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.

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Does this page really still need a banner telling us: "WikiProject Classical music was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 28 February 2011. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom."? It's almost five years old. It's promoting the Signpost, and was presumably targeted at people reading that Signpost article in 2011 then coming here, in the hope that they might get involved with SP. Is it still necessary? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was added in 2013 by an editor unconnected to the Signpost who added it to 130 projects on his/her own initiative. It was originally meant as an optional banner that projects could add to note that they had been covered in the Signpost, not as an advertisement for the Signpost (discussion here). Several projects have since removed it. Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the Signpost banner is a helpful reminder that this group has been profiled. Should someone want to see what made the group tick as of when the interviews took place, they can. It's like a line on a resume, and I don't feel it needs to be removed. - kosboot (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Okey doke and thanks for the replies. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

A discussion involving Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure is going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Somewhat related discussion. Please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

We simply talk about whether Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7 should have an opening sentence:

Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam (Christ our Lord came to the Jordan), BWV 7, is a ...;

or

Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam (Christ our Lord came to the Jordan), BWV 7, is a ...

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

What was unclear about "Please comment there, not here"? We'd try to keep the discussion in one place, tx. (BTW, I reject the tendentious summary of the discussion above, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Readability – Please comment there, not here.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear classical music experts: This draft article about a cellist will soon be deleted as stale. If this is a notable cellist, it could use some help from an editor who knows where to look for classical music sources in Spanish. There is an article in the Spanish Wikipedia. There appear to be two musicians with this name.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips up. I've raised Notability issues on the Spanish wikipedia. Triplecaña (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This morning I started Performers of Johann Sebastian Bach's music. We have a fairly elaborated category tree under Category:Bach musicians, so I thought it was about time to start an article on the topic, which could be linked from the ((Johann Sebastian Bach)) template.

The Performers of Johann Sebastian Bach's music article doesn't have much references yet (being really not much more than a stub currently), so I guess when we want to keep it references will need to be added, for verifiability, and in order to assert the notability of the topic for WP:GNG reasons.

Others interested in collaborating on the article, or was it just a bad idea to start it in the first place? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This looks like a magnet for spam, WP:COATRACK, and WP:OR. I would say unless the person specialized in Bach, they should probably not be listed. The only person I can think of offhand is Wanda Landowska (who famously said something like "Others play Bach their way, I play Bach his way"). I don't know if this article is going to have a viable stable existence. There isn't even an article on Shakespearean actors (although there is one on Shakespeare in performance), so why should there be one on Performers of Johann Sebastian Bach's music? At the very least (assuming the article remains on Wikipedia), anyone listed in the article should meet some sort of pre-established criteria, such as having at least three notable independent reliable sources that assert they they are notable Bach performers. We have categories for a reason. Softlavender (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • (e.c., I see this in part replies to Smerus' comment below too) I specifically did not start a List of Bach performers, I suppose the listing is better handled by the category tree. I see the article more as explaining the various types of Bach performers, without even approximately listing them all. It is about explaining where particular Bach performers (solo or ensemble) fit in the rich history of performances of Bach's music: Landowska and Gould, Carlos and Harnoncourt, Stokowski and Walcha, they all performed Bach's music, but what can one expect when encountering the names of such performers in secondary sources (without knowing their performances), or when hearing their performances for the first time? That's what I see as the article topic.

  Thanks for the "... in performance" suggestion: Bach's music in performance might work as an article title too, but maybe that would refocus too much towards famous concerts (Mendelssohn's 1829 St Matthew), and other (series of) events like the Bachfest. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• comment. I can't see that this makes much sense. There is no defining characteristic for those chosen except that they occasionally or often play JSB's music. They do not limit themselves to JSB's music. You either define this narrowly - eg. people who perform exclusively music of JSB (are there any?) or else it is so wide that it probably includes every keyboard or string player who has a biog on WP. If the idea is to adumbrate those whose performances had a significant effect in promoting Bach's music - e.g. Schweitzer, Mendelssohn, Sterndale Bennett, etc. - then there could be scope for a more precisely titled article on the topic. - 'the revival of JSB's music in the 19th century' for example could be an article topic. Back to the drawing board on this, I suggest. --Smerus (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • As for which performers (individual musicians or ensembles) are to be named in the article, I'd draw the line where they are setting a standard for future performances, or are a notable representative of a particular performance practice. For instance Stokowski is not nearly exclusively known for performing Bach's music, but he set a standard for symphonic performances of Bach's instrumental music, a tradition that was continued by for instance Ormandy. Similarly Landowska, Gould, Harnoncourt,... set standards for how Bach's music was performed. That may include performers not primarily known for their Bach renderings (such as Fischer-Dieskau), but becoming a reference for how it is to be done (for instance the Vox Christi in Fischer-Dieskau's case, for many years). Also explaining which were the most defining Bach-performers for their generation, e.g. Alain, Růžičková, Grumiaux, Bach Aria Group, ... (of course all of this only in so far it is covered by appropriate reliable sources). In this sense having "Bach" in the name of an ensemble may be sufficient to be included in the category tree, but as long as the performances are not in a definite way "exemplary" for a particular Bach performance practice they are rather not material for the article. In the article I'd rather mention I Musici and/or the Swingle Singers for their role in Bach performance practice than the nth Bach choir.

  For instance I'd also write something about the rift between Spitta and Franz about how the figured bass was to be performed (19th century, but not particularily something an article on the Bach Revival should elaborate). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the point of creating such an article. You can not be a professional pianist, violinist or cellist and not work on Bach. Not everyone will perform it public, but everyone pretty much has to play his music if they intend to be a professional musician. It's like creating an article "People who breathe air." If you insist, that will inspire people to create articles which are nothing but lists of performers playing Beethoven, Mozart or any other composer. - kosboot (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • That's like saying we shouldn't have an article on Johann Sebastian Bach because pretty much everyone on earth would have heard some of his music.

  FYI, we have an article on "People who breathe air". The article is called Lung. If it's about the article title (I start to think it pretty much is), Performance styles of Johann Sebastian Bach's music might be a better fit for what I intended for the article's content.

  Only repeating again: if I would have wanted to write an article that lists Bach performers, I would have named it List of Bach performers, which is definitely not what I wanted to initiate: the category system works better for that.

  The "point" of the article being to provide a reference article for the category tree under Category:Bach musicians (as explained in the OP). If there is something like a "Bach musician" it should be possible to explain in an article what makes someone a "Bach musician" – indeed there are enough reliable sources to clear that job. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with kosboot. Bach is a central figure in the classical canon. Pretty much every classical musician has to study his music, and it would be strange for a musician to not perform or record his music at least once in a professional capacity at some point during a career. This kind of article is only likely to attract fancruft and similar useless fancruft articles like Performers of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart etc. I would strongly suggest the article be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Having an article on Bach is very, very different from an article on "People who listen to Bach." (Similarly, "People who breathe air" is not at all the same as "Lung.") Similarly, if what you want is Performance styles of Johann Sebastian Bach's music, that is very different from "Bach performers." I'd suggest removing the word "style" because it suggests a "concrete" style which may and may not exist. Something like Performance of Bach's music would be closer to what I think you are intending -- and note the emphasis is on the music, not the performers. - kosboot (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with avoiding "style" in the article title. Don't know about "Performance of ...", makes one think about how well the music performs for growing tomatoes and the like (believe me, it has been tested: Mozart's was better). Could you live with Bach's music in performance as suggested above (the association with Bachfests seems to have less downsides than the association with agricultural or whatever performance)? Performance history of Bach's music, Performance practice of Bach's music might be alternatives, or would these be longer than needed? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Whatever title you choose, you can always begin the lede by saying what the article is about (and what it excludes). I think the best of your suggestions is Performance practice of Bach's music. The only problem is that the article will be probably always be incomplete (numerous books have been published on this topic), and thus arouse controversy. - kosboot (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Re. updating lede: sure, that's how this discussion was helpful. Also about the article's structure: the individual musicians vs ensembles grouping (as I initiated it) doesn't make as much sense as showing how performance practice moved from one epoch to the next.

Re. broad scope of the article (and things to watch out for when embarking on such adventure, such as a multitude of sources): the scope of this article will always be narrower than Johann Sebastian Bach#Reception, and that's only a section in an article. Yeah that's the kind of thing I get involved in every once and awhile. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• OK now the article has been moved to Performance practice of Bach's music, which in my mind makes no sense. Every person who has ever studied the piano has practiced Bach. Why is there an article on practicing Bach? This situation is going from bad to worse. If anything (and I'm not suggesting any article on the subject is necessary, as the popularization and performance of Bach's music should be dealt with on his article, not a separate one), the article should match the Shakespeare one and be titled Bach in performance or Johann Sebastian Bach in performance. But even if that sort of an article existed, it would still be a nightmare of fancruft, self-promotion, coatrack, and original research. I suggest that this ill-advised and poorly thought-out article be immediately userfied (or draftified) before someone AfDs it. Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't understand the point about the word "practice". In this context, to me, it means precisely what Kosboot says - the practices (methods, approaches, theories, beliefs, techniques etc etc) which we use in performance of Bach when we play his music, as distinct from what we do when we sit at home at the piano with a cup of tea and practise for three hours (yeah right). Is this a BrE/AmE thing perhaps? If it isn't, I don't see where the confusion is coming from. Bets wishes to all DBaK (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - actually the title would be OK if the article dealt with performance practice - but it doesn't; it is largely a list of people who have performed the music of Bach. So what (there is already a Category:Bach musicians and that itself looks a bit dubious to me)? What difference have they made to our concepts or understanding of Bach? You can make a case for Mendelssohn, who revived the St. Matthew Passion - but, eg, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau? A fine singer of Bach but rather better known maybe for his Schubert..... If one can't clearly define what the article is supposed to be about, the article can't justify itself. More focus urgently needed.--Smerus (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Smerus. Actually, an article on performance practice of Bach could be quite interesting. Offhand, I would say it would include topics like: The revival of Bach's music (by Mendelssohn in Germany, Bennett in Britain, Casals' discovery of the cello suites); Romantic tendencies in Bach performance (Looking back to the late 19th and first half of the 20th century, performances by Joachim, Heifetz, early Menuhin); Keyboard style (looking at Landovski, Dame Myra Hess, Schnabel, Horowitz, Glenn Gould); Ornamentation; Intonation (just tuning, equal temperament, concert pitch); HIP practices and how they have affected modern-day performance and tastes. There is, of course, a risk in writing such an article of original research; but, actually, I think there has been quite a bit written about performance practice of Bach that we could reference (Donington and Dent come to mind). --Ravpapa (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

yes, and don't miss out Busoni!!....--Smerus (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Smerus. Individual names should not appear, unless they contributed something outstanding (Harnoncourt, Rifkin ...). I have created many articles on singers and hope that you don't plan to list them all, - it would be boring and not help understanding of Bach's music. Why mention Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau at all (as Smerus said)? His Lieder singing is unparalleled, but I don't see him as an influential Bach performer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with Smerus. Classical musicians who don't or didn't perform the music of Johann Sebastian Bach might be a more manageable topic.

Performance practice is another thing altogether. But – why single out JSB for special attention? E.g. Mozart re-orchestrated Handel's Messiah, and there were performances by casts of hundreds (if not thousands) within living memory; almost unthinkable nowadays. That point, not totally by accident, chances to rely on two Baroque composers who happened to be born in the same year. Narky Blert (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What to do with Category:Bach musicians?

• Comment – The new direction we're outlining for the article (which I started implementing yesterday) is beneficial for the article; However for describing what makes someone a "Bach musician" this new direction for the article makes it unuseable as an introductory article for Category:Bach musicians, which remains an inherently subjective category (probably also failing WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:OCASSOC, WP:TRIVIALCAT, etc.). I think I've done my bit in trying to define the category: when an article explaining what makes someone a "Bach musician" is impossible (is it?), it could still be attempted to write a category definition directly on the Category:Bach musicians page, otherwise the category should be taken to WP:CfD (and I'm starting to think that's the direction to go). Some thoughts:
  • Category:Bach music ensembles (and its "choirs" and "orchestras" subcategories) seem entirely viable to me, while the name of such ensemble has Bach in it or not. No problem for categorizing Masaaki Suzuki (founding conductor of such a Bach ensemble) as a Bach musician either. But how about Robert Bloom (founding member of another Bach ensemble)? Is that a Bach musician?
  • I added Felix Mendelssohn, a quintessential Bach musician afaik, to the category yesterday. How about Max "Bach is begin and end of all music" Reger? Is that a Bach musician?
  • Stokowski (is a lot of things, but is he a Bach musician for producing one of the most commented on performances of a Bach piece?)? Ormandy? Elgar? Schumann?
  • Then it struck me, the category is currently practically exclusively used for current musicians that have Bach on their repertoire... Seems the category is somewhat used to dispense a kind of "Like"s to the current generation of recording artists, which makes it a very bad idea for a category.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Francis, if I may courteously comment, I think your concept is in need of revision. You seem to think that people are the focus of such an article. But I think all performers would indicate it's particular ideas which are at the center of discussion regarding performance of Bach's music. Frankly, the idea that a musician is a "Bach musician" is nonsense, thought up by artist's agents and record companies as a way to sell their product. At my library we have Rosalyn Tureck's papers and scores - she used to call herself "The high priestess of Bach." And today? She has left no influence on future generations, which underscores that her motto was purely a marketing device. So is it with nearly every musician. If you're going to have an article like this, you need to read treatises and criticism of what people think of how Bach should be played. It requires a lot more than identifying musicians who played Bach (which as we've said, includes everyone, rendering such a categorization meaningless). - kosboot (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think you misunderstood my previous comment: "people" is no longer the focus of the "article"; as, on the other side, undeniably "people" is the focus of the Category:Bach musicians category (it is a "people" category as understood by WP:COP), the "article" is no longer useable to manage the category. The category seems to me rather a liability (and falls in several overcategorization slots), or as you express it "the idea that a musician is a 'Bach musician' is nonsense". If we can't manage the category: take it to CfD (we've taken categories to CfD for less). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Leaving no doubt about my stance: if, by the time this thread gets auto-archived, there is no viable category definition on the Category:Bach musicians page, and nobody else has taken the category to CfD yet, I'll take it there myself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Francis Schonken, nothing has ever been wrong with Category:Bach musicians. If you try to delete it, I for one will oppose that. You seem to be trying to destroy that category in some backhanded effort to bolster the problematic article you started, or you seem to be trying to deflect attention onto it in an effort to deflect attention away from the problems of the article you started. Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Re. "nothing has ever been wrong with Category:Bach musicians" – Here's what is wrong with Category:Bach musicians: Wikipedia:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:ARBITRARYCAT, WP:OCASSOC, WP:TRIVIALCAT, etc.

  I don't say the issues can't be addressed: an evident way to do that is to write a category definition directly on the Category:Bach musicians page. See WP:COP when needing advice on how that works.

  Re. "deflect attention away from the problems of the article [I] started" – the article is doing fine, thanks for all the improvement suggestions, and welcome to improve it further, or give further suggestions.

  Re. "If you try to delete it, I for one will oppose that" – First, I can't delete it; Second, CfD means: categories for discussion (not deletion); Third, bringing a category there will highlight its problems, and if there are no problems to highlight (as you contend), nothing will happen, whatever you !vote. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. This looks like a real grab-bag category. No Malcolm Sargent? no Herbert von Karajan? no Jacques Loussier? no The Toys? and so on. I can see no justification for the category. Narky Blert (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  P.S. No Led Zeppelin? Narky Blert (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised no one has yet created an article on this newly built performance space in Brooklyn that has already had high profile musicians and ensembles perform including the New York Philharmonic. Here are refs if anyone is interest in creating an article: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I fell across these by accident a few days ago, while researching two almost-forgotten British string players. It looks to me as both topics ought to be in Wiki, either as standalone articles or as sections within an existing article or articles with redirects to them. I could do some googling, but someone else might have the information at their fingertips to create good content.

That aside, should there be a Category for people named in the Book of Remembrance? Just look at the names on the first page! It isn't just a British thing, Nellie Melba is on page 1 and Elizabeth Schumann on page 2. It's not restricted to performers: Donald Tovey is on page 1.

There's little point in creating such a Category unless editors (1) are happy with its name and placement, (2) know about it, and (3) will populate it if they find additional members. I throw the idea open for discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW I'd vote for Musicians' Chapel as a section within St Sepulchre-without-Newgate, and for Book of Remembrance as a subsection within that. Narky Blert (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, I am doing the Good Article review of Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 and looking at it I have seen discussion on the merit or level of focus on Peter Williams on the page. I still see quite a few references in there and I was hoping to get some opinions from this project on whether or not that's excessive or would be considered more balanced? Please reply on the GA review page. Thank you.  MPJ-US  21:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's OK for everyone I'd centralise that discussion at Talk:Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565#Balance on the attribution (and prior version) issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

A number of articles list ISMN identifiers for printed versions of musical works. See, for example, New Schubert Edition. For similar identifiers, like ISBN and ISSN, Wikipedia can link the number itself to a web page, like Special:Booksources or http://www.worldcat.org, to help readers locate additional information about a work.

Does anyone here know of a similar web page that could be used for ISMN lookups? Ideally, it would be a web site that can be linked to by including the ISMN value in the URL, e.g. www.lookupismn.org/9790123456789. If such a web site exists, we can wrap ISMNs in a template (similar to ((ISSN)) or ((ISBNT))) that automatically generates that link and also checks the ISMN for validity.

See User talk:Frietjes#ISMN for the conversation that led to this question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I asked this a few months ago and the answer is: there isn't any open registry as there is for ISBNs, so no linking can be accomplished until there is one. - kosboot (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Church cantata (Bach) began as List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function. It's a long list with many occasions, each with 2 readings and usually several cantatas.

Francis Schonken began to add, first cycle information. I believe that it blows up the already long article and should go to a separate article. I have other concerns also, see the artice talk. What do you think, for example, about

0. 6 December 1716: Wachet! betet! betet! wachet! BWV 70a (in 1723 expanded to BWV 170 for Trinity XXVI)

instead of

• Wachet! betet! betet! wachet! BWV 70a, 6 December 1716 (expanded in 1723 to BWV 170 for Trinity XXVI)

I may be the only who questions if Cycle 0 makes sense if nor sourced, who dislikes the presentation "0.", and who objects to all these numbers before getting to Bach's work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I updated the BWV 70a entry as it was before I changed anything in the OP above (see [5]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In case there was any doubt: the place to discuss that is the article talk, naturally, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Could someone with more patience than me in regards to Categories (or Requiems) fix this mess? The two Categories overlap, and if there is actually supposed to be a differentiation, some of the articles are in the wrong Category/sub-Category. Thanks. This may have to go to CfD or whatever. Like I say, I don't have all that much experience with problem categories. Grazie. Softlavender (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry that I simply dislike "Requiems" which sounds as if there's more than one eternal rest. How about "Requiem settings" or "Requiem compositions"? Requiem (Reger) is an article, however, which is about three compositions by Reger, two of them not a Requiem mass, the other the fragment of one. What then? - Requiem (Rutter) is not a mass, and I wonder what to say about Fauré and Duruflé who intentionally left out part of the liturgical text. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

ps: I think we even need to specify in the (perhaps better sub?-)category somehow that it's about music. The poem on which two of the Reger settings are based, would also qualify for "Requiems" (if it had an article). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the major problem is that Category:Requiem Masses needs to be retitled Category:Requiems (musical) or Category:Requiem compositions. And then all of the musical items from Category:Requiems need to be moved into it. Does anyone have any preference on the new title? (PS: It's really fairly immaterial at this point whether the composition precisely follows the official Latin liturgical Requiem mass -- few ever do completely precisely, and most do in large part [some in another language or with other text mixed in, or etc.]) Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I have a strong preference for Category:Requiem compositions, because the other sounds like a musical titled Requiems ;) - This would be good even for an instrumental one like Henze's. Some compositions are also masses. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I also prefer Category:Requiem compositions, as noted that covers a wider variety of works, including instrumental works like Hansons 4th Symphony.Graham1973 (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest the answer here is Category:Requiem compositions with Category:Requiem Masses remaining as a sub-category of the former. Then any outliers, including articles in Category:Requiems, can be re-allocated as appropriate. Requiescat in pace--Smerus (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No-one seems to have tried to list the actual (real-world) categories to which the WP categories might correspond. I see three main ones:

• 1: Requiem mass: a choral (vocal) setting of the Roman Catholic rite of the same name (e.g. Mozart, Faure)
• 2: Requiem (non-RC): a choral (vocal) setting of a different version of a corresponding rite (e.g. Rutter, combining bits of the Latin mass with bits of the CofE prayer book, and Psalm 23)
• 3: Any other work with a title, subtitle, or other label "Requiem"

If you look at the "Requiems" category at IMSLP, all the works seem to fit in categories 1 and 2. For example, the "Symphony" is actually a choral setting. Putting these two together makes sense to me; the only issue is whether to make a distinct sub-category for strict Catholic (Latin) ones. I think Faure's should clearly count as a RC one, because missing a bit out does not normally change categories in this way (Schubert's unfinished, for example), and it was written for use in the Catholic church. But if this sort of thing causes more problems than it solves, well perhaps it's not necessary.

I do think that musical compositions (particularly non-choral/vocal), and any other works, such as poems or plays, that have "Requiem" as their name somehow, should not be included together with cats 1 and 2. I'm not convinced that a category for such things is very useful anyway, since it can be emulated by a text search for the word "requiem".

Incidentally, should the name be plural? The category FAQ gives lots of plural examples, without ever being specific; personally I think using the singular causes fewer problems. Never mind... But in any case, requiem in Latin is the accusative of requies meaning rest, but "Requiem" in English is not, so its plurality has nothing to do with the plurality of any putative rest. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out that as far as I know (I'm not a Catholic) a Requiem mass is simply that: a mass that is a requiem -- a mass for the dead. It is not a musical denotation, any more than a regular mass is a musical denotation (cf. Category:Masses (music)). Hence the problem with any musical compositions being in categories called Category:Requiem Masses or Category:Requiems. By the way, I would have probably cleaned all of this mess up myself, but I'm not sure what happens when one moves a category and since my computer is on the blink and I don't use any automated tools, I'm ill-equipped to cleanup the aftermath. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, yes: a "Requiem mass" is a mass, a ritual of the RC church. I have never been to a Requiem mass, but I have performed a number of requiems, and I think when used in the plural like that, it can only usually refer to musical ones (Mozart, Verdi, Faure, Rutter, in my case). Sorry, I was just (over-)reacting to the resistance to the plural. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we do not have to differentiate three categories, - actually I think one would be enough: Category:Requiem compositions. If we distinguish Category:Requiem masses: where's the limit? For a catholic rite? No Rutter and Britten. Full text composed? No Fauré and others. We could leave all these distinctions to the articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

My point is that there exist at least three possible categories, as listed above. Saying "One category is enough" does not help much, unless you identify the (real-world) categorie(s) that it corresponds to. I personally am not too interested in the distinction between a RC Requiem mass, and a non-RC, but presumably Christian, requiem. But the distinction is reasonably clear: Faure's may omit part of the text, but it was first performed for the funeral mass of a local architect (see WP article, so clearly it can be classified as a Requiem mass. Rutter's or Britten's war requiem plainly cannot.

Supposing we include all of these, from Verdi to Rutter in category "Requiem compositions", I am more interested in where to draw the line around this category. In particular, I think it is not helpful to start admitting orchestral works with "Requiem" as a subtitle, or other types of works of an elegaic nature. This is why I cited the "Requiems" category at IMSLP as a starting point. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Where would you have Henze's Requiem (1990–93), nine sacred concertos for piano, trumpet and chamber orchestra, written in memory of Michael Vyner (if it had an article? What makes a composition a Requiem composition, that is the key question, and who is served by three categories? As for singular vs. plural, other cats are typically plural. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Requiem compositions

I think regardless of possible subcategories, we agree that Category:Requiem compositions is a better category than Category:Requiems, which could be a poem, a painting etc. of the title "Requiem", not necessarily music. Who will perform the move? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I've drafted an infobox for choreographic works in my sandbox and would greatly appreciate your feedback/review before I formally propose it. Thank you! Megs (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Megs: Why would ((Infobox ballet)) not suffice? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

While your at it @Megs:, I don't really want to get involved with either template, but having gone through numerous 18th-19th century published "scenarios" for ballets, I wonder how either template can address dance works that have multiple choreographers or multiple composers, or when the music is comprised of multiple works, even though it may be identified as primarily as one work? - kosboot (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

For whatever parameter, you can have more than one value by using ((plainlist)) (one line each, compare "Librettist" in Carmen) or ((hlist)) (with separator, compare "Instrumental" in BWV 4), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Kosboot, Gerda Arendt, and Michael Bednarek: Thank you all for your feedback! The ballet infobox has come up a couple times (here and on the sandbox talk page), and it's an important issue to address. The term ballet describes a specific genre of dance with its own technique and history. From the second edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Dance: Ballet is "A form of Western academic theatre dance based on the danse d'école (classical school) and usually presented with elements of music and design to create a dramatic or lyric effect." 'Choreographic work,' however, is inclusive to all genres of dance, including ballet, modern, tanztheater, site-specific works, hip-hop, tap, etc. The Library of Congress places the term 'choreographic work' beside all subject headings for, well, choreographic works. As an example, here is the authority record for Vaslav Nijinsky's ballet, Rite of Spring/Sacre du Printemps: https://lccn.loc.gov/n94024219. Thank you again for your comments. I know the infobox, if approved, will be better for it! Megs (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; however I already know what a ballet is. My question was "Why would ((Infobox ballet)) not suffice?". After wall, we can always rename it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you for clarifying, @Pigsonthewing:. I know one can edit the contents of an infobox template, but I didn't know you can rename it. I also want to be respectful of the work being done by the on-wiki ballet community (having worked with the off-wiki ballet community on bibliographic projects, they would feel very strongly about being categorized specifically as ballet). @Michael Bednarek:, what would you think about this change? If you both agree it is a good next step, I'm very happy to move this discussion to the infobox ballet talk page. Megs (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I would say yes, but was informed (again) that Wikipedia policy is different. Current case: Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4. This was TFA on Easter Sunday, several reviewers had agreed with the title, not even questioned it. It is the title of the edition of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBA), and it would be very simple to just take it. Yesterday, Francis Schonken moved to the former version Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 (twice), based on some statistics, and now tells me that I make things complicated.

* The cantata is based on a hymn by Martin Luther, Christ lag in Todes Banden.

However, two popular sites stick with the old version, Bach-Cantatas and Amazon, Amazon even presenting the image of the different title on the printed edition next to it. I don't think we should follow (that mistake), also think the combination of Todesbanden and a BWV number is anachronistic, but will listen. Please discuss not here but there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• WP:FORUMSHOP (compare this earlier warning – maybe this should be taken to WP:ANI by now, but I won't go there unless I really have to) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think an accusation of WP:FORUMSHOP is well over the top here. This forum is exactly the right one to raise the issue to which Gerda refers. The 'earlier warning' which Francis refers to turns out to be one issued by himself, not by an administrator or other authority. I don't think any purpose is served by Francis's aggressive interventions here (or indeed in article Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4) - we should be striving to get consensus, not to batter or threaten editors with whom we don't agree.--Smerus (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    • "This forum is exactly the right one to raise the issue..." correct. Running away from the place where the issue is already actively discussed is Forumshopping. Maintaining the same discussion in two separate places is even far more counterproductive. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The question came up before, and I wonder what we could do to avoid a conflict between the published work and our article title (which I as a reader find confusing). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been thinking of this issue (since as a librarian we have to deal with this issue all the time), and my feeling is that one can not make a rule that applies across-the-board. Unless you know Russian, how are you going to know Vesna Sv︠i︡ashchenna︠i︡a is The Rite of Spring?; Most opera fans call the work Nabucco but it's really Nabucodonosor; Two years ago there was a ridiculously long debate about whether to call Beethoven's 14th piano sonata Moonlight Sonata or Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) neither of which is the published name. While the published name is significant, I'd say that one also has to consider what a work is called or referred to in English (since this is English Wikipedia, although I don't think anyone calls any Wagner opera anything other than its German name). - kosboot (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Imagine for a moment: if A Boy was Born had been accepted as published, and not moved, there would not have been one word on the talk page about that topic. - While most Wagner operas are called their German name, one is (still) The Flying Dutchman. Yes, I tried to change that, as I tried - finally successfully - to not have Moonlight Sonata as an article title, with little support at first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Kudos for your hard-won victory on the Clair de lune (if that's the kind of affirmation you were looking for)! It is however not an example of a "composition carry(ing) its published name as an article title". Your other examples illustrate the same. So can we close this thread? Really seems like nothing new is being said here, somewhat of a WP:DEADHORSE as a flimsy excuse to cover up a WP:FORUMSHOP if you ask me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd still avoid to have the same discussion in two places. For the publishers in English-language realms (Novello, Kalmus, Schirmer, up to the 2012 Serenissima publication) there is no disparity between the current article title for BWV 4 and the way these publishers printed the title of the work in their respective publications. For A Boy Was Born you got your answers at Talk:A Boy Was Born. And then again. And then some more. And then revived again. And then some more answers to the same effect. And then another formal closure for a similar discussion. All on the same article talk page. So, no, we don't always follow the publisher. That question has been answered before. So, if you think the BWV 4 and A Boy Was Born issues similar, you know the answer, and the discussion is moot. Or are there other candidates for rekindling the fire of that discussion ad infinitum?

@Kosboot: I think it was Le Sacre du printemps before anything else: Stravinsky lived in Paris at the time, where the piece was premiered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

To that specific example, the first published score was the 4-hand version which was dual Russian and French, although if one reads left to right, then the Russian is given more prominence. - kosboot (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

FAR on Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4

I have nominated Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

When published several times, which one?

If a work was published several times, might we follow the latest critical edition, even if a majority of sources still sticks to something older? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

There's no rule in that sense. For Bach's organ compositions it so happens to be that we almost never follow NBA. And that's not even the latest critical edition, Breitkopf & Härtel started publishing new critical editions of these organ compositions less than 10 years ago. Neither do we follow these as a rule, and even less do we start changing Wikipedia article titles every time a next volume of these new critical editions appears.

The problem imho is and remains not really being acquainted with WP:AT as a whole (and subsidiary guidance linked from that policy page such as Wikipedia:Official names). When you've gotten a good grip of that guidance probably these talk page interactions might be more fruitful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Also, please explain this page move, where you moved a Bach cantata article away from how it is written in the latest critical edition (2012) — oh, wait, that article got GA promoted recently without that edition even being mentioned... seriously, maybe devote more time to apply such minimal improvements (such as at least mentioning the most authoritative score editions of the composition in the article on the composition), than theoretical discussions about article titles, which you override without blinking when GA promotion is at stake. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Please explain. I moved to Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn, which to my old eyes is the way in that latest critical edition. What did I miss? - Sorry, I missed your tag. You might add something missing yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn!" in the latest critical edition (2012) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

My old eyes, sorry. Have no time, all weekend, again sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to close the topic here as largely irrelevant. Please realize you make your fellow-editors lose enormous amounts of time, with arguments that upon close inspection are based on nothing (or even worse, sometimes on quite the opposite of what you try to argue, over and over again). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd prefer to discuss, participation is voluntary. We have here a cantata by Bach, who wrote "Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn." while the first line is "Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn!". - We agreed (years ago) to add the BWV number to Bach cantatas, to make the titles unique, usually separated by a comma, but no extra comma when the title ends on a "!" or "?". Some sources have the "!" in this case, others not. Which article title? The meaning of the German line is the same, with or without the "!", in

1. Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn, BWV 132 (as in IMSLP, Dürr-Jones, Bach-Digital and others, current AT)
2. Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn! BWV 132 (as in the latest edition, Bach-Cantatas and others)

I think the current title is justified but will listen to objections and move back if there's a consensus for it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeking assistance with regard to harpsichords – natural (acoustic) as opposed to electric – that might have been used in 1960s rock/pop songs. Specifically: the Beatles' song "Piggies", and which Commons image would be appropriate there. Currently, I've included this – a Baldwin Combo electric harpsichord, the very model that the Beatles used from early 1969 onwards (so I understand) after EMI purchased the instrument for non-classical recordings. For "Piggies", however, which was recorded in late 1968, the band used a model that had been set up in preparation for a classical recording, at Abbey Road Studios, and the acoustic (non-electric) aspect of this particular instrument is supported by musicologist Walter Everett. So, would anyone know if there's a more suitable free image that can be used in the song article, one for a genuine, acoustic harpsichord that's vaguely applicable to mid/late twentieth-century usage? Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not enough data to avoid wandering off in WP:OR I suppose. See Commons:Category:Revival harpsichord: most of the models shown on these images may pass the description given above (and that's only a very small selection of a variety of harpsichords that may outwardly look like a piano to outwardly looking like a 18th-century harpsichord) – no way to select an appropriate one failing more detail regarding what you're looking for. No idea on brand? Or on which classical musician(s) played it (for some of these it is known which intrument they played)? etc.? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken is right; there was a lot of variety back then, more than today. The standard reference source is Wolfgang Zuckermann, The Modern Harpsichord (1969). Opus33 (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the replies. I might just have to live with the electric harpsichord image but reword the caption …

I take your point about possible OR, Francis. I guess my position was/is simply to avoid including an image that couldn't possibly be suitable, which applies to a present-day model (50 years after the song was recorded) as much as, say, an 18th century treasure housed in a museum or as part of a private collection. And no, no idea at all of the brand of harpsichord used, etc. Which is a bit frustrating, because one of the main sources is subtitled The Official Story of the Abbey Road Years; the book carries the EMI logo, includes recollections from technical and administrative staff, reproduces recording sheets, engineers' notes, invoices for freelancer contributions – meaning, the information surely exists somewhere(!). JG66 (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Nah, better to remove any harpsichord image from the "Piggies" page. Please keep WP:BALASPS in mind. If there are a lot of sources on the song, and the harpsichord used for that song is only mentioned in passing in these sources, all you can do is envelope that word in double square brackets (so that those not knowing what the word means can click it), not expand something that gets little attention in the actual sources on the song out of proportion compared to what the sources have on that side-aspect of the song.

Note that on classical compositions something similar sometimes occurs. Bach prescribed an instrument called lituo/lituus for a few of his compositions. No idea what the instrument looked like in his days. We have an image of what the instrument looked like in antiquity (File:Lituus instrument 001.png). We don't use that image in the articles on the compositions that were written for an instrument with a similar name in the 18th century (e.g. O Jesu Christ, meins Lebens Licht, BWV 118). It's not up to Wikipedians to fill in details not given by the most prominent sources on the topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

There are a number of detailed articles about various competitions, for example the ones listed at Category:Violin competitions. I am not a "music person" but I ran into this through my work at AfC. Many of these have no references beyond the link to the competition itself (Vianna_da_Motta_International_Music_Competition), and some lack even that (International_Tchaikovsky_Competition_for_Young_Musicians). I was challenged when I marked one of these for "refimprove", so I'm checking here to see if this has been discussed in the past, and whether there has been any consensus on what to do with these. They do not meet GNG. Should they? or is there an exception that I am unaware of for competitions of this nature? I don't want to block articles at AfC if this community is fine with the content. Thanks for any thoughts on this. LaMona (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. No one answered this, but we have a number of articles that need a decision about this. Could someone take a look at it and give us some advice? Thanks. LaMona (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi LaMona. Many of these are poor articles and quite neglected, but some of these competitions are very notable such as International Tchaikovsky Competition and probably its junior division as well (International Tchaikovsky Competition for Young Musicians). The Vianna da Motta International Music Competition is now (I think) defunct, but it's quite old, had some fairly notable winners, and I can see coverage in its day [6] and in the Portuguese press [7]. What sort of articles are dependent on this and what sort of decisions? I certainly wouldn't recommend wholesale AfDs these classical music competition articles simply because the referencing is poor. Poor referencing and/or neglect does not equal failing GNG. Many were created in the earliest days of Wikipedia, when referencing standards were a lot looser. Generally speaking competitions do come up here from time to time, but in relation to establishing the notability of the winner, e.g. [8]. This is a list of the occasions when various competitions have been discussed. Hope that helps. Voceditenore (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Voceditenore. The problem is that on a few that I've paid real attention to, I cannot find suitable sources. I'm not thinking AfD, but as I said above, they come to AfC and we normally would not pass through an article without at least a few good sources. Here's one that is stuck in AfC that is at least as sourced as some that are in main space: Draft:International Arthur Grumiaux Competition, but not sourced enough for most AfC reviewers. Plus I had someone jump all over me when I tagged one in main space that had zero references (which would not be seen askance for other articles on Wikipedia that are unsourced). So we seem to have an exception here, in fact if not in policy, and I was hoping that this had come up before. Superficially, this resembles the articles for sports teams that mainly consist of seasons and statistics (similar to years and winners at the competitions). However, WP:NSEASONS requires "well-sourced prose" (although I realize that's a goal not always achieved). Can we assume that even these competitions should meet GNG in terms of references? If they do not, what is an appropriate action to take? Some of these, if taken to AfD, would be quite hard to defend. LaMona (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

LaMona, I've had a look at the draft. While I wouldn't say that every classical music competition is automatically notable (some are scams, by the way), this one's had coverage by Belgium's RTBF and by The Strad. I'd say it has a slightly more than 50% chance of passing an AfD, if taken there, which is the rule of thumb I (and several other experienced AfC reviewers) use. In my view, some AfC reviewers take an extreme view of "gate-keeping" to the detriment of encyclopedic coverage. At a certain point you have to cut a loose a draft and let it fly. It might crash, but the chances here are that it won't. If it does, well, at most would be merged into Arthur Grumiaux and it would become a redirect with the information retained in the history—not a calamity by any means. I could fix it up to its best possible form and move it into article space if you'd rather not take the chance. Out of curiosity, which is the article where the refimprove tag was challenged? I'm quite happy to check it out. Voceditenore (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore. The marked one is Yehudi Menuhin International Competition for Young Violinists which only cites its own web site. I didn't try to find other sources, since I was just passing through at the time. Any work on these to at least give them minimal reference coverage would greatly improve the general category. And, yes, if you could pass the Grumiaux one on, that too would be a Good Thing. Thanks again, LaMona (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I have started work in gathering sources on the Piano Concerto No. 1, Op. 59 by Charles Villiers Stanford, now I have located the basic history, but have had problems running down a couple of things, first, has the score been published since the 1995 recording by Hyperion Records, secondly the details of the concert in which the concerto was first performed are a little vague, even in Dibbles account of Stanfords life. All that is given is a date (27 May 1895) and that in addition the concert featured Tchaikovsky's Sixth and excerpts from Tristan und Isolde and Tannhäuser, but not the location. Assistance in researching those two facts will be very greatfully appreciated. Graham1973 (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I just checked OCLC and I could not locate a score of this piano concerto. -kosboot (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks the reason I was asking was I had stumbled across a review of a 2005 performance in Ireland and made the obvious assumption. Graham1973 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Time allowing (and remembering), I can check for contemporary reviews of the premiere. - kosboot (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Again thank you for looking, I would not know where to start, Dibble gives essentially the same information in both his book on Stanford and in the notes he prepared for the 1995 recording. I'm still looking to see if there were any other concert performances after the recording was released.Graham1973 (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for the reminder. Since this is British stuff, my initial inclination was that it would be covered by the Musical Times. Nearly all of that periodical is available through JSTOR. It took a bit of hunting but sure enough, I found a reference in the July issue: "Richter Concerts," Musical Times (July 1, 1895), p. 455. Evidently this was part of a series of four concerts led by Hans Richter (conductor). The unnamed reviewer mentions the highlights, including the Tchaikovsky Pathetique on May 27 which was the 2nd concert in the series. After talking about that, he says

"At the same concert Mr. Borwick [evidently Leonard Borwick] gave the first public performance of a new Pianoforte Concerto in G by Professor Stanford, the slow movement of which at once secured a host of friends by reason of its depth and sincerity of expression and the breadth and dignity of its melodic outline and harmonic progressions. The themes of the first and third movements struck one at first hearing as scarcely worthy of the bold handling and undeniably clever treatment of which they are subjected."

I think you would be wise to include this remark. - kosboot (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That I certainly will, which city was the series held in? You may have to add the reference as I have no access to JSTOR. The Irish 2005 review is a bit more stinging, basically saying that Stanford should have based his thematic material on Wagner rather than Brahms because Wagner has better tunes. Graham1973 (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear classical music enthusiasts: I am having trouble with this draft. Text says that the Centre is part of the Royal College of Music in Wales, but the College's article doesn't mention Wales or the centre. There's another Center for Performance Research in New York. There appears to be a Centre for Performance Research in Aberystwyth at the University of Wales ([9] and several other book references) but the Aberystwyth University page doesn't mention it, and the draft doesn't mention Aberystwyth. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This was flagged as a PROD. The article as it stands is rubbish but the topic is serious and encyclopedic - it needs a rewrite with citations.--Smerus (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking about taking the Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra, New York Philharmonic, Boston Symphony Orchestra, Philadelphia Orchestra, Chicago Symphony Orchestra and Cleveland Orchestra articles up to at least GA status. Any thoughts or ideas on how to proceed with this situation would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)