Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 70

Visualizations of music history

I came across several books on music history which reminded me that, often, such books have tables that try to encapsulate the chronology of music history in a brief but comparative manner. Is there any such thing for this project? And if not, could there be? - kosboot (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean something like this (from the top of my head):

Western music history

Time	Period	Examples
....	Prehistoric
....	Ancient	Pythagoras
c. 500–1400	Medieval	Gregorian
c. 1400–1600	Renaissance	Polyphony
c. 1600–1760	Baroque	Monteverdi Vivaldi Handel Bach
c. 1730–1820	Classical	Haydn Mozart Beethoven
c. 1780–1910	Romantic	Schubert Liszt Brahms Wagner Verdi Tchaikovsky Impressionism
20th century	(Modern?)	Atonality Neo-classicism Jazz Rock Pop Dance
21st century	(Contemporary?)	?

? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

There are also a set of Timelines here – A combination of these (trimming down, 50 year time steps etc) might work as a format to present this too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• For many years we had an excellent chart in the Classical music article, but it was removed from the article about 5 years ago. I disagree with that removal: I think the chart, which was very useful, should be replaced. I went looking for it just now: it looks like someone has deleted it outright, or removed it from the Category it used to be in: Category:Classical composers timeline templates. Michael Bednarek, do you know where the overarching timeline chart of the major European Western Classical musicians is now? Did it get summarily deleted, or is it on some userpage somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softlavender (talk • contribs)
• Some researches:
  • List of classical music composers by era uses most of the existing templates, and seems to me, currently, the closest to what kosboot seems to be looking for (in article namespace)
  • I also found this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 30#Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous which might be the lost template Softlavender is referring to (?) – and some userfied surviving versions:
    • User:Erik Zachte/Timeline Classical Composers Famous
    • User:Jubileeclipman/Classical composers time-line

  Afaics, the main objection leading to deletion/userfication was "WP:OR" – so I suppose we'd need some sources mentioned that "have tables that try to encapsulate the chronology of music history in a brief but comparative manner" – kosboot: which examples were you thinking of? Reliable sources? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for digging those up! I personally like to refer to them often, and find them nothing but helpful. Therefore, I submit that we should reinstate either or both of the following:

• User:Jubileeclipman/Classical composers time-line
• User:Erik Zachte/Timeline Classical Composers Famous

As far as OR, they are no more OR than the composers mentioned in the Classical Music article, or the authors mentioned in British literature or American literature. If someone objects to the inclusion or omission of a certain composer, then make a case, but don't throw a very useful baby out with the bathwater. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Found a mainspace place for each variant (however not from "template", but timeline code straight in article):
  • Classical music#Timeline of composers
  • List of classical music composers by era#Overview

Let the merciless editing & referencing begin! --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Good job -- works for me .... Softlavender (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Francis Schonken, Softlavender and others. I think I remember some of those charts. Today where visualization is increasingly becoming a significant component in educational endeavors, I think the group should reconsider and incorporate using such visualization in articles. Perhaps before bringing them back, we should talk about them in a manner that would forestall another AfD vote. I agree the graphics could be better but a chart is better than no chart. Also, these charts are based on the time periods established by music history; what about charts by century (which would be more useful to general history). Or a chart showing the intersection between music and art in the 19th-early 20th centuries? In any case, thanks for bringing them back for us to consider! - kosboot (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, I think the size of the chart in List of classical music composers by era#Overview should be reduced, but I don't know how to do that. Could someone help? In its past iterations on mainspace, it was smaller and didn't require maximizing of window to view. Right now its at 1100 pix, which is too large in my opinion. I think it should be just large enough to adequately read the composers' names, and no larger. (I think the same should go for the other charts on that page.) Softlavender (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Separate pages about every Gould album?

I have my questions about pages such as:

• Piano Sonatas Nos. 30-32 (Gould album)
• Beethoven: Concerto No. 2 - Bach: Concerto No. 1 (Gould album)

Not a single "independent" source, not even a single reference. This is very different from the page Bach: The Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould recording), which is about a very seminal album (in sales and amount of ink/bytes dispensed on it). Does Glenn Gould need a page on every album he released? We don't have a page on every concert of his, because there is a single one that went down in history as New York Philharmonic concert of April 6, 1962... --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• • These pages should of course be deleted - the subjects are non-WP:NOTABLE. Otherwise of course every single recording of anything would be 'entitled' to a separate article. Anything relevant in them can merged in the main articles on the pieces or on Gould - although I do not detect any such information. I have PRODed them.--Smerus (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Moved the two "album" pages to Glenn Gould's piano solo recordings and Glenn Gould's recordings with orchestra respectively. Think they might work as WP:Summary style articles (as opposed to the "list" format of Glenn Gould discography), and will start reformatting both pages along that line. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Reformatted and de-prodded, will contribute to both pages in next days (including refs), hope for some other editors interested in the topic contributing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I note that in pop music articles, it is often typical to have a separate article for an album. - kosboot (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if they pass WP:NALBUMS, which is easier to pass than the actual project-specific guidance for classical albums (Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings) - and that's the one applying here. Gould actually has one or two that pass that criterion. The same can't be said for most classical musicians that have a Wikipedia article, nor for Gould's other recordings (even when the re-issuing in different formats and combinations is added to that). Many of these recordings probably wouldn't even pass the "pop" album criterion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

From the way opera fans obssess, I figure that, not only individual recordings, but some individual remasterings of recordings with Maria Callas might someday merit their own article. :) <joke>- kosboot (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Fear not, some operas have over a dozen "album" pages (or does that one fall in the pop song genre?) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. Gould's groundbreaking first Goldberg Variations and his savage Mozart sonatas are very famous and much has been written of them. Not so much the examples given above. Syek88 (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would say that for Gouldites there are probably sufficient sources in books to be 100x more notable than most pop albums. If someone has the energy to properly source each album, then why not. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Songs from the Chinese Poets (Bantock)

Does anyone have access to a reference listing to the titles of the later sets of songs? Thanks if so In ictu oculi (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

LiederNet website migration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No longer needed, links have been updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

---

At WP:BOTREQ#LiederNet migration I suggested a bot to help with the migration of http://www.recmusic.org/lieder/ links to http://www.lieder.net/lieder/ links. Part of the reply was to show consensus on this – can those who have this page on their watchlist show a quick !vote of confidence this is what we need to do now? tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Back to Bantock

@In ictu oculi: Have added links to six sets of Bantock Chinese Poets songs. See LiederNet topic above, that's where I found them ([1]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

St. Francis Mass

Um. Kläagendazs? (Which has been there from the beginning, along with a commission from Emperor Palpatine?) Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, this has been on before. Double sharp (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Cambridge Companions to Music

I suggest this be renamed List of Cambridge Companions to Music or something similar.--Smerus (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• now done.--Smerus (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Classical music articles by quality

Because WP Classical music isn't going to access articles, I've listed Category:Classical music articles by quality and all the subcategories for deletion at CFD. Please comment there if there's any interest in using accessments for the 19k or so articles here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with Flute Sonata (attrib. Beethoven)

I've just finished this article and uploaded it. One item I was unable to confirm was the current whereabouts of the manuscript and any recent scholarship on the piece.

Help/pointers would be greatly appreciated.

Graham1973 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox music festival at TfD

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 3#Template:Infobox music festival. Thanks. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with a translation needed for an article on a Piano Sonata (Hess 52) attributed to Beethoven.

I am going to write an article on the incomplete (Only an incipit survives.) Piano Sonata in C major, Hess 52 which was published with an attribution to the effect that it was by Beethoven.

The page below is the Unheard Beethoven site page covering the piece:

Piano Sonata "No. 15" in C Major Hess 52

The text I need translating is in Thayers 1865 Catalog and is linked below, this is needed to confirm the text in the Unheard Beethoven sites description.

Thayer, Chronologisches Verzeichniss der Werk Ludwig Van Beethoven's, page 184

One thing I'm hoping to find is the earlier catalog from which Thayer got his details. Any help in that regards would be useful.

Graham1973 (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose a separate article about these 6 seconds (!) of music, that may not be Beethoven's, has apparently not more than ten lines of reference on the whole internet, and afaics neither passes WP:GNG, nor WP:NSONG. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with that, here's a translation: Listed in Gräffer's catalogue of Beethoven's works as published by Mollo. (Music) Dr. Sonnleithner remarks: "The existence of this sonata is doubtful, because the same does not appear in the printed catalogue of the publisher." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both of the people who replied. I will leave this off until such time as I can find more scholarship on the subject.Graham1973 (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The notability requirement, that determines whether or not we have an article, is that a subject has significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Not the length of the music; not the validity of the attribution. There is no requirement that the sources be online. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Andy. After all there are articles on music and other items which have been completely lost - see Category:Lost operas, Category:Lost films, Category:Lost Jewish texts........--Smerus (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"Lost" and "looks like it never existed" are somewhat different categories, please pay attention to Gerda's translation.

Also, for my comment, the crux of it is "afaics neither passes WP:GNG, nor WP:NSONG", not the material I used illustratively. Based on the "Unheard" and the "Thayer" sources exclusively this has WP:SNOW chances of surviving an AfD. Graham's "I will leave this off until such time as I can find more scholarship on the subject" shows an understanding of that message. Replying with a short summary of WP:GNG does not (I know what's in that guidance, thank you, and the same is apparent from Graham's reply). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a bit more from a established scholar, Barry Cooper (in The Beethoven Journal 12.1 (1997)): "another Sonata in C Major, Hess 52, is said to have been published by Mollo in Vienna but has disappeared and was probably spurious." So again, perhaps not worth an article.

This said, I think that Beethoven casts a broad beam of "inherited notability", owing to his central standing in classical music. Even his fragments are worth writing about, if only for biographical reasons (e.g. what was Beethoven's mode of composition, and why did he give particular works up?). Opus33 (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Re. "... biographical reasons (e.g. what was Beethoven's mode of composition, and why did he give particular works up?)" – it seems impossible to deduce anything of the kind from the six seconds we're talking about here. At least none of the reliable sources seem to do so. Even if Hess 52 were added to List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven#Selected works with Hess (H) numbers, and the dozens of entries in that sublist were wikilinked (which would all be redlinks currently), I suppose Hess 52 would be one of the last ones to start an article about. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Do please take a peek again at my first paragraph; I'm agreeing with you that there should be no Hess 52 article. But I'm happy with articles on better-attested fragments. Regards, Opus33 (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"attributed to" vs. "attrib." in parenthetical disambiguators?

See discussion currently going on at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#"attributed to" vs. "attrib." --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Adagio and Rondo, K. 617

I've started an article on one of my favorite works, Mozart's Adagio and Rondo for glass harmonica, flute, oboe, viola and cello. I've got two very reliable sources but nothing else (I try to stay away from liner notes unless written by an acknowledged expert). Maybe someone can find other writings about this work? - kosboot (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice one. I have made a minor amendment (and added a link in the Talk page for your consideration) and am dropping you a line if your email is enabled. I don't have an additional source but will ask/look around. I will now stfu, as they charmingly say, here, and continue over there. Cheers DBaK (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement over movements in Mozart K. 379

Can anyone with access to a reliable source please confirm the movements of Mozart's Violin Sonata K. 379? We have:

• 1. Adagio – Allegro
• 2. Andantino cantabile
• 3. Allegretto

However the Spanish, French and Norwegian Wikipedias have:

• 1. Adagio
• 2. Allegro
• 3. Andantino cantabile

I'm inclined to believe the ES, FR and NN as their articles have been around for a while whereas ours is quite new, but it would be good to have confirmation. --Deskford (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Zaslaw and Cowdery, writing here: [2], give:

• 1. Adagio - Allegro
• 2. Andantino cantabile

They are influenced, I guess, by the fact that the opening Adagio ends on a dominant chord and thus "feels" like a very extended introduction to the Allegro that follows. So Zaslaw and Cowdery's practice matches neither WP article. Yet they go on to quote another expert who thinks the work is in three movements, just like our ES, FR, and NN colleagues are saying. So perhaps this distinction is a bit subjective.

However, I think the author of the English article is simply mistaken in saying that there is a third movement, Allegretto. This is simply the last of a set of variations on a theme; Mozart is doing his usual thing of ending a variation set with a slow variation followed by a fast one. I don't think music scholars ever designate the variations of a variation set as separate movements. Opus33 (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I see – so if Mozart doesn't explicitly mark movements in the score and the movement divisions are a matter of interpretation, shouldn't we reflect this uncertainty in our article, saying that experts differ, rather than stating one movement scheme as though it is indisputable? --Deskford (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure; perhaps a footnote to this effect would be useful. Opus33 (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The English article editor is mistaken. There is no set of final barlines at the end of the fifth variation - the last section is simple the sixth variation, marked Allegretto. There is no difference here between experts, only one editor's invention.--Smerus (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Re. "There is no set of final barlines at the end of the fifth variation" – irrelevant, the form of the barlines at the end of the fifth variation is exactly the same as these at the end of the first movement;

Re. "the last section is simple the sixth variation, marked Allegretto" – ...speak about "editor's invention"... There is no sixth variation. The last section is "Thema da capo mà allegretto" followed by a coda. Correct that it is part of the "Theme with variations" movement, incorrect that it is a sixth variation, or that the form of the barlines at the end of the fifth and last variation has anything to do with it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So therefore we agree, at least, that the present English article is wrong.--Smerus (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No, alas, we don't agree on that: I already updated the article so I think the "present" English article is OK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Francis, you are a real barrel of laughs :-)--Smerus (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bach question

Hello, I inserted some music files yesterday into Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1. They seem to be fairly good quality, and can suffice at least until better files become available. Although they are "ogg" files, it appears that a MIDI process was used to some extent in their creation. Are the music files in that article okay for now?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I have three concerns:

1. The quality - not for me to judge
2. The display: I tried a less prominent way of having it in the infobox (compare to the version before, with seven "loud" speakers).
3. I am not sure about presenting ANY sound. - When we discussed the Bach cantatas here (see 2010 archives), we decided against complete translations, because there are many out, - we should not prefer one over the other, as it's a matter of taste/bias. - Similarly, I suggest that we do not present one sound example, - they are easy to find for those interested, and the best way to hear the cantatas is to sing/play them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Re. quality: I listened to the whole thing yesterday and must say it is quite trying for the ears to accomplish that. It may have the advantage of not being in any discernable language... but the synthetic voices are far from convincing.

1. I'd never use MIDI-generated sound for any vocal music: instrumental music OK, when used sparingly to indicate a lead melody or something else when analysing a piece of music, but never an entire composition, nor even an entire movement, in MIDI
2. When using MIDI: use MIDI files, not ogg files of recorded MIDI files while that sort of beats the purpose of MIDI
3. When MIDI files of entire movements of compositions are available directly from non-WikiMedia pages linked in the "External links" section of an article (as it is here for the files available at the linked IMSLP page) there's little purpose to include them in Wikipedia. I mean, I'm glad we'd have such files copied at commons, but MIDI is not such a high-quality asset to make them available directly on the Wikipedia page.
4. No MIDI files in the lead section please: again the quality is not good enough to give them such prominent place.

In sum, I'd remove these MIDI files from the article, and instead put a {{Commons category}} box in the external links section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This is all good commentary, Gerda and Francis, thank you. I see that the music files in this Wikipedia article for BWV 1 are now commented out. The user who made them (Matanya) has also made similar files for BWV 2 thru BWV 5. I will try again to contact Matanya to get his/her opinion. If these MIDI files are never going to be used in Wikipedia articles, then perhaps Matanya will want to stop creating more of them for the rest of the BWV's. I am also curious why these files were put into "ogg" format instead of remaining in MIDI format, so Matanya will hopefully explain that too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think they're an asset for commons. If Matanya can derive enough incentive from them being at Commons linked via commons category links in articles, they're of course welcome to continue! --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There are 290 Wikipedias, of which this is but one. A decision not to use a file here does not mean that it won't be used in one or ore of the others, nor indeed elsewhere, since the purpose of having files on Commmns is to make them available for anyone to reuse, freely. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but I still think this discussion might be of interest to Matanya, and might affect how (or whether) he creates these types of files. And I am still curious why the MIDI format was changed to OGG. He might also have other comments of interest.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Some answers:

1. I converted the files to OGG as this format has browser support unlike MIDI, and hence users can play it in the browser without third party software.
2. I don't care too much for en-wiki's use of the files, they are there so anyone can use it for whatever they wish.
3. I currently don't have time to create more files, unless there is a specific request for one. Matanya (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Matanya.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Also see my message on his talk page. Graham87 07:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Diary

I hope to add a bunch of music files to Wikipedia articles over the next few weeks. To make it easy to see what I'm doing, I have started a diary at User:Anythingyouwant/Audio. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Show business

The Category:Musical families has been discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 4#Musical families with the result that (in no particular order) Mozart family, Mendelssohn family, Category:Bach family, Category:Hellmesberger family, Category:Wagner family, Casadesus, The 5 Browns, Johann van Beethoven, Chung Trio, Devriès family are now categorised in the category:Show business families. This doesn't sound right, but I'm not sure what to do about it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to bring Musical Families back as a category. But for now, as a stopgap, it seems reasonable to take the Show Business Families category off of articles for which it is inaccurate, explaining why in the edit summary. I've done this for Mozart family, Category:Bach family, and Johann van Beethoven, where I more or less know the facts. Opus33 (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone should point out to the participants they they need to notify WikiProject Classical music if they're going to do something like this again. - kosboot (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No such thing as a "musical family". They do not make noise when used, such as a musical instrument : )

And afaik, classical composers very much WERE in show business. Music is a performance art, after all.

That aside, do you have naming suggestions? (Possibly for a clear and precise subcat name?) - jc37 12:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Families of classical musicians?--Smerus (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though I presume you mean "classical music" in it's modern, broader sense? : ) - jc37 11:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly so; and that is the sense adopted in the WP article Classical music, which helps to justify the proposal. I might just go ahead and start this.--Smerus (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Done it.--Smerus (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Purcell era music theory

Is the term "dissonants" still current in modern choral music theory? With reference to Talk:Dissonants#Requested_move_13_October_2015 Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Anhang period?

Per WP:NCM#Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title and external examples such as [3] I usually write "Anh." when abbreviating Anhang.

Others write it without the period, e.g. Gott, gib dein Gerichte dem Könige, BWV Anh 3 (notwithstanding [4]).

Which one is best? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We can do your version, it makes sense as Anh. is a different kind of abbreviation than BWV, shortening a word. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved and changed what I could, it needs an admin for Minuet in G major, BWV Anh 114. Bach cantatas has no period, the free scores have a period without a following space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Done.  :) Antandrus (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Masonic composers

This category has just been created, but there are no citations in most of the articles included to warrant it. Moreover, is it even an appropriate topic for a category? Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations states:

Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable: Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right.

--Smerus (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty of categories for Jewish composers--even for those whose "Jewishness" is only nominal. So why not Masonic (which in musicology tends to have greater weight for some composers). - kosboot (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• This category's composers were on the basis of List of Freemasons with reliable source.YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 16:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • You do not answer the standards set out by Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations --Smerus (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
    • It is possible to fill a library with books that explore Mozart's Masonic dimension, so yes for the category, and yes for at least this composer to be included. How many other category inclusions would pass WP:COP#N I don't know. (note: the quote above is no longer in Wikipedia:Categorization of people#General considerations, it has been replaced by the current text in WP:COP#N) --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Francis, I of course agree this as regards Mozart, who is documented as an active Mason and wrote Masonic music. That does not apply to many other composers, or indeed any that I can think of - I would be glad for examples from kosboot. The sense of WP:COP#N is not significantly different in import from the older text I cited, so the issue still applies. Many of the sources in List of Freemasons seem to me to be in no way reliable - e.g. it lists Felix Mendelssohn and Giacomo Meyerbeer (where leading biographies carry no mention of their being Freemasons) on the back of a throwaway remark in a music dictionary. Moreover, WP:COP#N is clear - " categories are only assigned as the result of an individual assessment of the content of an article." If being a Mason is not properly justified, supported and cited in the context of the article, then it shouldn't be used to categorize the article's subject. Mozart 'qualifies' in this sense; maybe Liszt. Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, Spohr, Puccini and others in List of Freemasons don't.--Smerus (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

In the article "Masonic music" in the section "Masonic influence on other composers," Grove Online mentions Naumann, Philidor, W.R. Chetwood, Caterino Mazzolà, François Giroust, Henri-Joseph Taskin, Joseph Haydn, Beethoven, C.G. Neefe, Franz Abt, Leopold Damrosch, Carl Loewe, Ferdinand Ries, Wilhelm Speyer, Spohr, Puccini, Boito, Ole Bull, Józef Elsner, Sousa, Liszt, Willem Pijper, P.M. Dubois, Julien Falk, Arsène Souffriau, Jacques Cerf. The article is careful to use the declaration "x was a Freemason" sparingly, and says "x composed works to be used in Masonic lodges." - kosboot (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• As well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Category:Masonic composers, of cource YOKOTA Kuniteru still didn't talk about Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations.YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: the Smerus's quote about Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations is before the Revision as of 10:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC).YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Correction: Smerus's to Smerus' above.YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks kosboot, and I agree a citation of that quality would justify use of the category, if the subject article also mentioned the topic using such a citation. The quote you give, I notice, doesn't mention composers in List of Freemasons such as JC Bach, Mendelssohn, Meyerbeer, and Sibelius.....for whch the citations are decidely dodgy.....--Smerus (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• RexxS has now nominated the category for deletion. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 4 #Category:Masonic composers --Smerus (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Piano burning needs eyes

Believe it or not, there have been several contemporary classical pieces composed to be played on a burning piano. The practice is also a tradition with the UK and US Forces. Herein lies the problem. Both the legends concerning the origins of its practice in the air forces are clearly designated as "legendary" in the article. In addition, the article states that there no evidence to suggest that descriptions of its origin have any historical authenticity four times, including in the lead. In my view (expressed on Talk:Piano burning), a complete account of the subject also requires an account of the two main legends surrounding the practice. This is standard practice in Wikipedia articles on everything from haunted castles to witchcraft to ancient Greek figures. Yet, two IPs (50.192.73.146 and 216.3.207.34) both tracing to Houston, Texas and undoubtedly the same person, have been repeatedly removing the accounts of the legends with no discussion or explanation whatsoever. In the process, they strand references, remove material on piano burning's use in music and the visual arts from the lede, add inappropriate editorialising commentary, add statements before references which do not support the statements, and have repeatedly damaged the coherence and punctuation of the text. This article has few watchers. Could member here put some more eyes on it and/or add to the discussion I started on the talk page? Voceditenore (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I know of a good source that's not mentioned (about Lockwood, not about the Air Force). - kosboot (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

An article about a classical guitarist

Interested editors may wish to have a look at this fairly new article, Michael Laucke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne Delong (talk • contribs) 11:46, 5 November 2015‎

Hi Anne. A veritable monument to ref bombing, name-dropping, cherry-picking... need I go on? But at least he's notable, even if the current article paradoxically conveys the opposite impression. I'll leave some suggestions at Talk:Michael Laucke, but I don't hold out a lot of hope. When you have a proprietary main editor, sometimes trying to fix it against continual obstruction just isn't worth it. I walked away from Sergio Franchi for that reason. Voceditenore (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Voceditenore, for a more complete picture, you may wish to read the comments on my talk page.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have, Anne. All I can say is that you have the patience of a saint. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

In spite of your advice and mine, the article is getting longer (63,000) and is acquiring more quotes. I removed a few of the references which you pointed out as inappropriate.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Anne, there's a lot of "I didn't here that" going on and it's is looking more and more like major COI editing. Did you notice, that the day after I raised the point that there is no evidence to verify Laucke's status as "the Founding Director" of the Mac AIDS Fund, the supporting "documents" magically appeared on his website? Voceditenore (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Composer image for Mieczysław Weinberg?

Any ideas whether one like the ru.wp one can be uploaded? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, it's still in copyright and not on Commons (only locally on ru.wp). However, you could upload it locally to the English WP with a fair use rationale since he's been dead for 20 years. File:Frank A. Ludewig.jpg is a model of the basic stuff you need to add to the file page. The license to use is {{Non-free historic image}}. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Voceditenore Okay thanks. I'll try it using WP:FILEUPLOADWIZARD from the russian wp and see how I get on. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay done that on the bio article. But what about the opera template on The Passenger (opera)? Should I upload a smaller grainier picture? Any idea what the rule is - looking at Britten opera template. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi In ictu oculi. You can't put a copyright fair use image (even a very low resolution one) in any other article or template unless you write a separate fair use rationale for each article in which it appears, and such rationales never succeed—the images are not needed to "identify" the individual operas or to significantly understand them. The one used for the Britten operas is OK because it is in the public domain and has detailed documentation for that. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Voceditenore understood, we'll have to wait for a Weinberg photo to become public domain. On a related note, are LP/CD/etc artwork for notable recordings/performances of operas possible within an opera article - for example in the case of a premiere recording mentioning in a separate section at the bottom of article? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, technically, they should be only be used in an article about the recording itself, although I have seen articles "get away with it" if the section on the recording itself is substantial and detailed. But there are editors/admins who specialise in patrolling fair use images and their rationales quite closely. You always run the risk of having the image deleted which is a big waste of time. If an article is really bare looking, I sometimes use an image of the theatre in which it premiered somewhere in the article. Images of most notable theatres can be found on Commons. Or you might be able to find a PD image of one of the role creators, the author of the work on which the opera is based, an illustration from the source work etc. etc.. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Voceditenore, good advice, thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyrighted sound files

Today I reverted an edit of someone who added links within an article to copyrighted soundfiles. I told the person such files should be freely shareable and that, if they were copyrighted, they should go at the end of the article under "External links." The editor pointed out that the sound files were on Commons (which I promptly tagged copyvio). As far as being copyrighted, the person said that such issues were not their concern and that they would continue to add such links within articles. I think this is against WP:CV, but maybe I'm being too zealous. What do others think? - kosboot (talk) 23:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I am the "someone". The file in question is being discussed here at Commons. All I have been doing is inserting wikilinks into Wikipedia articles to music files that are already on Wikipedia. A summary of this project of mine is here. User:Kosboot is rightly interested in this copyright issue, and I will follow the discussion closely at this page and at Commons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

As we wait for some feedback, I would like to say that I think it's great User:Kosboot has employed expertise about the composer Bernard Herrmann to form opinion about whether the copyright holder(s) of Herrmann's music probably did not authorize it to be uploaded to Wikimedia. Therefore, I have no problem with Kosboot's removal of the three files in question from the Herrmann article. Only one of those three files has been removed so far from Wikimedia Commons, and I encourage Kosboot to get the other two removed as well if Kosboot believes they were unauthorized too. More generally, I hope that my project will expedite removal of other unauthorized files from the English Wikipedia, and then from Wikimedia Commons, and thus from all of the other-language Wikipedias. I still feel that my project (of wikilinking to files that are already on Wikipedia) would be impractical if I myself were to investigate music files involving composers about whom I have no expertise, because my time is limited and it is already very time-consuming to do what I'm already doing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The other two Herrmann sound files have now been deleted from Commons. The situation with sound files is really very simple: assume copyright unless something specifically tells you not. Don't forget with sound files there are two copyrights involved: 1) music, and 2) the performance. So find performances on Wikimedia that specifically say they're freely shareable - for example, here (notice the explicit copyright explanations on Commons). - kosboot (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Every music file on Wikimedia Commons is mirrored on English Wikipedia, and every one of them is supported by a license that ostensibly authorizes those files to be where they are. I don't think it's necessary for me to assume that those licenses are false. But anyone who has the time and energy can assume that all of them or some of them are false, and accordingly request their deletion, and I'm not going to discourage anyone from doing that. On the contrary, I encourage it, and my project facilitates it by bringing files to the attention of appropriate Wikipedia editors.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by third parties would be much appreciated here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kosboot (talk · contribs). The music is copyrighted and cannot be included in Wikipedia. What you can do is take a 30-second snippet of the soundtrack, lower the fidelity, and add it to English Wikipedia (not Commons) as Fair Use. However, if you do this, you must discuss the specific piece of music you are including; Fair Use doctrine requires that the copyrighted snippet be used to illustrate a specific point made in the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the Herrmann music is copyrighted, nor that the copyright owners want to keep it off Wikimedia, nor that it was properly removed from Wikimedia as an indirect result of my activities. What I am disputing is that I did anything improper, because I merely wikilinked the Herrmann music file that already existed at Wikimedia with an ostensibly valid license.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion as a Wikimedia Commons volunteer, it doesn't look like anyone deliberately did anything wrong, that the edits were all in Good Faith by all concerned. My best suggestion is that kosboot and Anythingyouwant form a sub-committee undertake the correct tagging and linking of any files like this which they find - as they both are understanding the issues and working for the betterment of the project. If you find more (c) material on Commons, please do not hesitate to file Deletion Nominations, if you need help, you can follow the resources on my Commons user and talk pages and if you need more help, please leave me a message over there! Especially if you find a large pile of files, I can make the nomination process easier for you. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Ellin. I will take a look at your resources at Commons. Going forward, if I encounter music files that have suspicious licensing, then I may well nominate them for deletion at Commons or at least refrain from wikilinking them, especially if we're talking about relatively recent commercial performances that would be especially unlikely to be donated without elaboration by anonymous copyright holders. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Slow Movement

RM discussion at Talk:Slow Movement, related to slow movement (music). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/National composer

May be of interest for project members.--Smerus (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Cello Suites (Bach)

Cello Suites (Bach): I changed the lead a bit, adding BWV numbers, and using the common name also. Please check and improve. Can we get rid of a citation tag? I think to have nothing in the lead about the music, but lists of players and instruments for which it was arranged is no good balance. The article will be linked from the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What day will it be linked from the main page? Right now the article has twice as many refs as it did when the tag was added, so maybe we can take the tag off (or comment it out) on that day and then put it back on again later? I wouldn't think that would cause any harm .... Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we could take it off, period, but didn't want to decide that alone. I guess the tag was added together with some "clarification required". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ps: planned DYK day for the performer Tuesday, in prep 1, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Which performer? I'm inclined to take an axe to the spammy/coatracky list of cellists in this article -- lots of them not well known (meaning *I* have never heard of them LOL). Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryo Terakado, doesn't matter here. Thank you for all the cleanup! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a side remark: 38th this year! --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cellists

Softlavender did great work on the article! The talk offers now a list of cellists, including some legends, which I believe should appear in Cello or List of notable cellists, but not in the pieces' article, unless a source says they played THESE PIECES in a distinguished way. The talk also offers more sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Compositions by Georg Philipp Telemann

Two (somewhat independent but related) proposals for your consideration: --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Allow TWV numbers in article titles?

Currently WP:NCM#Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title allows only five types of catalogue numbers in article titles:

• Bach: BWV
• Buxtehude: BuxWV
• Handel: HWV
• Mozart: K.
• Schubert: D

I'de like to add a sixth:

• Telemann: TWV

TWV numbers are fairly recent (last decades of the 20th century), so maybe not so recognizable; they have a colon (e.g. TWV 1:1328) – that are a few contra-indications. Nonetheless I believe that developing a more comprehensive set of Wikipedia articles on Telemann's best known compositions is seriously hampered by not having a good system to name them. What do others think? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to me.--Smerus (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• Fine, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Compositions that are without doubt entirely composed by Telemann should not be characterised by a BWV Anh. III number

BWV Anh. III is a list of compositions spuriously attributed to Bach. A few of these, on which Wikipedia has an article, were composed by Telemann:

• Das ist je gewißlich wahr, BWV 141 (TWV 1:183)
• Ich weiß, daß mein Erlöser lebt, BWV 160 (TWV 1:875)
• Gott der Hoffnung erfülle euch, BWV 218 (TWV 1:634)
• Siehe, es hat überwunden der Löwe, BWV 219 (TWV 1:1328)

(Note: these kept their "main catalogue" number when being moved to Anh. III in BWV^2a in 1998)

I'm not sure whether a disambiguation with a TWV number would be the optimal solution here, nonetheless I'm convinced these article titles should lose their (common, but misleading) BWV number. I suppose that in this case WP:PRECISION trumps WP:COMMONNAME (at least in my opinion). So I'd propose three alternatives:

#1

• Das ist je gewißlich wahr
• Ich weiß, daß mein Erlöser lebt
• Gott der Hoffnung erfülle euch
• Siehe, es hat überwunden der Löwe

#2

• Das ist je gewißlich wahr, TWV 1:183
• Ich weiß, daß mein Erlöser lebt, TWV 1:875
• Gott der Hoffnung erfülle euch, TWV 1:634
• Siehe, es hat überwunden der Löwe, TWV 1:1328

#3

• Das ist je gewißlich wahr (cantata)
• Ich weiß, daß mein Erlöser lebt (cantata)
• Gott der Hoffnung erfülle euch (cantata)
• Siehe, es hat überwunden der Löwe (cantata)

Unless someone sees an even more viable other option I propose to choose between these alternatives (or "keep as is" based on WP:COMMONNAME exclusively). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Re the BWV Anh. III numbers. As long as you leave the old article title as a redirect, I don't see any great problem with renaming with the TWV number. The renamed articles should make it clear in their lead that the attribution of these works has changed, and should mention the BWV Anh. III number, which continues to exist as a reference to the work concerned (that is, they remain works which were, once upon a time, attributed to Bach).--Smerus (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course all of that is understood, when the BWV numbers are indeed still the most common "catalogue" associations for these works. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• For clarity, my OP preferred option would be #1 (despite maybe a possible confusion between Ich weiß, daß mein Erlöser lebt and "I know that my Redeemer liveth"/"Ich weiß, daß mein Erlöser lebet", K. 572/33 – I suppose the difference in language being enough of a differentiator, or WP:SMALLDETAILS for Mozart's slightly different spelling of the German translation of the Handel aria). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
• I oppose group one, because it replaces something precise (even if wrong) by something (too) general. groups two and three are acceptable, two preferred if the above survey finds consensus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

""BWV" is Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, a thematic catalogue of Bach's works" notes

I just removed the ""BWV" is Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, a thematic catalogue of Bach's works" footnote from Meine Seele rühmt und preist, BWV 189 (diff)

What do others think of such footnotes? I'd remove them all (and replace them with a wikilink for BWV, thus: BWV, as I did in the diff I gave above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree.--Smerus (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It was discussed before: a wikilink from BWV is against the MOS (no link from a bolded redirect), the link from the infobox seemed not enough, at least to some participants of the discussion. The footnote was the "lesser evil" to please THEM. Please restore it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

ps: for BWV 189, however, the replacement was possible, because BWV 189 is no redirect. The bot doing the footnotes was prompted by BWV in the title alone, which served most cases well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I think vaguish "was discussed before" without indicating where this discussion can be found thoroughly unhelpful in these discussions. Either it can be found in guidance somewhere, or it is a discussion with some people offering their opinion, possibly without a real conclusion of the discussion. The footnotes used in this sense don't work imho, period. Failing to establish a past consensus (which would be subject to WP:CCC anyhow), I propose to remove these footnotes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI BWV 189 redirects to Meine Seele rühmt und preist, BWV 189 since 2013 ([5]) - indeed it is rarely necessary to put every incoming redirect in bold in the intro. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Where: User talk:Finnusertop/Archive/2014#BWV (re FA BWV 22), with citation of the MOS (something I never would know, sorry). - Not every incoming link needs to be shown, but I think it is helpful to tell our readers that next time they search for Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140, it will be enough to simply enter BWV 140, on top of explaining prominently that part of the article name. - I believe we should improve coverage of Jean Sibelius and his works (missing, unreferenced, stubby...) instead of arguing about a footnote which doesn't hurt and takes only three small characters to appear. Repeating: I don't need that footnote, but others did, and no, I don't remember when and who. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a distinction between "showing" an incoming redirect in an intro (which imho we generally should do with catalogue numbers), and bolding it. I don't think bolding is generally necessary for catalogue numbers, e.g. for Köchel numbers we generally abandoned the practice (example: K. 139 redirects to Mass in C minor, K. 139 "Waisenhaus" – no bolding of Köchel numbers in the intro).

As for User talk:Finnusertop/Archive/2014#BWV – I don't even see a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS there – people offering their opinion without even much of a conclusion. Not bolding the BWV classification (which BTW in most cantata articles is separated from the rest of the article title by a translation or some such) wasn't even really considered.

As for "helpful to tell our readers that next time... " – oppose telling readers what to do next time. From my perspective catalogue number links have little practical value apart from being convenience links for insiders that edit these articles. General readership is not necessarily required to know these numbers by heart or even remember them. They serve in unique identification of a work (that's why they should be mentioned in the intro), but that's a rather technical matter usually far from the essence of what the article content is about (a description of the music and its history).

Re. "I believe we should improve coverage of Jean Sibelius and his works (missing, unreferenced, stubby...) instead of..." – please go ahead, nobody asked you participate in this discussion: you have clearly other priorities. Wikipedians are perfectly capable of forming an opinion about the matter discussed here without your intercession. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of the version by Nikkimaria: bold only the number, but not "BWV"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

As we don't want to lose too much time with this discussion I updated the guidance [6]

As for bolding the number exclusively: nah, don't think that a good idea, in line with my earlier comment above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation of consensus for a change of the guideline. Please revert that and discuss it on the guideline talk first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I acted on your proposal to not put too much time in this. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

There was no need for action. The footnotes don't hurt, bolding a direct doesn't hurt, both may serve readers, even if not you, Francis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

As said (read above) drawing attention to a catalogue number serves me more than people not regularly editing such articles as far as I can tell. Afaics we've come to the end of this discussion. Happy editing on the Sibelius articles! For me I'd like to continue with the task I initiated at List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Works in Bach's catalogues and collections. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Moscow Symphony Orchestra

Please see here. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Symphony No. 40 (Joseph Haydn)

Someone came by and moved Symphony No. 40 (Haydn) to Symphony No. 40 (Joseph Haydn) without discussion. They only did that one symphony and did not the few dozen other possibly ambiguous ones. It was decided long ago that "(Bach)" and "(Haydn)" would be the disambiguators for the "Johann Sebastian" and "Joseph" and further disambiguation is only needed for the other members of each family (JC, CPE, Michael, etc). Does this need further discussion? I'm tempted to revert it, but since its a page move, I think an admin user might be needed. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely call in an admin if necessary. Having said that, where there are numbers in common, I suppose it would be right for each J Haydn symphony article to be headed something like "This is the symphony by Joseph Haydn. For the symphony by Michael Haydn, see...."--Smerus (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the article back and I modified the header as suggested. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)