![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
There's a minor edit/revert thing going on over at Enigma Variations during the past week or two. Its between two anons Special:Contributions/81.205.147.164 and Special:Contributions/82.173.128.227 and its pertaining to a recent published theory about how the "Enigma" theme might be Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata. From what I gather, one of the anons might actually be the author of this theory, though I can never be sure when all I have to go on is an IP Address.
Does anyone know how to resolve this issue? Personally, I have never been a big fan of the "enigma" discussion in that article. The fact that this is an unsolved mystery lends itself to over-explanation and even "promotion" of various theories. If the mystery was solved, it would simply be stated in a short paragraph with a few citations, but what were left with is several long paragraphs with mentions of authors names. This article is the number one google hit for "Enigma Variations" and I have seen lazy program note writers pull uncited information from wikipedia before. One could hope to virally spread their own theory by putting it in the article.
Double-checking the publication. The publisher has only this one book [1] which makes me a bit suspicious that its a self-publication. Though he did go through the trouble of getting an ISBN number.
Could someone else handle the details here? I don't know what rules are. Thanks. DavidRF ( talk) 00:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the offending section altogether. WP is not the place for WP:OR of the kind pushed in self-published vanity works. If the anon restores the material, simply revert and ask Antandrus to protect the article again. I agree with your general views. Eusebeus ( talk) 17:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Please have a look at a request on renaming the Passion to match St. Matthew - and help the discussion. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
My preference would be for St John Passion (Bach) and St Matthew Passion (Bach) — note the lack of dots. In British English "St" generally abbreviates "Saint", whereas "St." abbreviates "Street". I believe that in American English, as well as in archaic British English, the dot is often used for "Saint" as well, so some of our American editors might argue with me on this one! The articles themselves, and WP in general, seem to mix the spellings with and without the dot. -- Deskford ( talk) 14:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I have asked JackofOz to comment here -- Jubilee♫ clipman 06:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Well... Jack requested the move originally and normally the nom moves the articles once the debate has decided which way etc. However, Jack is pretty busy with RefDesk stuff, usually, so I guess that will be you... or me if you prefer? :) (I have time to kill at the moment) -- Jubilee♫ clipman 09:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify: the consensus seems to favour a move to undabbed pages without dots ie St John Passion and St Matthew Passion and to move the disambiguating material over to St John Passion (disambiguation) and St Matthew Passion (disambiguation). Correct? -- Jubilee♫ clipman 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Now what about St Mark Passion and St Luke Passion? -- Deskford ( talk) 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
St John St Matthew all resolved: a reason to jubilate! St Mark and St Luke are not of comparable importance but now we are at it, why not now? Also perhaps St Thomas Church and St Nicholas Church, and do they need Leipzig? or could there be St Thomas Church (disambiguation)? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Are we more or less happy with the state of these titles, now? Apart from those on the lesser works and the Cantatas, are there any other articles that need to be brought into line with these changes? -- Jubilee♫ clipman 03:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
For your information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Anderson (musician). -- Vejvančický ( talk) 14:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I just stumbled across two articles for a classical record label called OgreOgress Productions. One appears under that name; the other is identical except that it appears as OgreOgress productions (i.e., it varies only in capitalization of the title). I'm noting these articles here in hopes that someone more versed than I in the niceties of deleting/merging/whatever can eliminate the duplication. Drhoehl ( talk) 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Totentango - This article has the air of having been cribbed from somewhere, or if not, a rather inappropriate style. It's one of several articles related to the compositions of Matthew King (composer). Another one to check is King's Wood Symphony. I just found a lot of copyvio/close paraphrasing in Brunel (opera project) and The Snow Queen (opera) isn't looking too good either. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
My appraisal of these two major documents (part of the general audit of Wikipedia's Manuals of Style) are linked here:
It also contains a summary of my thoughts and recommendations. Thoughts welcome. It might be better to keep general discussion centralised at WT:Manual of Style (music) to begin with. Specific issues surrounding MUSTARD should of course be raised here as usual. Thanks -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Please feel free to comment at:
Thank you. -- Vejvančický ( talk) 13:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
After we solved some Bach concerns I asked a question about the lead of Mozart's greatest mass, Talk:Great Mass in C minor, asking for help with ideas and wording. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
In the course of rescuing José Tomás from deletion, I've come across several truly dreadful articles for some very eminent classical guitarists, e.g. David Russell. (Frankly, the Segovia article is pretty dire in places too, with a huge quote farm.) Anyhow, the Classical Guitar project is defunct and there was some talk of merging it with this one, but it seems not to have happened (see [3]). If there any editors here who would be interested in improving some of these, let me know and I'll post a few here. Voceditenore ( talk) 15:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Any assistance at this reference desk query would be appreciated. Thanks. Graham 87 14:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák by Burghauser number was redirected to List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák on 12th May -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Currently, we have two duplicate lists for Dvořák's works:
User:Hrdinský arranged the first list into easily sortable table, including sorting by Burghauser numbers. I suggest redirecting the redundant List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák by Burghauser number to the List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák. The duplication makes no harm, however, it is useless for this project. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 08:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. So I was looking for Classical Music Featured Articles so I would have a template to build off of, but the category has nothing in it. Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 00:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely with Antandrus. Every time an article of mine went up for featured review, it only made the article worse.
My main advice to you is this: remember you are writing for an online encyclopedia. That means that, unlike the Britannica, you can include videos and music. Put in lots of musical examples. Good luck. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
To elaborate just a bit on what Antandrus and Ravpapa said: Featured Article review attracts an audience of people who want to participate in Featured Article reviews. It normally does not attract people who know about the subject matter. So, the reviewers are unable to help the article re. accuracy and completeness, but they can (and do) introduce plenty of inaccuracies and ill-chosen material. Cheers, Opus33 ( talk) 23:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears that this wikiproject neither supports "assessments" in principle nor technically (via its template Template:WikiProject Classical music). Like NocturneNoir I find it misleading to have empty "assessment" categories. Might I suggest that someone nominate for deletion the entire tree at Category:Classical music articles by quality--they're all empty save the non-assessment category. Or perhaps one of the resident administrators (hi Antandrus!) could simply delete them on the basis that they're empty and not used/supported. This would solve the problem of the categories suggesting we have no "FA-level" classical music articles, when we do. If this is done I'll add a "see also" to the text of the category I mentioned above, directing people to "composers by quality", etc. (Alternatively "composers by quality" (etc.) could exist inside the aforementioned category, if anyone feels like fiddling with the template infrastructure, and I don't [dare].) Riggr Mortis ( talk) 01:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi Levitz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael James Arman Brough - Voceditenore ( talk) 13:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Recently, Gregorio Allegri's day of birth has been changed from 7 to 17 (February). However, I've found that in New Grove's dictionary it is the 7th (also in ru, pl, ja, he Wikipedias) but the rest of Wikipedia articles say it is the 17th. Does somebody have some other sources? -- Tomaxer ( talk) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
This is now at WP:Peer review. Any comments welcomed. Centenary of premiere is on 12 September. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
There's a minor edit/revert thing going on over at Enigma Variations during the past week or two. Its between two anons Special:Contributions/81.205.147.164 and Special:Contributions/82.173.128.227 and its pertaining to a recent published theory about how the "Enigma" theme might be Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata. From what I gather, one of the anons might actually be the author of this theory, though I can never be sure when all I have to go on is an IP Address.
Does anyone know how to resolve this issue? Personally, I have never been a big fan of the "enigma" discussion in that article. The fact that this is an unsolved mystery lends itself to over-explanation and even "promotion" of various theories. If the mystery was solved, it would simply be stated in a short paragraph with a few citations, but what were left with is several long paragraphs with mentions of authors names. This article is the number one google hit for "Enigma Variations" and I have seen lazy program note writers pull uncited information from wikipedia before. One could hope to virally spread their own theory by putting it in the article.
Double-checking the publication. The publisher has only this one book [1] which makes me a bit suspicious that its a self-publication. Though he did go through the trouble of getting an ISBN number.
Could someone else handle the details here? I don't know what rules are. Thanks. DavidRF ( talk) 00:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the offending section altogether. WP is not the place for WP:OR of the kind pushed in self-published vanity works. If the anon restores the material, simply revert and ask Antandrus to protect the article again. I agree with your general views. Eusebeus ( talk) 17:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Please have a look at a request on renaming the Passion to match St. Matthew - and help the discussion. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
My preference would be for St John Passion (Bach) and St Matthew Passion (Bach) — note the lack of dots. In British English "St" generally abbreviates "Saint", whereas "St." abbreviates "Street". I believe that in American English, as well as in archaic British English, the dot is often used for "Saint" as well, so some of our American editors might argue with me on this one! The articles themselves, and WP in general, seem to mix the spellings with and without the dot. -- Deskford ( talk) 14:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I have asked JackofOz to comment here -- Jubilee♫ clipman 06:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Well... Jack requested the move originally and normally the nom moves the articles once the debate has decided which way etc. However, Jack is pretty busy with RefDesk stuff, usually, so I guess that will be you... or me if you prefer? :) (I have time to kill at the moment) -- Jubilee♫ clipman 09:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify: the consensus seems to favour a move to undabbed pages without dots ie St John Passion and St Matthew Passion and to move the disambiguating material over to St John Passion (disambiguation) and St Matthew Passion (disambiguation). Correct? -- Jubilee♫ clipman 21:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Now what about St Mark Passion and St Luke Passion? -- Deskford ( talk) 23:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
St John St Matthew all resolved: a reason to jubilate! St Mark and St Luke are not of comparable importance but now we are at it, why not now? Also perhaps St Thomas Church and St Nicholas Church, and do they need Leipzig? or could there be St Thomas Church (disambiguation)? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Are we more or less happy with the state of these titles, now? Apart from those on the lesser works and the Cantatas, are there any other articles that need to be brought into line with these changes? -- Jubilee♫ clipman 03:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
For your information: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Anderson (musician). -- Vejvančický ( talk) 14:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I just stumbled across two articles for a classical record label called OgreOgress Productions. One appears under that name; the other is identical except that it appears as OgreOgress productions (i.e., it varies only in capitalization of the title). I'm noting these articles here in hopes that someone more versed than I in the niceties of deleting/merging/whatever can eliminate the duplication. Drhoehl ( talk) 02:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Totentango - This article has the air of having been cribbed from somewhere, or if not, a rather inappropriate style. It's one of several articles related to the compositions of Matthew King (composer). Another one to check is King's Wood Symphony. I just found a lot of copyvio/close paraphrasing in Brunel (opera project) and The Snow Queen (opera) isn't looking too good either. Voceditenore ( talk) 17:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
My appraisal of these two major documents (part of the general audit of Wikipedia's Manuals of Style) are linked here:
It also contains a summary of my thoughts and recommendations. Thoughts welcome. It might be better to keep general discussion centralised at WT:Manual of Style (music) to begin with. Specific issues surrounding MUSTARD should of course be raised here as usual. Thanks -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 15:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Please feel free to comment at:
Thank you. -- Vejvančický ( talk) 13:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
After we solved some Bach concerns I asked a question about the lead of Mozart's greatest mass, Talk:Great Mass in C minor, asking for help with ideas and wording. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
In the course of rescuing José Tomás from deletion, I've come across several truly dreadful articles for some very eminent classical guitarists, e.g. David Russell. (Frankly, the Segovia article is pretty dire in places too, with a huge quote farm.) Anyhow, the Classical Guitar project is defunct and there was some talk of merging it with this one, but it seems not to have happened (see [3]). If there any editors here who would be interested in improving some of these, let me know and I'll post a few here. Voceditenore ( talk) 15:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Any assistance at this reference desk query would be appreciated. Thanks. Graham 87 14:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák by Burghauser number was redirected to List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák on 12th May -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 22:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Currently, we have two duplicate lists for Dvořák's works:
User:Hrdinský arranged the first list into easily sortable table, including sorting by Burghauser numbers. I suggest redirecting the redundant List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák by Burghauser number to the List of compositions by Antonín Dvořák. The duplication makes no harm, however, it is useless for this project. -- Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 08:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. So I was looking for Classical Music Featured Articles so I would have a template to build off of, but the category has nothing in it. Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 00:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely with Antandrus. Every time an article of mine went up for featured review, it only made the article worse.
My main advice to you is this: remember you are writing for an online encyclopedia. That means that, unlike the Britannica, you can include videos and music. Put in lots of musical examples. Good luck. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
To elaborate just a bit on what Antandrus and Ravpapa said: Featured Article review attracts an audience of people who want to participate in Featured Article reviews. It normally does not attract people who know about the subject matter. So, the reviewers are unable to help the article re. accuracy and completeness, but they can (and do) introduce plenty of inaccuracies and ill-chosen material. Cheers, Opus33 ( talk) 23:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears that this wikiproject neither supports "assessments" in principle nor technically (via its template Template:WikiProject Classical music). Like NocturneNoir I find it misleading to have empty "assessment" categories. Might I suggest that someone nominate for deletion the entire tree at Category:Classical music articles by quality--they're all empty save the non-assessment category. Or perhaps one of the resident administrators (hi Antandrus!) could simply delete them on the basis that they're empty and not used/supported. This would solve the problem of the categories suggesting we have no "FA-level" classical music articles, when we do. If this is done I'll add a "see also" to the text of the category I mentioned above, directing people to "composers by quality", etc. (Alternatively "composers by quality" (etc.) could exist inside the aforementioned category, if anyone feels like fiddling with the template infrastructure, and I don't [dare].) Riggr Mortis ( talk) 01:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jodi Levitz and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael James Arman Brough - Voceditenore ( talk) 13:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Recently, Gregorio Allegri's day of birth has been changed from 7 to 17 (February). However, I've found that in New Grove's dictionary it is the 7th (also in ru, pl, ja, he Wikipedias) but the rest of Wikipedia articles say it is the 17th. Does somebody have some other sources? -- Tomaxer ( talk) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
This is now at WP:Peer review. Any comments welcomed. Centenary of premiere is on 12 September. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)