Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Issues with Milen Nachev

[edit]

This article has multiple issues, but seems notable enough to keep. There are no wikilinks, there are no references, there are no sections or section headers, there are inappropriate quotes, and it appears that the main editor is the subject of the article, which may be a self-promotion issue. Came across it and thought I'd post it here hoping it comes across the right editing team. Shotgunheist💬 23:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Took a hacksaw to the massive WP:NPOV violations. Still needs a lot of work. PianoDan (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Shotgunheist, nice job spotting this. I added two sources and there seems to be more out there so I agree (re the talk page) that notability is probably not an issue. The self-promotion is pretty bad, but perhaps salvageable thanks to Dan's culling. Aza24 (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just created Classical music lists, a list of lists to help navigate this extensive topic. I probably missed some lists (specially if they don't have "list of" in the title), so please feel free to update the page directly if anything can be improved. Thanks for your help and input! — Gor1995 𝄞 15:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, nice work! Aza24 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo! Narky Blert (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McKay

[edit]

Could someone from this WikIProject take a look at Richard McKay? Article was created directly in the mainspace by new account with their first edit, and it has already been tagged with {{Notablity}} and {{UPE}}. I'm not sure whether the subject meets WP:NMUSICIAN; so, it would probably be a good idea for someone more experienced in articles about conductors take a look at this to see whether the subject is at least Wikipedia notable. If they are, then perhaps any promotional text can be cleaned up. The article also needs categories. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the article isn't adequately sourced - the Dallas Morning News and Dallas News would seem to qualify in that regard. If anything, it's OVER sourced in places. The tone's not as NPOV as one would hope, but it seems a perfectly cromulent topic for an article.. PianoDan (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the article was draftified as Draft:Richard McKay by MER-C for being "covert advertising". MER-C also subsequently indefinitely blocked its creator for similar reasons. Others might disagree, perhaps, but it did kind of had the feel of something that was created by someone with a strong COI and maybe even for undisclosed payments. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly and PianoDan: I've taken an axe to the "reception" section since it was filled with vague puffery, though as my edit summary says, anyone can feel to re-write and restore it with proper encyclopedic tone. On balance, the article subject is probably notable by Wikipedia's standards. Most major US city symphony conductors seem to receive decent secondary coverage; a cursory Google search turns up sources like this. Left guide (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see comment on talk page about obscurities in the description of the original "Tonic sol-fa". I spent more than an hour trying to work out how to put this page in Project Music, only to realise that there isn't one. This is really nothing to do with "Classical Music", but might belong to a music theory project, which I have no energy to investigate. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this (Talk:WikiProject Music) what you were looking for? Also Talk:WikiProject Music theoryGor1995 𝄞 11:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may wish to comment at this discussion. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a draft for Violin scam, a popular scam globally. Any help with sourcing or expansion would be appreciated. Best, Thriley (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Giselle

[edit]

Giselle has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Giacomo Benvenuti (composer)#Requested move 6 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 02:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mozart's name#Requested move 26 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" recordings

[edit]

I often consult Wikipedia for factual information about classical music composers and compositions. I noticed that many articles about compositions have a section called "Notable recordings". I have been searching Wikipedia to find the criteria for what is considered a "notable" recording, but to no avail. Please enlighten me. 2A02:1810:2423:3700:836:4A9B:C7CB:89A4 (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be asking the wrong question. Most notable recordings were put there by editors who either a) had favorite recordings they wanted to include, or b) had opinions on which recordings were notable. Better-written articles will cite sources that establish notability for a certain batch of recordings. For instance Frédéric Chopin#Recordings cites this NYT article, which is a collation of choices from various established music critics. Another example, Josquin des Prez#Skepticism and revision cites 1001 Classical Recordings You Must Hear Before You Die, a generally well-regarded publication.
So there's no Wikipedia criteria; we used reliable sources to establish notability, us usual, but given that millions of articles remain in a poor state, many do not follow suit. Aza24 (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In articles I write, there's no "notable" nor "selected", but both words seem to indicate that the list is not complete, which may be a given for anyone with many recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For context, the IP user is probably referring to this edit on the Symphony No. 4 (Brahms) article (which is a good edit), since it's the only edit I could find in the /64 range that looks related. Out of curiosity, I checked out some of the other symphony articles from the top section of the {{Johannes Brahms}} template, and couldn't find any other instances of "notable recordings". Without further context or explanation, this post at face value comes across as a grievance against the format of one individual article that probably was built by a less-experienced editor in terms of familiarity with encyclopedic structure and writing. That Symphony #4 section appeared to be just a random indiscriminate unsourced list, whereas the two examples cited above by Aza24 contain meaningful heavily-sourced encyclopedic prose. As to Gerda Arendt's point, if there are concerns about the inherent incompleteness of a certain list type, then it may be appropriate to use the {{dynamic list}} notice in such situations. Left guide (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of interest

[edit]

Project members may want to participate in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#Tabulating and ranking lists of composersAza24 (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]