Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

Score samples and transposing instruments

Over at Clarinet Concerto (Mozart), I'm involved in a dispute over the samples given. I transcribed the first phrase of the solo part for each movement, and transcribed them as written for clarinet in A. Opus33 feels it should be either transposed to C, or that there should be a prominent notice that the clarinet is a transposing instrument. I feel that the part should be transcribed as written, and very few people who can recognize it as the "wrong key" will not also know why. I've brought it here because this could be relevant to other instruments (ETA: trumpets and saxophones leap to mind) and pieces. What is the project's feeling on this? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The infobox of the clarinet article gives the playing range of the common B? clarinet untransposed; same for the playing range of the clarinet in A in the table at Clarinet#Extended family of clarinets. There's a lot to do about the playing range of Mozart's clarinet concerto (especially the playing range difference with the first version of the concerto: I've seen a documentary entirely devoted to that topic, since the basset clarinet for which that version was intended was far from standardised at the time, and included a variety of instruments with different playing ranges with only indirect evidence which one may have been intended by Mozart). When absorbing that info a reader might go to the pages that display these playing ranges, i.e. untransposed. So basically I prefer the samples would be written down without transposition, in order to make such comparisons easier for the reader, assuming many more people are somewhat accustomed with reading a G-clef than with reading a transposed G-clef (does it transpose up or down? etc.). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think part of the reason the range is given untransposed is that it ought to be the same for them all, except for basset-like extensions below the low E whose standardness and range varies between instruments. But here we are not presenting a generalisation across the clarinet family. I would like to echo Michael Bednarek's question at Talk:Clarinet Concerto (Mozart): "How is this treated in analytical sources that provide notation examples?" I don't have much of a preference myself, since I can read either pretty fluently, and both make sense. Double sharp (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Reopening discussion here, per request on my talk page, for discussing the general principle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Francis. That discussion at Talk:Clarinet Concerto (Mozart)#Key of the musical examples was very instructive. I don't agree with it, but am much less convinced of my position than I previously was. I strongly suggest everyone interested check there for examples of how professional catalogs do it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

Navbox by genre

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Numbers in article title

Twelve Fantasias for Viola da Gamba solo was moved to 12 Fantasias for Viola da Gamba (Telemann). Don't we write numerals up to twelve? What about Six chansons pour piano, - shouldn't that be 6 Chansons pour piano, by the same logic? Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Both Twelve Violin Sonatas, Op. 2 (Vivaldi) and 12 Fantasias for Solo Violin (Telemann) are mentioned, as it happens, next to each other, in the applicable guidance at WP:NCM#Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title. So, as far as article titles go, both "Twelve ..." and "12 ..." are acceptable (unless we rewrite the guidance). For comparable sets by Telemann, I suppose using the same format works best ("12 ..."). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If both are possible, why move? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read, quoting what I just wrote above: "For comparable sets by Telemann, I suppose using the same format works best ("12 ...")". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

For clarity, the "comparable sets" of Telemann compositions are under "F" at Category:Compositions by Georg Philipp Telemann. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

And then, in the article about 12 flute sonatas, we suggest "thirty-six" in a red link for a comparable title? Can we perhaps think about rewording the guidelines. If we observe to spell out numerals up to twelve, why not prefer that also in titles? I chose the option also because it clarifies from the start that the title is in English. Or do we want to make clear that the number is not really part of the title, as IMSLP consistently does? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Having the option of spelling out or using a number is ambiguous and potentially the cause of arguments. In line with proper English, I think numeric titles should be spelled out (or course with redirects for the numbers). - kosboot (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The "red link" actually reads {{ill|36 Fantaisies pour le clavessin, TWV 33:1-36|scores|36 Fantaisies pour le clavessin, TWV 33:1-36 (Telemann, Georg Philipp)|lt=thirty-six fantasias for solo harpsichord}}, which means that the suggested article title is:

• 36 Fantaisies pour le clavessin, TWV 33:1-36

(36 Fantasias for Harpsichord (Telemann) would work too, probably - didn't check yet how many more Fantasias the composer wrote for that instrument). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Opera templates changed for footboxes

@Gerda Arendt: hi Gerda, I must have missed it, but presumably there was a decision sometime earlier this year to move from right hand top opera templates to footboxes? Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_22#Template:Nicolai_operas etc. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

You can look for the word "navbox" on the present talk of project opera, and in the archives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

For a bit of history: {{Giuseppe Verdi}} was created in 2013, and the side navbox replaced by an infobox, for example Falstaff in 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

There has certainly not been a decision taken, or even any discussion of the matter that I am aware of, "to move from right hand top opera templates to footboxes". Gerda has simply taken it upon herself to create infoboxes for all the articles in the opera composer templates on that page you link to and now that the templates are empty, it is being recommended that they are thrown away. The composer navboxes, to me, are good because they provide an appropriate tribute to the composer at the top of the page with his picture, and useful because if the reader clicks on "show" they can easily navigate to the other operas by the composer, explore those and learn about them. So-called infoboxes,on the other hand, are completely useless, pointless and redundant as all they do is repeat information that is already in the lead and clutter up the top of the page. I put a lot of effort into creating and editing articles on Handel, Meyerbeer and Offenbach operas and other works by those composers because I really revere and admire them and I think it is important that the composer's picture is at the top of the page. I and several others have prevented the process starting of so-called infoboxes replacing the composer template on Handel works (that template even creates a "Wikipedia Book", an excellent and valuable educational tool) and Meyerbeer operas and I would also instantly revert any so-called infobox being added to any Offenbach stage work. But all these other opera articles were not on my watchlist, you can't fight about everything.Smeat75 (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Smeat75, if you want to pay tribute to the composer, there is no reason why the composer's image cannot be used in the infobox or simply as a stand-alone image at the top of the article with the navigation bar at the bottom--the widely accepted and expected place for them to be throughout Wikipedia. Similarly, there's no reason why the "Book" option cannot be added to the footer (horizontal) navbox. Having said that, the current usefulness of the "Book" option seems rather limited. Click on Book:Georg Friedrich Händel and read the notice at the top. In ictu oculi, the outcome of the lengthy discussions at WikiProject Opera on this issue and the development of {{Infobox opera}} was that the infobox is available as an option and only that. The situation has not changed. I personally use it in conjunction with the footer navbox in all the articles I create or significantly expand, as do several other editors. Others have very strong preferences for the old-style vertical navbox. As I have said each time this brouhaha erupts, the world is not going to end if an opera article has an infobox at the top. Nor is it going to end if it has the vertical navbox at the top. What counts is the content of the article, and dare I say it, getting along with one's colleagues. Voceditenore (talk) 07:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure or not whether it's a good idea. I'd like a link to previous discussion. I see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_70#Schubert_operas where @Francis Schonken: makes some good points. I personally prefer the top rh box. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, This is the main discussion about adding {{Infobox opera}} as an option for articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Templates. It took place at WikiProject Opera in June 2013 and has links to previous discussions at the project. The discussion was open for two weeks, and I had personally contacted all WikiProject Opera members who had participated on the project's talk page during the previous 12 months notifying them of the discussion. It is now used in over 900 of the 2,700 articles on individual operas. Several active editors in the area are in favour of it, several are not, and several are neutral. If you are really that concerned about its very existence you can start a whole new discussion at WikiProject Opera (where it belongs, not here), monitor it, and facilitate it. In which case I suggest you read this discussion and this one first. Voceditenore (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

No I'm not particuarly fussed, I was used to the old way, but evidently didn't follow it closely. Just looking for the reason that's all. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia