![]() | 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 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
I honestly don't know how else to put this, outside of that some more input would be welcome, both in fixing up the prose as well as helping to settle the debate at Talk:Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Too much attention to fringe theories.. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 05:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I tried to answer Melodia's request with a considered comment, but I found the ping pong table environment somewhat hostile. I feel I'm not really cut out for these disputes. MistyMorn ( talk) 12:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it a good idea, or not, to include discographies for well-known performers? I ask because I was looking at Isaac Stern (whose article strikes me as being a little sparse in any case), and find that there used to be a discography section - not the best organized, I grant - that was deleted 07:28, 22 July 2007 by User:Emerson7 (without noting the deletion in the edit summary).
This came up because I was actually looking for Alexander Zakin, Stern's long-time accompanist, who not only had no article but also not a single mention in Wikipedia. User:Dr. Blofeld has now rectified this omission with a lovely article - more thorough and detailed, in fact, than Stern's.
I suppose I could eventually get around to constructing a Stern discography, but I have zero sources for anything else. And I sure don't want to fool around going to the bother of making a discography if someone is just going to turn around and delete it again. Any thoughts or suggestions? Milkunderwood ( talk) 23:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
This is what I had assumed. What I found startling was that Stern did have a discography, which got deleted with no explanation or notice back in 2007, and with no subsequent comment. It wasn't the best-organized discography I've ever seen, but it was more useful than not. (See 07:28, 22 July 2007 User:Emerson7 in Isaac Stern History.) As I said, I could do one myself if I ever get enough spare time - but if I ever do, I sure won't want to see it deleted again. Then on the other hand, maybe I ought to look at that old one again, and if it seems worthwhile, just resurrect it as is and see what happens. Milkunderwood ( talk) 04:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Sylvia (ballet) 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. Brad ( talk) 00:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday I heard Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 1 for the umpteenth time, but it struck me for the first time just how long the soloist has to wait until the orchestral introduction is finished. I wasn't timing it, but it felt like 3-4 minutes before the pianist gets to play a single note.
Is this some sort of record, and if not, which concerto has the longest soloist-free introduction? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe Chopin wanted to march the audience to their seats in time for the start?-- MistyMorn ( talk) 00:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
So, the contenders seem to be Chopin 1, Brahms 1 and Busoni. All piano concertos. I'm rather surprised at 4:14 and 3:19 for the Brahms: all performances take a slightly different time, naturally, but the Gilels takes 28% longer than the Fleisher, a huge variance. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 16:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
To me it's more than just "fun" and socializing, it's educational. We aren't taking up anyone's time other than our own, and it's not as though we're eating into a limited space on Wikipedia - especially when you consider all the utter horseshit posted around here. I quote from an old post at
Talk:Isaac Stern#We prefer fantasy over real accomplishment: How sad Isaac Stern gets a few short paragraphs and Luke Skywalker gets pages and pages and pages and pages. Anyway, this will disappear into the archives soon enough, and be forgotten.
My naive and uninformed understanding of Chopin is that he had been criticized for not knowing how to orchestrate with any skill; that his two concertos were his calling-card to the musical world of Paris; that Parisians at that time expected a big showy introduction with the full orchestra; and that he busted his butt trying to make a splash there. Does this generally comport with others' understanding?
Milkunderwood (
talk)
21:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
And a bit more about policy: if Jack had not posted his off-the-wall query about ex aequo, now archived, we would probably never have been treated to Ravpapa's wonderful reply, which I have appropriated and posted on my own userpage. Milkunderwood ( talk) 22:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I am glad peace has been restored. And as an offering to peace, I give you this: Harold in Italy, 3:45. In the YouTube performance, Gergiev has to nudge Yuri Bashmet to wake him up in time for the viola entrance. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 05:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
RE: "Remember, the reader is the enemy." Actually, I seem to have heard that one somewhere before. Something about proactive defence against reviewers' potential objections. Though I hasten to say I'm no advocate of defensive writing (or suchlike). Whereas I am a big fan of Harold, including the opening — however beastly Berlioz may sometimes have been in his writings. MistyMorn ( talk) 12:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've put a request at WP:REX for somebody to compare an entry in this work to an article that has been flagged as a copyright violation. If you have access to it, can you please help out at the listing there? It could help pull an article out of limbo! :) Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I’ve often wondered about this. There are many cases where a work is performed, and usually published in that form, and then, typically some years later, the composer has a re-think and makes some revisions, and releases the new version. Works such as Stravinsky's Petrushka fall into this category. We have the original 1911 version, and we also have the revised 1947 version. Many other examples like this.
But then we have cases where a work is publicly performed for the first time, immediately after which the composer makes some (typically minor) changes, in light of hearing how it actually sounded before a full auditorium, and only then publishes the work for the first time. The original version as played at the premiere is usually consigned to some dusty archive and becomes unknown to the general population. Or destroyed. The slightly revised version is the version we play and record. Works such as Tchaikovsky’s Pathetique Symphony, Dvořák’s New World Symphony and Shostakovich’s 2nd Symphony fall into this category.
The thing with these latter cases is that the date of the premiere of the original version (the version we don't know) is almost always shown in reference works as the premiere. The date of the premiere of the revised version (the version we do know) is usually a footnote at best. For example, Shostakovich's 2nd Symphony was first played in Leningrad on 5 November 1927 under Nikolai Malko. That date and those details appear in all decent reference works. But what was played there that day is not what we play now. What we play now is the version that includes the revisions that Shostakovich made after the official premiere. The date of the first performance of the revised version is not even recorded, as far as I know, apart from some time later in 1927. It was played in a different place (Moscow) and under a different conductor ( Konstantin Saradzhev).
Another case in point is the famous premiere of Turandot, where Toscanini laid down his baton at the point where Puccini stopped writing. Many operaphiles could rattle off the date 25 April 1926 without having to check. But ask them when the opera as completed by Alfano, i.e. the version we always see and hear now, was first performed, and most could not tell you (it was actually the following night, 26 April). This was the world premiere of the complete version of the opera, yet again, it typically gets very much lower billing compared with its "official" premiere, which was not even the whole opera. (It's currently mentioned in the lede of our article, but most reference books don't mention it at all.)
So, what is it with these "official" dates of premieres-that-are-not-actually-premieres? And why are the dates of the "real" premieres given such scant regard by musical historians? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to applaud the coda to the Turandot lede, and concur with Jack that dates of first performances after revisions are of interest. Best, MistyMorn ( talk) 17:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
An attempt is made to "revive" Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan. I'd like to invite everyone here with an interest in pipe organs, organ music, and related topics to visit and join if you're not already a member of the project. Kind regards, Danmuz ( talk) 10:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a move discussion ongoing at Moonlight Sonata debating whether or not it should be moved to Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven). Please take a look. Thank you, Double sharp( talk) 07:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
At Talk:Moonlight Sonata - this discussion has implications for the naming of articles on classical compositions in general, and input from more users will be helpful. Milkunderwood( talk) 23:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This has now spread. There is a proposal at Talk:Piano Sonata No. 8 (Beethoven) to move four more Beethoven piano sonatas to their nicknames. -- Deskford ( talk) 01:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This has now been open for over two weeks. I wonder if someone can close it? -- Klein zach 23:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Before the page-move discussion at Talk:Moonlight Sonata is even resolved, one of the editors opposing the move has proposed four counter-moves of nicknamed sonatas here: Talk:Piano_Sonata_No._8_(Beethoven)#Requested_move. No matter which side of the debate one is on, the independent proposal of counter-moves doesn't seem right. This is all part of the same discussion, no? DavidRF ( talk) 01:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Copied from that referenced discussion:
Milkunderwood ( talk) 02:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the decision is to leave it at Talk:Moonlight Sonata#Requested move. Please come and voice your opinions. Note that the two preceding sections on that same page are also relevant. Milkunderwood ( talk) 03:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Can any experts on the naming of instruments help sort this one out: cymbalum is a redirect to cimbalom, yet the lead of the article says A "cymbalum" is not the same instrument as a cimbalom. A "cymbalum" is a part of a medieval instrument, one of a set of 4-8 small bells.... Is this a case of a word that can by applied to multiple unrelated instruments? -- Deskford ( talk) 18:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Advice please: someone has added a link to a performance on Classical Connect of a Beethoven sonata whose page I have watchlisted. From the first few bars, it seems the performance may be very good, but I've read that some of those on Classical Connect may be copyright violations. How can I check in any particular case -- or should I just remove the link anyway? (The article already has a link to another performance.) Thanks for any advice. -- Stfg ( talk) 15:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I know the Classical music project does not assess for importance articles assigned to it. I'm asking about class quality ratings. Where is the project's stats table? Do you want me to place a link (on your main project) page to it? Alternately, I could place it directly on your main page much like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. Personally, I'm not a big fan of projects where you have to dig around for it. Argolin ( talk) 05:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?categories=Wikipedia+featured+articles%0D%0AWikiProject+Classical+music+articles&ns%5B1%5D=1&doit=1
Ah! Thank-you everyone. It's all a little clearer now. It wouldn't make any difference if I ran an upodate at toolserver.org. The project banner doesn't have the class parameter. The total number is a total of all items including articles. Can I ask why? It seems odd to me that the project doesn't care at all about the class quality of it's items. Argolin ( talk) 17:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
|class=
parameter in the project template.Didn't mean to step on any toes or be insulting. I must appologise. Yes, my earlier comment was rather hasty and off-the-cuff. I'll read the suggested links provided. Thanks for the quick response. Argolin ( talk) 04:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Jstor.org is now making their pre-1923 journal content available without subscription. There's more about it here. They're rolling out the free content gradually. For now the following are available in areas of interest to this project:
The list of all journals currently available is here. – Voceditenore ( talk) 15:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I've made a proposal about articles in series— such as the Beethoven piano sonatas — for the WP guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). I would be grateful other people could have a look at this, to see if the wording can be improved to remove any possible loopholes etc! Thanks. -- Klein zach 12:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
When I'm patrolling User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult, I often find articles that aren't appropriate for WikiProject Opera, but are appropriate for this one. In the case of compositions, I see that this project's Compositions task force has been marked as inactive and its talk page archived. Should I just leave thecomposition=yes parameter off in future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore ( talk • contribs) 10:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think there's one very valuable lesson to be taken away from this entire "Moonlight" affray as first seen at:
(which itself is worth reviewing for its paucity of comment prior to premature closure):
Milkunderwood ( talk) 22:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this article Schleifer see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schleifer. Thanks. -- Klein zach 02:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Naming conventions (music) issue is now being shopped around at Article titles and (identical posting) at Manual of Style. (There may be other postings elsewhere by this user ( MistyMorn), who believes that music editors show systematic bias, see the discussion 'Self-selection bias' at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music).) -- Klein zach 02:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Classical music will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in classical music; as performers, producers, conductors, etc. I also pinged the folks at WP:Music, too! We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 19:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Greetings -- there is a discussion of the article Clavier-Übung III on the administrators' incident noticeboard here. It probably could use some eyes -- in fact the discussion may be better handled here, since it appears to be a content issue, with a large, elaborate, (and to my eye excellent) article which is quite long. Antandrus (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2012 (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 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
I honestly don't know how else to put this, outside of that some more input would be welcome, both in fixing up the prose as well as helping to settle the debate at Talk:Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Too much attention to fringe theories.. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ ( talk) 05:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I tried to answer Melodia's request with a considered comment, but I found the ping pong table environment somewhat hostile. I feel I'm not really cut out for these disputes. MistyMorn ( talk) 12:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it a good idea, or not, to include discographies for well-known performers? I ask because I was looking at Isaac Stern (whose article strikes me as being a little sparse in any case), and find that there used to be a discography section - not the best organized, I grant - that was deleted 07:28, 22 July 2007 by User:Emerson7 (without noting the deletion in the edit summary).
This came up because I was actually looking for Alexander Zakin, Stern's long-time accompanist, who not only had no article but also not a single mention in Wikipedia. User:Dr. Blofeld has now rectified this omission with a lovely article - more thorough and detailed, in fact, than Stern's.
I suppose I could eventually get around to constructing a Stern discography, but I have zero sources for anything else. And I sure don't want to fool around going to the bother of making a discography if someone is just going to turn around and delete it again. Any thoughts or suggestions? Milkunderwood ( talk) 23:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
This is what I had assumed. What I found startling was that Stern did have a discography, which got deleted with no explanation or notice back in 2007, and with no subsequent comment. It wasn't the best-organized discography I've ever seen, but it was more useful than not. (See 07:28, 22 July 2007 User:Emerson7 in Isaac Stern History.) As I said, I could do one myself if I ever get enough spare time - but if I ever do, I sure won't want to see it deleted again. Then on the other hand, maybe I ought to look at that old one again, and if it seems worthwhile, just resurrect it as is and see what happens. Milkunderwood ( talk) 04:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated Sylvia (ballet) 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. Brad ( talk) 00:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday I heard Chopin's Piano Concerto No. 1 for the umpteenth time, but it struck me for the first time just how long the soloist has to wait until the orchestral introduction is finished. I wasn't timing it, but it felt like 3-4 minutes before the pianist gets to play a single note.
Is this some sort of record, and if not, which concerto has the longest soloist-free introduction? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe Chopin wanted to march the audience to their seats in time for the start?-- MistyMorn ( talk) 00:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
So, the contenders seem to be Chopin 1, Brahms 1 and Busoni. All piano concertos. I'm rather surprised at 4:14 and 3:19 for the Brahms: all performances take a slightly different time, naturally, but the Gilels takes 28% longer than the Fleisher, a huge variance. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 16:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
To me it's more than just "fun" and socializing, it's educational. We aren't taking up anyone's time other than our own, and it's not as though we're eating into a limited space on Wikipedia - especially when you consider all the utter horseshit posted around here. I quote from an old post at
Talk:Isaac Stern#We prefer fantasy over real accomplishment: How sad Isaac Stern gets a few short paragraphs and Luke Skywalker gets pages and pages and pages and pages. Anyway, this will disappear into the archives soon enough, and be forgotten.
My naive and uninformed understanding of Chopin is that he had been criticized for not knowing how to orchestrate with any skill; that his two concertos were his calling-card to the musical world of Paris; that Parisians at that time expected a big showy introduction with the full orchestra; and that he busted his butt trying to make a splash there. Does this generally comport with others' understanding?
Milkunderwood (
talk)
21:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
And a bit more about policy: if Jack had not posted his off-the-wall query about ex aequo, now archived, we would probably never have been treated to Ravpapa's wonderful reply, which I have appropriated and posted on my own userpage. Milkunderwood ( talk) 22:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I am glad peace has been restored. And as an offering to peace, I give you this: Harold in Italy, 3:45. In the YouTube performance, Gergiev has to nudge Yuri Bashmet to wake him up in time for the viola entrance. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 05:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
RE: "Remember, the reader is the enemy." Actually, I seem to have heard that one somewhere before. Something about proactive defence against reviewers' potential objections. Though I hasten to say I'm no advocate of defensive writing (or suchlike). Whereas I am a big fan of Harold, including the opening — however beastly Berlioz may sometimes have been in his writings. MistyMorn ( talk) 12:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've put a request at WP:REX for somebody to compare an entry in this work to an article that has been flagged as a copyright violation. If you have access to it, can you please help out at the listing there? It could help pull an article out of limbo! :) Thanks. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I’ve often wondered about this. There are many cases where a work is performed, and usually published in that form, and then, typically some years later, the composer has a re-think and makes some revisions, and releases the new version. Works such as Stravinsky's Petrushka fall into this category. We have the original 1911 version, and we also have the revised 1947 version. Many other examples like this.
But then we have cases where a work is publicly performed for the first time, immediately after which the composer makes some (typically minor) changes, in light of hearing how it actually sounded before a full auditorium, and only then publishes the work for the first time. The original version as played at the premiere is usually consigned to some dusty archive and becomes unknown to the general population. Or destroyed. The slightly revised version is the version we play and record. Works such as Tchaikovsky’s Pathetique Symphony, Dvořák’s New World Symphony and Shostakovich’s 2nd Symphony fall into this category.
The thing with these latter cases is that the date of the premiere of the original version (the version we don't know) is almost always shown in reference works as the premiere. The date of the premiere of the revised version (the version we do know) is usually a footnote at best. For example, Shostakovich's 2nd Symphony was first played in Leningrad on 5 November 1927 under Nikolai Malko. That date and those details appear in all decent reference works. But what was played there that day is not what we play now. What we play now is the version that includes the revisions that Shostakovich made after the official premiere. The date of the first performance of the revised version is not even recorded, as far as I know, apart from some time later in 1927. It was played in a different place (Moscow) and under a different conductor ( Konstantin Saradzhev).
Another case in point is the famous premiere of Turandot, where Toscanini laid down his baton at the point where Puccini stopped writing. Many operaphiles could rattle off the date 25 April 1926 without having to check. But ask them when the opera as completed by Alfano, i.e. the version we always see and hear now, was first performed, and most could not tell you (it was actually the following night, 26 April). This was the world premiere of the complete version of the opera, yet again, it typically gets very much lower billing compared with its "official" premiere, which was not even the whole opera. (It's currently mentioned in the lede of our article, but most reference books don't mention it at all.)
So, what is it with these "official" dates of premieres-that-are-not-actually-premieres? And why are the dates of the "real" premieres given such scant regard by musical historians? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to applaud the coda to the Turandot lede, and concur with Jack that dates of first performances after revisions are of interest. Best, MistyMorn ( talk) 17:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
An attempt is made to "revive" Wikipedia:WikiProject PipeOrgan. I'd like to invite everyone here with an interest in pipe organs, organ music, and related topics to visit and join if you're not already a member of the project. Kind regards, Danmuz ( talk) 10:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a move discussion ongoing at Moonlight Sonata debating whether or not it should be moved to Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven). Please take a look. Thank you, Double sharp( talk) 07:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
At Talk:Moonlight Sonata - this discussion has implications for the naming of articles on classical compositions in general, and input from more users will be helpful. Milkunderwood( talk) 23:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This has now spread. There is a proposal at Talk:Piano Sonata No. 8 (Beethoven) to move four more Beethoven piano sonatas to their nicknames. -- Deskford ( talk) 01:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
This has now been open for over two weeks. I wonder if someone can close it? -- Klein zach 23:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Before the page-move discussion at Talk:Moonlight Sonata is even resolved, one of the editors opposing the move has proposed four counter-moves of nicknamed sonatas here: Talk:Piano_Sonata_No._8_(Beethoven)#Requested_move. No matter which side of the debate one is on, the independent proposal of counter-moves doesn't seem right. This is all part of the same discussion, no? DavidRF ( talk) 01:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Copied from that referenced discussion:
Milkunderwood ( talk) 02:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the decision is to leave it at Talk:Moonlight Sonata#Requested move. Please come and voice your opinions. Note that the two preceding sections on that same page are also relevant. Milkunderwood ( talk) 03:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Can any experts on the naming of instruments help sort this one out: cymbalum is a redirect to cimbalom, yet the lead of the article says A "cymbalum" is not the same instrument as a cimbalom. A "cymbalum" is a part of a medieval instrument, one of a set of 4-8 small bells.... Is this a case of a word that can by applied to multiple unrelated instruments? -- Deskford ( talk) 18:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Advice please: someone has added a link to a performance on Classical Connect of a Beethoven sonata whose page I have watchlisted. From the first few bars, it seems the performance may be very good, but I've read that some of those on Classical Connect may be copyright violations. How can I check in any particular case -- or should I just remove the link anyway? (The article already has a link to another performance.) Thanks for any advice. -- Stfg ( talk) 15:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I know the Classical music project does not assess for importance articles assigned to it. I'm asking about class quality ratings. Where is the project's stats table? Do you want me to place a link (on your main project) page to it? Alternately, I could place it directly on your main page much like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. Personally, I'm not a big fan of projects where you have to dig around for it. Argolin ( talk) 05:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?categories=Wikipedia+featured+articles%0D%0AWikiProject+Classical+music+articles&ns%5B1%5D=1&doit=1
Ah! Thank-you everyone. It's all a little clearer now. It wouldn't make any difference if I ran an upodate at toolserver.org. The project banner doesn't have the class parameter. The total number is a total of all items including articles. Can I ask why? It seems odd to me that the project doesn't care at all about the class quality of it's items. Argolin ( talk) 17:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
|class=
parameter in the project template.Didn't mean to step on any toes or be insulting. I must appologise. Yes, my earlier comment was rather hasty and off-the-cuff. I'll read the suggested links provided. Thanks for the quick response. Argolin ( talk) 04:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Jstor.org is now making their pre-1923 journal content available without subscription. There's more about it here. They're rolling out the free content gradually. For now the following are available in areas of interest to this project:
The list of all journals currently available is here. – Voceditenore ( talk) 15:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I've made a proposal about articles in series— such as the Beethoven piano sonatas — for the WP guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). I would be grateful other people could have a look at this, to see if the wording can be improved to remove any possible loopholes etc! Thanks. -- Klein zach 12:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
When I'm patrolling User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult, I often find articles that aren't appropriate for WikiProject Opera, but are appropriate for this one. In the case of compositions, I see that this project's Compositions task force has been marked as inactive and its talk page archived. Should I just leave thecomposition=yes parameter off in future? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore ( talk • contribs) 10:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think there's one very valuable lesson to be taken away from this entire "Moonlight" affray as first seen at:
(which itself is worth reviewing for its paucity of comment prior to premature closure):
Milkunderwood ( talk) 22:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this article Schleifer see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schleifer. Thanks. -- Klein zach 02:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Naming conventions (music) issue is now being shopped around at Article titles and (identical posting) at Manual of Style. (There may be other postings elsewhere by this user ( MistyMorn), who believes that music editors show systematic bias, see the discussion 'Self-selection bias' at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music).) -- Klein zach 02:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Classical music will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in classical music; as performers, producers, conductors, etc. I also pinged the folks at WP:Music, too! We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 19:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Greetings -- there is a discussion of the article Clavier-Übung III on the administrators' incident noticeboard here. It probably could use some eyes -- in fact the discussion may be better handled here, since it appears to be a content issue, with a large, elaborate, (and to my eye excellent) article which is quite long. Antandrus (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)