![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
As per Antandrus' suggestion, I moved the list to a new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Composers. The talk that was here is now on the discussion page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Composers -- Sketchee 07:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
What do you all think of the project page? I'm not sure if it's outlining everything well enough or not. I tried to make it clear that the project is a guide and list of ideas, not a concrete template. There are so many ways and angles we can concentrate on a person's life and career. Even vary similar pages discuss things in the same way. I think the "How you can help" list is a decent start since it's concise. People can just pick one and go. Then, if someone wants to get in detail, the structure section gives a bit of that ... maybe too much though.
We could create subpages of the project to detail various aspects. When discussing a composers's style, influences, biography, etc. how do we present those sections? A guide could probably be made listing or detailing ideas for each. If you think it's good for the project, create a subpage style guide, tutorial or anything. The goals section might need more goals, so if you think of anything go for it. It is also suggested that WikiProjects choose a real example.
Also, I was looking at Wikipedia:Sound. What kind of header(s) can we suggest for including sound and images? The Chopin article uses ==Media===. That's probably okay. Maybe a note on including images or a link to the approprate Wikipedia namespace article should be here as the perfect article would probably include a picture of the composer if available.
If there's someone you think might be interested in contributing, it's probably okay to leave a note on their talk page.
I take no credit for the project, even though I set up the project page. :) This is something people have been already doing anyway. I've used samples from various composer pages as my guide so in reality there are already a lot of contributions to the page. That's the fun of Wikipedia. Feel free to boldy rip apart the project page as you feel necessary! :D -- Sketchee 07:42, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Thoughts? -- Sketchee 07:42, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
I got this idea from the WikiProject talkpage. Other projects are doing this, but I thought it best to ask on the talk page first since I have all the stuff above posted here already. Should we post a notice on the Talk page of articles linking to the WikiProject? Should we place it at the top of the article, in a template, or in the regular talk page format? Would we want to "tag" articles in this category that hasn't been explicitly edited by us to ask for assistance from the usual editors? --
Sketchee 13:17, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, from what I gather on categorization, articles that can be put into a subcategory shouldn't be put into the supercategory. Category:Classical composers seems to be populated by people who should be placed into nationalities and eras (or in borderline cases, two eras). Also, Classical composer by nationality seems to be unused, with Composers by nationality being populated instead. Is it worthwhile to revive it and preserve the distinction between classical/non-classical on that front? Nationality and era seem to be the most useful way to break them down -- I'd like to see no one left stranded in a supercat. Also, I'm inclined to remove "musician" unless they were also known for their performance careers, since composer is a subcat of musician. Thoughts? Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 08:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also, I made a simple talk page template: Template:Composers. It's just a simple text tag informing people of the project:
It's not something that is required on all talk pages under the category but may help people find a place to discuss. I just made it text so it could be places anywhere on the talk page that an editor feels comfortable. I didn't want it to be as obtrusive as say the Template:Album talk template. Feel free to edit it, make suggestions or use it as desired. -- Sketchee 09:20, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
This is a topic which some of us have discussed before (there's a bit on my talk page, as well as that of User:Opus33). These articles which Wikipedia has pillaged wholesale from the 1911 EB are very difficult to work with; they are pompous, heavy, and their German-Romantic-Era-is-the-Summit-of-Musical-Perfection POV is so tightly interwoven with the content that it is extremely difficult simply to filter out the POV and retain the factual information. In addition, the factual information is often wrong--there has been so much musicological research since 1911, that fact-checking can be truly agonizing. I for one would like to ditch them and rewrite from scratch, using more up-to-date sources, but I recognize others might see some value in these articles. Some that come to mind are Franz Schubert, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Carl Maria von Weber, Henry Purcell. (Most of the articles on composers before the 17th century I have already rewritten.) Any other thoughts on this? I think I'll go ahead and add them to the list of composers needing TLC. Antandrus 04:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In regards some of the template details that are inconsistent with how we have been doing things for some time (e.g., ==External Links== instead of, as you have it on the page, ===External Links=== — I never said my examples weren't picky) - however, when I was informed of this header2 standard, I went through quite a few pages I knew and edited them to conform to that template; should I now go through them again to rewrite them to the new header3 template, for example?? Schissel : bowl listen 01:38, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikiprojects but would like to contribute to this one. I have a load of past essays I wrote from the Royal Conservatory of Music exams, and textbook material, but I'd like to know if I should get started right away, or wait for guidelines to come in. Some guidance on how to work with projects would help. Thanks. TheProject 07:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On the advice of Antandrus I'm bringing this up here, (I first mentioned it over at Talk:European classical music). Is there any consensus opinion on whether opus lists should be tabulated or non-tabulated. A couple of examples of the tabulated form can be found at List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin and the K number table of Mozart's works, whilst the non-tabulated form can be found in pretty much all the other lists (an example would be my new List of works by Purcell). If the consensus is reached against tabulated form, I'll be happy to revert the Chopin (I think the Mozart should be left as is regardless), and likewise if the consensus is for tabulated form, I'll be equally happy to tabulate any suggested pages (it's normally just a few replace alls with regexps, not as hard as it might first appear). Mallocks 15:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
So I think this would be a rough sketch of what we're looking at for a system:
For listings with only 1 catalogue system: (square brackets signifying "if available")
For listings with more than 1 catalogue system:
First system | Second system | Composition | Year |
---|---|---|---|
First Number | [Second number] | Composition title[ - "popular name"] | (year) |
... |
Improvements, suggestions and/or comments welcome. Mallocks 13:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
On a related topic, it looks like we either need a list of lists of compositions by composer, and/or a category for lists of compositions by composer, since the lists are rather hard to find (the naming is inconsistent too-- List of works by Beethoven vs. List of compositions by Schubert. I'm at work now and can't tangle with it until later--but anyone let me know your ideas! Fun, Antandrus 15:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Biography to see if anyone else thinks it's a good idea and would be willing to participate. It's still just a rough sketch of an idea. Matt 01:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
As a subproject to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics now exists with a list of articles taken from music encyclopedias (by Gmaxwell). If anyone is looking for something music-related to write, there's a list of ideas. Some of them just need redirects: there's plenty of low-hanging fruit if you're not up for a full article. (Plenty of the redlinks are composers.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I just created Category:Women composers, since I noticed it was linked from severeal places and missing. I've also populated it somewhat, using List of women composers. Two questions though: 1) is List of women composers necessary at all, then? 2) I think I saw Category:Women composers on CfD for deletion some time ago, as an assertion of inequality, so maybe I did wrong? Karol 13:06, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I've added the list to the category. Karol 15:33, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I have taken the plunge and nominated Witold Lutosławski for peer review. I should be grateful for anyone interested in the composers project looking the article over and making or suggesting improvements to get it into a state suitable for nomination as a featured article. Thanks. I am taking a Wikiholiday end of July, so my plan is to have it peer reviewed until then, and if people think it's worth it I may nominate it for FA on my return mid August. -- RobertG ♬ talk 29 June 2005 08:39 (UTC)
This discussion after an edit scuffle at Johann Sebastian Bach prompted me to share what I perceive as a woolliness in articles about a few composers: namely the use of the word great. If someone contributes "X is [one of] the greatest composers…" the opinion-like nature of the statement leads other Wikipedians (even those sympathetic to the claim) to require its qualification because it is unverifiable: the qualification usually (reluctantly) adopted is either "X is generally considered [one of] the greatest composers…" or "many people regard X as [one of] the greatest composers…".
I contend that the problem with saying "X is the greatest" is not the fact that the claim is opinion, but that the word "great" is used inappropriately. In this context "great" can be taken to mean anything from "influential", "significant", "popular", to "intellectually challenging", "conveying great emotion", "using such deep concepts as to defy simple exposition", but what the word ends up conveying is either all (or any) of the above, or simply the contributor's own inarticulate adulation.
For this reason I propose that the word "great" is unencyclopedic, and should never (never say never?) be used to describe a classical composer on Wikipedia. It can always be replaced by specific verifiable meanings. In my recent edit of the intro of the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart article I removed the word "great" and inserted three meanings that I thought were appropriate and verifiable: it now says "is among the most popular, significant and influential composers of European classical music." I think this was a forward step, it does not require any "people think" or "is regarded as" qualifications, and it seems to have been found acceptable there.
Respecfully opening a polite debate, and hoping others have a view. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
There is a related discussion (copied from my talk page) at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Bach greatness where I defend the use of the word "greatest", which I think can be encyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 14:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've read a few composer entries, and am struck by the scarcity of technical information describing composers' styles in relation to their period, and the evolution of their styles through their career. This applies to both featured and non-featured articles. I don't think that adding technical information in a section dedicated to style will alienate the non-musician reader; the advantage is that it will increase the authority of Wikipedia in this area. At the moment, the emphasis is far too much on biography, in my view.
Tony 10:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
So Wikipedia can distinguish itself in this respect. I think it's worth doing. Tony 13:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Robert that we need a such a list; I'll add a category to the list of the status of composer articles on the main project page. Please add to it. And it was my thought exactly that we locate a few models of what we think is desirable. Far from going into as much serious technical detail as Groves does, I was concerned that we distinguish ourselves from, say, Word Book Encyclopedia and the like, which are superficial in this regard. Just as some of the scientific articles on Wikipedia are aimed at undergraduates of the area (e.g., cerebellum), we should dish up something that a music undergraduate would find useful, while not pursuing an intensive analytical line, as Mindspillage may fear. I'm about to write a 'Style' section for JS Bach. It will not be easy, but must be done; otherwise, the article is just a biography.
Tony 23:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The recent FAC for Olivier Messiaen has raised this question again. I think we need a consensus. I think an article about a composer should include a brief (but comprehensive) overview of the composer's style, technique and influence. What do others think? -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:37, 30 January 2006 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
As per Antandrus' suggestion, I moved the list to a new page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Composers. The talk that was here is now on the discussion page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Composers -- Sketchee 07:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
What do you all think of the project page? I'm not sure if it's outlining everything well enough or not. I tried to make it clear that the project is a guide and list of ideas, not a concrete template. There are so many ways and angles we can concentrate on a person's life and career. Even vary similar pages discuss things in the same way. I think the "How you can help" list is a decent start since it's concise. People can just pick one and go. Then, if someone wants to get in detail, the structure section gives a bit of that ... maybe too much though.
We could create subpages of the project to detail various aspects. When discussing a composers's style, influences, biography, etc. how do we present those sections? A guide could probably be made listing or detailing ideas for each. If you think it's good for the project, create a subpage style guide, tutorial or anything. The goals section might need more goals, so if you think of anything go for it. It is also suggested that WikiProjects choose a real example.
Also, I was looking at Wikipedia:Sound. What kind of header(s) can we suggest for including sound and images? The Chopin article uses ==Media===. That's probably okay. Maybe a note on including images or a link to the approprate Wikipedia namespace article should be here as the perfect article would probably include a picture of the composer if available.
If there's someone you think might be interested in contributing, it's probably okay to leave a note on their talk page.
I take no credit for the project, even though I set up the project page. :) This is something people have been already doing anyway. I've used samples from various composer pages as my guide so in reality there are already a lot of contributions to the page. That's the fun of Wikipedia. Feel free to boldy rip apart the project page as you feel necessary! :D -- Sketchee 07:42, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Thoughts? -- Sketchee 07:42, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
I got this idea from the WikiProject talkpage. Other projects are doing this, but I thought it best to ask on the talk page first since I have all the stuff above posted here already. Should we post a notice on the Talk page of articles linking to the WikiProject? Should we place it at the top of the article, in a template, or in the regular talk page format? Would we want to "tag" articles in this category that hasn't been explicitly edited by us to ask for assistance from the usual editors? --
Sketchee 13:17, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, from what I gather on categorization, articles that can be put into a subcategory shouldn't be put into the supercategory. Category:Classical composers seems to be populated by people who should be placed into nationalities and eras (or in borderline cases, two eras). Also, Classical composer by nationality seems to be unused, with Composers by nationality being populated instead. Is it worthwhile to revive it and preserve the distinction between classical/non-classical on that front? Nationality and era seem to be the most useful way to break them down -- I'd like to see no one left stranded in a supercat. Also, I'm inclined to remove "musician" unless they were also known for their performance careers, since composer is a subcat of musician. Thoughts? Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 08:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also, I made a simple talk page template: Template:Composers. It's just a simple text tag informing people of the project:
It's not something that is required on all talk pages under the category but may help people find a place to discuss. I just made it text so it could be places anywhere on the talk page that an editor feels comfortable. I didn't want it to be as obtrusive as say the Template:Album talk template. Feel free to edit it, make suggestions or use it as desired. -- Sketchee 09:20, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
This is a topic which some of us have discussed before (there's a bit on my talk page, as well as that of User:Opus33). These articles which Wikipedia has pillaged wholesale from the 1911 EB are very difficult to work with; they are pompous, heavy, and their German-Romantic-Era-is-the-Summit-of-Musical-Perfection POV is so tightly interwoven with the content that it is extremely difficult simply to filter out the POV and retain the factual information. In addition, the factual information is often wrong--there has been so much musicological research since 1911, that fact-checking can be truly agonizing. I for one would like to ditch them and rewrite from scratch, using more up-to-date sources, but I recognize others might see some value in these articles. Some that come to mind are Franz Schubert, Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, Carl Maria von Weber, Henry Purcell. (Most of the articles on composers before the 17th century I have already rewritten.) Any other thoughts on this? I think I'll go ahead and add them to the list of composers needing TLC. Antandrus 04:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In regards some of the template details that are inconsistent with how we have been doing things for some time (e.g., ==External Links== instead of, as you have it on the page, ===External Links=== — I never said my examples weren't picky) - however, when I was informed of this header2 standard, I went through quite a few pages I knew and edited them to conform to that template; should I now go through them again to rewrite them to the new header3 template, for example?? Schissel : bowl listen 01:38, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikiprojects but would like to contribute to this one. I have a load of past essays I wrote from the Royal Conservatory of Music exams, and textbook material, but I'd like to know if I should get started right away, or wait for guidelines to come in. Some guidance on how to work with projects would help. Thanks. TheProject 07:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On the advice of Antandrus I'm bringing this up here, (I first mentioned it over at Talk:European classical music). Is there any consensus opinion on whether opus lists should be tabulated or non-tabulated. A couple of examples of the tabulated form can be found at List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin and the K number table of Mozart's works, whilst the non-tabulated form can be found in pretty much all the other lists (an example would be my new List of works by Purcell). If the consensus is reached against tabulated form, I'll be happy to revert the Chopin (I think the Mozart should be left as is regardless), and likewise if the consensus is for tabulated form, I'll be equally happy to tabulate any suggested pages (it's normally just a few replace alls with regexps, not as hard as it might first appear). Mallocks 15:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
So I think this would be a rough sketch of what we're looking at for a system:
For listings with only 1 catalogue system: (square brackets signifying "if available")
For listings with more than 1 catalogue system:
First system | Second system | Composition | Year |
---|---|---|---|
First Number | [Second number] | Composition title[ - "popular name"] | (year) |
... |
Improvements, suggestions and/or comments welcome. Mallocks 13:50, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
On a related topic, it looks like we either need a list of lists of compositions by composer, and/or a category for lists of compositions by composer, since the lists are rather hard to find (the naming is inconsistent too-- List of works by Beethoven vs. List of compositions by Schubert. I'm at work now and can't tangle with it until later--but anyone let me know your ideas! Fun, Antandrus 15:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Biography to see if anyone else thinks it's a good idea and would be willing to participate. It's still just a rough sketch of an idea. Matt 01:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
As a subproject to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, Wikipedia:Music encyclopedia topics now exists with a list of articles taken from music encyclopedias (by Gmaxwell). If anyone is looking for something music-related to write, there's a list of ideas. Some of them just need redirects: there's plenty of low-hanging fruit if you're not up for a full article. (Plenty of the redlinks are composers.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I just created Category:Women composers, since I noticed it was linked from severeal places and missing. I've also populated it somewhat, using List of women composers. Two questions though: 1) is List of women composers necessary at all, then? 2) I think I saw Category:Women composers on CfD for deletion some time ago, as an assertion of inequality, so maybe I did wrong? Karol 13:06, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I've added the list to the category. Karol 15:33, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I have taken the plunge and nominated Witold Lutosławski for peer review. I should be grateful for anyone interested in the composers project looking the article over and making or suggesting improvements to get it into a state suitable for nomination as a featured article. Thanks. I am taking a Wikiholiday end of July, so my plan is to have it peer reviewed until then, and if people think it's worth it I may nominate it for FA on my return mid August. -- RobertG ♬ talk 29 June 2005 08:39 (UTC)
This discussion after an edit scuffle at Johann Sebastian Bach prompted me to share what I perceive as a woolliness in articles about a few composers: namely the use of the word great. If someone contributes "X is [one of] the greatest composers…" the opinion-like nature of the statement leads other Wikipedians (even those sympathetic to the claim) to require its qualification because it is unverifiable: the qualification usually (reluctantly) adopted is either "X is generally considered [one of] the greatest composers…" or "many people regard X as [one of] the greatest composers…".
I contend that the problem with saying "X is the greatest" is not the fact that the claim is opinion, but that the word "great" is used inappropriately. In this context "great" can be taken to mean anything from "influential", "significant", "popular", to "intellectually challenging", "conveying great emotion", "using such deep concepts as to defy simple exposition", but what the word ends up conveying is either all (or any) of the above, or simply the contributor's own inarticulate adulation.
For this reason I propose that the word "great" is unencyclopedic, and should never (never say never?) be used to describe a classical composer on Wikipedia. It can always be replaced by specific verifiable meanings. In my recent edit of the intro of the Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart article I removed the word "great" and inserted three meanings that I thought were appropriate and verifiable: it now says "is among the most popular, significant and influential composers of European classical music." I think this was a forward step, it does not require any "people think" or "is regarded as" qualifications, and it seems to have been found acceptable there.
Respecfully opening a polite debate, and hoping others have a view. -- RobertG ♬ talk 09:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
There is a related discussion (copied from my talk page) at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Bach greatness where I defend the use of the word "greatest", which I think can be encyclopedic. Paul August ☎ 14:41, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I've read a few composer entries, and am struck by the scarcity of technical information describing composers' styles in relation to their period, and the evolution of their styles through their career. This applies to both featured and non-featured articles. I don't think that adding technical information in a section dedicated to style will alienate the non-musician reader; the advantage is that it will increase the authority of Wikipedia in this area. At the moment, the emphasis is far too much on biography, in my view.
Tony 10:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
So Wikipedia can distinguish itself in this respect. I think it's worth doing. Tony 13:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Robert that we need a such a list; I'll add a category to the list of the status of composer articles on the main project page. Please add to it. And it was my thought exactly that we locate a few models of what we think is desirable. Far from going into as much serious technical detail as Groves does, I was concerned that we distinguish ourselves from, say, Word Book Encyclopedia and the like, which are superficial in this regard. Just as some of the scientific articles on Wikipedia are aimed at undergraduates of the area (e.g., cerebellum), we should dish up something that a music undergraduate would find useful, while not pursuing an intensive analytical line, as Mindspillage may fear. I'm about to write a 'Style' section for JS Bach. It will not be easy, but must be done; otherwise, the article is just a biography.
Tony 23:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The recent FAC for Olivier Messiaen has raised this question again. I think we need a consensus. I think an article about a composer should include a brief (but comprehensive) overview of the composer's style, technique and influence. What do others think? -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)