Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59

Apologies, I haven't been following the situation here. I just want to point out that the quasi-templates for the sonatas, giving different numberings, are really somewhat confusing. Alternate numbering systems are labelled 'AGA', '21 Sonatas', 'Wiener Urtext Edition' and '23 sonatas'. Of these, only the third is immediately intelligible to this reader, and that is only because I happen to know what the Wiener Urtext Edition is. There is no explanation of the term on Wikipedia as far as I can see.

The systems have hyperlinks which lead to the article List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert, or , in the case of 'AGA', to IMSLP. The latter gives the Breitkopf & Hartel/Dover listing - though as to why it is referred to as 'AGA' there is no explanation.

'21 sonatas' and 'Wiener Urtext Edition' lead to a note 'numbering of the piano sonatas as encountered on Schubert page at Classical Archives and Schubert's Piano Sonatas template at IMSLP, with divergent numbers from Wiener Urtext Edition added in square brackets.' This is very confusing, and does not explain why such sources offer numberings which should be regarded in any way as authoritative and/or encyclopaedic. The IMSLP listing is already given as a source for the numbering under the heading 'AGA'. Classical Archives is not an acceptable research source.

'23 sonatas' leads to the following note: ' numbering of the piano sonatas as encountered in Franz SCHUBERT: Catalogo delle composizioni at flaminioonline.it and Franz Schubert Catalogue: 610 - Oeuvres pour piano at musiqueorguequebec.ca'. This as above is rather confusing and does not explain or establish why such sources offer numberings which should be regarded in any way as authoritative and/or encyclopaedic. I cannot understand why the Italian and Canadian sites should be offered, or recognised, as acceptable sources.

I don't think in the circumstances these templates clarify the situation at all, since they (and the links which they contain) do not even establish on a proper citation basis that the numbers given correspond to any actuality of usage. The non-expert reader coming across these quasi-templates will be utterly mystified.

In addition I point out that the format and placement of these quasi-templates is itself rather confusing, appearing as they do under the heading 'External links' (which they are not). Can the design not be refashioned so that it is clearly a template like others?

I suggest therefore that the best thing would be to withdraw these quasi-templates until they are properly sourced and sorted out.--Smerus (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that those "succession boxes" are confusing and against the guideline at WP:NAVBOX. Linking to external sites from a footer box is against several guidelines, and linking to footnotes in other articles is too convoluted to be a useful navigation tool. If there are competing numbering systems, they could be explained in a plain note in each article which might link to a more in-depth discussion elsewhere. Succession boxes have generally attracted some criticism for their extraordinary use of space and frequent duplication of existing navigation boxes on the same page. This applies here too, as we already have the more helpful navigation template {{Schubert piano compositions}}. I think it was User:Francis Schonken who contributed these succession boxes; I suggest he be asked to remove them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Franz Schubert's Werke: Kritisch durchgesehene Gesammtausgabe (= Alte Gesamtausgabe = AGA):^[1] (see List of solo piano compositions by Franz Schubert#Scores)
• For the rest I'm not sure whether I understand the criticism correctly: none of the numbering systems for the piano sonatas is authoritative, but all of them they are used. Wiener Urtext is a commercial enterprise of one publisher, none of the other publishers use that numbering of the sonatas. IMSLP has the AGA numbering (on the page where the AGA link goes to), but uses another numbering for their piano sonata pages (which, BTW, is not the Wiener Urtext numbering although both have 21 numbered sonatas). Wikipedia has 23 solo piano sonata articles, so the "helpful" {{Schubert piano compositions}} uses these, but this numbering is only sometimes used on recordings etc. Because all of this is confusing (see e.g. lenghty discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 54#Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed), there are the succession boxes to help you out, which, BTW, are not "quasi" templates, but actual templates.
• So no, I see no reason to remove any of these succession boxes... Maybe the links could be kept internal and the explanations when clicking a link a bit more direct, etc. but none of this indicates succession boxes wouldn't be a good way to handle such confusing situation. The basic reasoning is: on a concert program, or on a CD, or a website, or in a book, or by a radio speaker, a piano sonata is indicated by a number (which they very often are but usually without indicating in which numbering system) → Wikipedia helps to navigate to the article on the sonata that was meant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Francis, this won't do. The purpose of non-text entities on an article page should be to clarify issues, not to complicate them. A look at the guidelines WP:NAVBOX, as suggested by Michael Bednarek, will make some of our reservations clear. But just in case I was insufficiently clear in my initial remarks - You don't explain anywhere, (and certainly not in the links in the quasi-templates), what these different numberings mean or give any reference source for the numberings. You don't even explain what the abbreviation AGA stands for, nor do you explain for the casual reader what the Wiener Urtext Edition is. You must remedy this if you expect to make a case for the quasi-templates to remain. By the way, as they are not in {{Template}} format, they are indeed quasi-templates by WP standards. And, lastly, they are confusing in the way they are placed on the page, which classifies them as an external link. So please take note of the good-faith comments made by myself and Michael Bednarek, and rectify these additions to the pages. If they cannot be rectified, I will initiate a discussion proposing their removal. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

@Smerus: I've put nowiki tags round {{:Template}} in your post above as it was transcluding something strange and putting the TOC out of position. I'm not sure what you intended, but I'm sure that wasn't it. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ta, @Stfg: - have made further adjustment - am still recovering from last night's sliwowitz....--Smerus (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• the template is {{s-lit}} (applied as explained in the documentation of that template)
• true, I'll make time ASAP to give a better explanation of the terms

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• see also Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization/Guidelines --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• see also Sonatas, duos and fantasies by Franz Schubert#Numbering of the Piano Sonatas, where I'd explain the AGA abbreviation etc. now, and link the succession boxes to. Note that that page didn't exist yet when I originally built the succession boxes series, but it seems a better place to give the full explanation now (... needs more refs etc. too). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Francis!--Smerus (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Since none of the numberings are a universal standard, why not have {{Schubert piano compositions}} be just neutrally ordered by Deutsch number, and leave the discussion of the numbering controversy to the main articles on the sonatas involved? Double sharp (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that'a very sensible idea and would support it - what do others think?--Smerus (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

A problem with that is that some sonatas are combinations of two or more Deutsch numbers, the result would be even messier, recognizability plunging. So no, not a good idea for Schubert's solo piano sonatas. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but does anyone really call the F-sharp minor sonata "D 571/604/570"? Wiener Urtext just calls it "D 571" on the title page. The preface to the Henle Urtext edition uses "D 571/604/570", "D 613/612", and "D 625/505" the first time but then switches to just "D 613" and "D 625" on later occurrences ("D 571" doesn't get mentioned again). Also there is disagreement on exactly which movements belong: is D 346 the finale of D 279? Just what is the relationship between D 459 and D 459A? Does the third movement of D 566 actually belong to that sonata? Is D 600/610 part of D 613?

I think a sensible way to resolve all these problems is to just use the numbers on Wiener Urtext's title pages, because those are for movements everyone agrees are part of the sonatas: thus (154), 157, (277A), 279, 459, 537, 557, 566, 568, 571, 575, 613, 625, (655), 664, (769A), 784, 840, 845, 850, 894, 958, 959, 960. (That would also remove the non-chronological silliness of the present numbering system where 769A is placed between 459 and 537!) Inclusion issues can be mentioned on the relevant pages (in particular, discussion about 459A should probably be on 459). Double sharp (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe use a sandbox to show us what this would result in? Sorry for not producing the further explanations about the numberings yet, was occupied here, will get to it ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

How's this?

We could perhaps also put D 655 and D 769A (the uncompletable fragments) in their own category, and somehow mark off the completable unfinished sontas.

(BTW, if we don't dignify D 154 with a separate place on the list, why do we do so for D 567/568? Both are early versions of other sonatas – D 157 and D 568 respectively – and it might be easier to just cover them as earlier stages of development of the final versions.) Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. If you want a detailed template that covers only the sonatas, I recently expanded the IMSLP template: scores:Template:Piano_Sonatas_(Schubert,_Franz). (I also typesetted a new edition for D 769A from the autograph and uploaded it to IMSLP; previously it was missing.) I could try to get the numbering changed, as it is illogical that D 655 gets a number there but D 769A doesn't, but it should be an OK illustration as it is. Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Re. your PS BTW question:

• D 154 and D 157 direct to the same article;
• D 567 and D 568 direct to different articles

So the question is really whether Piano Sonata in D-flat major, D 568 (Schubert) and Piano Sonata in E-flat major, D 568 (Schubert) should be separate pages? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Double sharp (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There is incidentally also a 20-sonata numbering system that you can find in Nineteenth-Century Piano Music (chapter 4, The Piano Works of Schubert by Eva Badura-Skoda), and also in the liner notes for Paul Badura-Skoda's recording of Schubert's sonatas on period instruments. This listing is exactly the same as the Wiener Urtext 21-sonata listing, except that D 567/D 568 is treated as just one sonata (and so all the later sonatas get bumped down by one). Double sharp (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians of WikiProject Classical music!

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Thank you very much! PanicSA (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevent research page can be found at meta:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects Md gilbert (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Johann Sebastian Bach made several versions of the same Magnificat:

• A version in E-flat major without Christmas additions (BWV 243a, 12 movements)
• A version in E-flat major with Christmas additions (BWV 243a, 12 + 4 movements)
• A version in D major without Christmas additions (BWV 243, same 12 movements as other versions, with minor differences in orchestration etc. – this is the best known version)

I think it is best to treat Bach's Magnificat on one page, Magnificat (Bach), instead of treating it on two pages (BWV 243a/BWV 243) for the obvious overlap when the basic 12 movements of the Magnificat are described.

Prior discussion: see links provided in archive. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course! That sounds prudent to me. We should include all information about the three versions in one article, not two. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone put a note on these templates that they are being considered for a merger. Unfortunately, the note shows up on all the article pages where the templates are used. I would fix this myself, but, alas, I know not how. Can one of the techy honchos here fix this? tnx, --Ravpapa (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The note is there to attract comments to the discussion, that's fortunate. The sooner it can be decided, the sooner the note goes away. Go discuss. Same for {{infobox musical composition}}, as in Herr Gott, dich loben wir, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It certainly attracts attention, but it also distracts users and must be mystifying for those who don't know what's going on. That's distinctly unfortunate. If I could find out what happened here (and Gerda Arendt perhaps knows), I would seek to revert it. Surely this sort of juggling about, clever as it is, still need consensus according to WP practice?--Smerus (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It comes automatically with every nomination for deletion or merge of a template, and I would not know any better way to inform those who deal with the templates. I bet it has met approval when applied, no idea when but I remember to have seen it long ago. Repeating: go and discuss so that they can be closed. Two simple questions: Do we need two templates for IMSPL? (I say no.) Can hymns be treated as musical compositions? (I say yes, look here also.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I just hadn't come across it before.--Smerus (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it is policy, it is certainly one of the more idiotic ones I have encountered in my life. Probably 50,000 people read articles with those templates every day; of those, maybe one is interested in a technical discussion about mergers. Everyone else is just confused. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117#Changing templates. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking about templates, I'd like to make one that points to a database. I haven't found a good explanation of how to set it up. Can someone point me to a page(s) where template creation is discussed in depth? Thanks! kosboot (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That page starts with very simple examples and jumps to a very complex one. I was hoping for something else that has a more graded approach to complexity. kosboot (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I meant, as a place were your questions may be answered more adequately. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We have Vienna Conservatory, Konservatorium Wien (just moved to Conservatory of Vienna , for more confusion), Vienna Academy of Music, etc., who is who? Am I the only one confused? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a navbox of "musical institutions in Austria (or Vienna)"? I suppose I am in the minority here, but I really dislike Anglicized names for foreign institutions. In musicological literature they almost never translate the names of schools. Translating them on Wikipedia make them that much more difficult to find. kosboot (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be in the same minority ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

English translations of institution names are maybe OK if they are used by the institutions themselves and can thus be regarded as official in some way. In this case though the Konservatorium Wien seems to call itself that even in the English-language section of its website, and so should we. If we make up our own translated name we run the risk of confusion with other similarly named institutions. I find similar confusion often arises with names of orchestras where there are more than one orchestra in the same city or region and we attempt to translate their names. --Deskford (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Would someone please move back to Konservatorium, for the moment. (The new user came to my talk and said they understood.) I did it once and am on voluntary 1RR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I see the article has already been moved back and forth a few times, so this should probably be done properly with the formal requested move process. --Deskford (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How would you deal with Chinese, Russian or Japanese institutions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess if they have an article in English they have a name in English. Nothing wrong with using an English name for an Austrian institution if they have one, but Konservatorium Wien doesn't have one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a good question. I guess we can never be entirely consistent about this, and we won't always agree on which languages are familiar enough to drop into English language text without translation. For me, the key would be to see (a) what the institution calls itself in English publicity such as the English language section of its website if it has one, or failing that (b) what other reliable sources in English call it. I think we should avoid making up names for institutions by translating their names ourselves. --Deskford (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This version of the Vienna Conservatory page lists four institutions with articles. Three of the institutions have Konservatorium in their name, and the other one once did too. So confusion will continue to reign if we insist on calling any one of them "Vienna Conservatory" or "Conservatory of Vienna". Two of the institutions are now defunct, and their article titles already use the German name. The two extant institutions both have English versions of their home pages (, then click the link at the top right), and both English home pages use the German names, not any English ones. If we agree that we should prefer not to invent an English name if the institution itself doesn't define one, then the logical thing to do here would be to title the articles of all four of these articles with their German names and to restore Vienna Conservatory to the disambiguation version linked above, but with the German name for the university. The name Vienna Conservatory is, I think, slightly more natural to a native English speaker than is Conservatory of Vienna, so I would suggest making the latter a redirect to the former. --Stfg (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I generally like this idea. But in my cynical way of looking at things, when I find that a German institution has an English language page with an English name, I tend to think it is pandering to mono-lingual English speakers. Again I may be in the minority—or in the minority of the minority—but I think that if an institution is generally named by it's (for example) German name in most secondary literature (which is what WP is based upon), we should use that name, and not the newly-invented English name created for a website. kosboot (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I beleive the guideline should be how the institution refers to itself in English. If it professes (e.g. on its website) a recognized English title, there can be no reasonable objection to using that as it its article title. That is, regardless as to whether it is sometimes, or often, referred to in secondary literature by its native language title. Thus, the Konservatorium at Vienna refers to itself as 'Konservatorium Wien' on its English website - so that should be the title of the article. The Nemzeti Filharmonikusok (e.g.) calls itself the Hungarian National Philharmonic, and that is rightly its title on English WP.--Smerus (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The naming scheme decided at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 55#Proposed Category: Compositions Attributed to Mozart is up for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 17#Category:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)