Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Boundary with WP:songs

I was surprised to see Für Elise being added to WP:Songs earlier today. I think this was just one user rather than any imperialist push by that project as a whole. However, I wonder whether there have been any inter-project discussions. Looking at their project page, they seem to be very much oriented to 20th and 21st century songs - that's what their stub categories are for - although I see a mention of hymns and anthems. I don't think they'll be very interested in Lieder, let alone works that aren't even songs, but has anythign been agreed in the past?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that User:Melodia has quickly wielded the scalpel on this one, and I agree.

I believe that popular music fans sometimes use the word "song" to mean "single item of music," like a track on a CD. But at least for classical items, I think it's fair for us to apply the traditional definition of the word -- there has to be a singer, or it's not a song. Opus33 (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I blame it on those siblings Felix and Fanny. ;-) --Peter cohen (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least they told us there weren't any words... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Active?

Has much been happening here since September? I ask because I am about to join. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I forgot: I am already a member! I added myself to the more prominent list on the main page. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Guideline page?

Most project have a dedicated page for guidelines, which is categorized, For example WP:CTM has its Style guidelines page which belongs in Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects. This taskforce however has guidelines as part of its general page, here. Would it be possible to move it to a dedicated project page so it could be categorized, ideally with other project guidelines. Thanks. --Kleinzach 09:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at that. I'll also have a thorough rummage through the whole task force to attempt revitalizing it! --Jubilee♫clipman 16:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is really just a technical thing. The project is obviously very active, so arguably revitalizing the task force is not an issue. At the moment most members seem happy posting on the main project talk page. --Kleinzach 01:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done see new page. --Kleinzach 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Klein! That's certainly much better. Perhaps I was a bit rash to imply that the task force is not active: clearly people are working on articles directly rather than discussing things here. Obviously there are no major issues to resolve with articles that need to involve the task force at the moment. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This task force covers classical music compositions. I am almost certain there is an empty intersection between this task force and the WikiProject Biography. Centy – reply• contribs – 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the task force want a share of a GA?

Twice Through the Heart is now a GA. When I heard it, it was at the Colisseum and ENO were calling it a monodrama. Schott describe it as a "dramatic scena" and some reviewers have called it a song cycle. It already has WP:WPO's stamp on it but I think it's one of those works like Damnation of Faust that straddle the border between the projects.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mozart's Wind Sinfonie Concertante

An edit by DavidRF got me thinking about making the article, since I'm in the middle of reading Robert Levin's fascinating book on it. But it's a point on what to call it. Short history -- the original for flute, oboe, horn, and bassoon is lost without a trace. The current work that is well known and recorded for oboe, clarinet, horn, and bassoon was found by Otto Jahn shortly after Kochel was first published. Over the years, some have said they think it IS a transcription of Mozart's original, others have thought it spurious (thus it has a K3 number of 297b, thinking they are the same work, but a K6 one of C Anh. 14.01 for the current one and K279B (note the caps difference) for the lost one thinking they are different). Levin makes the very convincing case that the solo parts are a transcription from Mozart's original (based mainly on the work's form), done by someone else, and the orchestral music was also done by someone else. So the main question here arises -- title, and if there should be one or two articles. There definitely should be an article for such a relatively popular and controversial piece, but even 'Sinfonie' vs. 'Sinfonia' is an issue. So anyone have any thoughts on the issue? (And please don't just say "it's listed as X in Grove" as that's VERY unhelpful). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know. I've seen it as Sinfonia Concertante for Wind and Sinfonie Concertante. I think at the end of the, it will take a bold editor who first creates the article to decide the name... much like the rules on American v British English. Centy – reply• contribs – 03:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

24 Preludes and Fugues (Shostakovich)

24 Preludes and Fugues (Shostakovich) could do with some expansion... and I can't find any refs... Brambleclawx 20:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Probable copyright issue at Choral Fantasy (Beethoven)

Please see Talk:Choral Fantasy (Beethoven)#Probably copyvio. I've sorted the Valkyrie synopsis copyvio and posted a message on the user page. But it's late here. Could someone else look into this please?--Peter cohen (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It's hard for me to compare without the original source. The only hyperlink in the references (to some program notes) is now a dead link. Centy – reply • contribs – 11:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have posted to the user page in the hope of their providing information on what they did. In the case of Die Walküre, someone was able to check against the original and the synopsis was lifted word for word from the reeference provided (the Decca/Solti box set). This therefore makes me think that it is likely that the same thing happened with the changes to the Choral Fantasy article where large chunks of text were again inserted in one day.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I also tried to find on the web where Reiko plagiarized in this article, and I did not succeed. (So now I feel bad about accusing her of plagiarism, in an unalterable edit summary.) Even so, I was not at all pleased at what Reiko had done to the article -- prior to her edits, I had put in material that I thought was relevant and informative, and sourced it carefully; Reiko simply overwrote what I wrote without giving any justification. Since (as Peter Cohen says) it's quite possible that the Reiko material is plagiarized, it seemed reasonable to me to start back at the last pre-Reiko version, add in the good things other editors had added since, and then add a bit more I found from other reference sources. I hope this course of action seems reasonable to you. Opus33 (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you've done the right thing. Thanks for sorting it out. With the recent case where one fo the top twenty editors was discovered to be a plagiarist, some people were arguing that only articles that were for certain copyvios should be reverted. My view is that the responsible thing to do is too play safe and assume that individual editors have patterns of behaviour and assume that there are similar problems in similar looking edits unless demonstrated otherwise. If Reiko had been around to say what they did, I would have been happy to WP:AGF about their response. But in the absense of a statement, AGF extends only to assuming that they didn't realise that there was a problem with copying chunks of attributed text.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Revival of this task force

Good to see that the {{semi-active}} tag has now been removed. What exactly are the current plans for this group? The music projects are now in considerable decline, so it will be encouraging to see some energy going into the revival of this task force. --Kleinzach 08:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)