Talk:Clarinet Sonata (Poulenc)

Removal of infobox, recordings, and sections on other woodwind sonatas by Poulenc

I took it upon myself to remove the infobox, and the sections on recordings and Poulenc’s other woodwind sonatas. The infobox was restored by another editor, which is fine. Not looking to step on other people’s toes. But the infobox merely repeats the same information already mentioned in the article lead; it neither offers new information nor does it frame the information in the article in some kind of useful way. It merely seems redundant. The “Recordings” were removed because the choice seemed arbitrary, with no explanation as to why they are noteworthy, or more notable than others. Finally, the sections on Poulenc’s other woodwind sonatas—which on their own take up half the article—included in this article simply are not relevant to the subject of this article. It’s like shoehorning an extensive section on Shostakovich’s Violin Sonata into the article on his Second Violin Concerto simply because both scores use the same solo instrument and were written about a year apart from each other. Those other Poulenc works need their own article, not be piggy-backed onto this one. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, and the idea is good.

• As for the infobox: that's actually what an infobox is meant to be, repeating the infomation in an accessible different format. We could add the first and well-known performers.
• I would like to retain the information about the other works, because the alternative would be to write small articles on these other works.
• I'd like to retain the recordings, because they show that it was recorded, and by what kind of players. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

No problem with the infobox. But I don’t understand why information on works unrelated to the Clarinet Sonata merit having half this article’s space devoted to them. You’re correct that the alternative is to write independent articles on those works—that is what needs to be done. (I’d be glad to at least begin stubs for them.) It makes no sense to include them here. As for the recordings, this still doesn’t explain why these recordings deserve to be mentioned here. How are they notable or merit being mentioned over dozens of others? At any rate, isn’t the Poulenc the most recorded 20th century clarinet chamber work? It ought to be clear that it is a popular work without having to make use of an arbitrarily assembled recordings section. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The article dates back more or less to 2011, and I had little to do with it. Go ahead, write the stubs and then delete here replaced by links. I'm no recordings expert but would you just say "It was recorded"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)