. That's why I think a WP:RM is needed for any solution that would not agree with at least some editors. Pinging Gerda Arendt whom I remember to have had some opinion on the subject. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This one is extra tricky, because it's not a unique German hymn, but the translation of a line with which 3 psalms begin. In a way I don't care enough right now to sort it out. - I am quite happy with the uniform naming of the Bach cantatas, regardless of the "primary topic" evaluation, if that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The point made by Gerda about it also being the opening line of 3 psalms is a good one. Because of both that and the potential confusion caused by the different spellings of it, I suggest to make Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied a disambiguation page, have the alternative spellings redirect there, and move Löwenstern's hymn to Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied (von Löwenstern) (unless there's a better title for it?). If no one here objects to that outright, I'm quite happy to take that proposition to WP:RM. Lennart97 (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – if you want to try that option, please start a WP:RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Well, what I said is that starting a WP:RM is exactly what I'll do, if no one objects outright. Since you apparently object outright, I'm not going to bother trying to make this move happen in any way, because 1. I am in no way familiar with the topic of classical music and 2. I don't care that strongly about it. Lennart97 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the best solution would be to write an article about the Löwenstern hymn. (no "von" in a disambiguation, btw)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Singet dem Herrn ein neues Lied is an article about the Löwenstern hymn. It is short (room for expansion I'd say!), but no longer a stub. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

sorry, I didn't look deep enough --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Youngblood Brass Band

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Youngblood Brass Band and assessing it? It's not clear how the band meets WP:NBAND, but maybe this is a case of WP:NEXIST. The article was created in 2006 and over the years it might have been primarily edited by band members or fans. Its talk page had no WikiProject banners or formatting until I tried to clean things up a bit; so, the article never seems to have been properly assessed. I'm not sure whether this genre is covered by this WikiProject, but some other articles in the same category do have this project's banner on their talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I would say it's a candidate for deletion since there's no evidence of notability that I can see; but it's outside the scope of this project.--Smerus (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look at this Smerus. Someone might want to check Category:American brass bands since I saw a couple of other articles in that category tagged with this project's banner. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography

A formal notification to the project of an AfD mentioned in passing above. --Smerus (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Frédéric Chopin featured article review

I have nominated Frédéric Chopin for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Smerus (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Image and media discussion on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach

See an image and media discussion at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Excessive images and files; life summary? Aza24 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Titling

I'm preparing a new article about the suite that Fauré arranged from his incidental music for a French adaptation of The Merchant of Venice, called Shylock. I am unsure whether the title of the article should be "Shylock suite" or "Shylock (Fauré)". Grateful for views on this. Tim riley talk 16:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say either Shylock (Fauré) (stylized Shylock (Fauré)) or Shylock Suite (stylized Shylock Suite), but not Shylock suite (without capitalizing the "s" of Suite). I'd suggest the first of these proposals unless you're going to write nothing about the original 1889 incidental music for Edmond Haraucourt's Shylock play in the article you're setting up. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It seems sensible, and I'll go with it, unless there are contrary suggestions here over the next few days. Tim riley talk 17:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Well if this focus is on the suite and not the original incidental music, Francis's second suggestion (Shylock Suite) might be the clearest. Though I would think the ideal format be an article focused on the incidental music—titled Shylock (Fauré)—with a later section on the suite (similar to the format of Peer Gynt (Grieg) or A Midsummer Night's Dream (Mendelssohn)). Aza24 (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

... and Pelléas et Mélisande (Fauré). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd go for Shylock (Fauré), like Francis, and cover the incidental music at least briefly, with redirects from the other sensible alternatives readers might search for. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, created the redlinks at List of compositions by Gabriel Fauré. Suggested navboxes: {{Gabriel Fauré}}, {{The Merchant of Venice}}. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Any comments?

There are several points of disagreement about a new article, and comments would be most welcome at Talk:Shylock (Fauré). Tim riley talk 13:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)