Talk:La tempesta di mare (flute concerto)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GarrettHilliard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

article title

I moved back to "... (flute concerto)" while that is the usual way it is distinguished from the other "tempesta di mare" concertos. Use WP:RM if you think that's not the way the article should be titled. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Dover reference

@Jerome Kohl: please stop messing up the Dover reference, it was correct in the various forms I put it in the article. I gave the page number. It's not in the "Forward" (you're just making that up). It is a score by Vivaldi, with 21st-century editors' notes. If you can't make that fit in templates, that's not my problem. It's correct the way I put it, stop messing with it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: No, that is not the way references are done. Authors' names are used, not publishers. If Dover Books had written what you are citing, then it would bee correct to cite Dover Books, but the annotations are by Eleanor Selfridge-Field. If you are unfamiliar with the practices of reference citations, then I suggest you read Wikipedia:How to cite your sources. It is only a thumbnail outline, but is a good place to start. You can find more ample discussion in books like the Chicago Manual of Style (with an emphasis on American norms) and Hart's Rules, now the Oxford Guide to Style (with emphasis on UK norms). If on the other hand you are advocating a novel method of citation, in which all of the referenced items are cited by publisher instead of author, then I am open to persuasion. Please explain how you mean for this to work, so that we can keep the citation style in this article consistent, per Wikipedia:Citing sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote large parts of Wikipedia:How to cite your sources. Using the templates is not obligatory. External style guides have no status on Wikipedia (they can be used for comparison, but they don't outrank MOS guidance – one of the first principles of MOS guidance being that for many secondary issues like reference formatting the first editor's choice is followed in case of disagreement). Music literature often refers to score editions by publisher (example), so there's no problem Wikipedia practicing the same.

What should be avoided is confusing and incorrect footnotes. How I formatted them was correct. Your alternatives are thus far more confusing and less correct, and on top of that ask question about page numbers where none are due. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Citing the edition by the publisher's name fails to identify whether the citation is attributable to the author (Vivaldi) or the editor (Selfridge-Field). You are probably aware that Selfridge-Field's work on Vivaldi has come under critical fire from Michael Talbot, amongst others, and in particular her edition of the Op. 10 concertos. She in turn has on occasion taken issue with Talbot's work. An attribution that conceals her identity does the reader no service. It is partly for this reason that author names (when known) are universally preferred for the identification of a source. This is as true on Wikipedia (as can be seen here) as it is in the larger world outside. External style guides do not, as you say, have any particular force on Wikipedia, but they have often been consulted when Wikipedia guidelines have been formulated. It is possible that the inclusive page numbers I requested are not relevant—for example, if you are citing footnotes added by Selfridge-Field throughout the edition. In that case "[Editorial notes]" can stand for the title, if they are not all collected into a section with an actual title at the head, and my request can either be deleted, or replaced with the word "passim".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll revert to the state prior to your last messing spree. If you have a relevant question to ask, do it here on the talk page instead of asking irrelevant questions with in-line templates, OK? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Since I have not been involved in any "messing spree", I take it that means you are satisfied with my edits and will leave them in place. As for "asking questions with in-line templates", I have no idea what you are talking about. I ask questions on Talk pages, in plain English, adding templates only for relevant links. I also sometimes pose questions in my edit summaries, again occasionally linking to a relevant Wikipedia guideline in order to save space. I personally dislike templates for citations, since they seldom take into account a sufficient number of elements commonly used in citations, and tend to impose their own style. Unfortunately, I have discovered that manually formatted citations tend to attract template-enthusiasts and so I have, as a last resort, adopted the wikicite template, which is actually nothing more than an anchor, freely allowing manually formatted entries in whatever style an editor wishes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Files removed

The files previously present in this article are listed on Commons under CC BY-SA 4.0. In reality, the files' source website lists all its files under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. As this is a non-free license, I have nominated them for speedy deletion from Commons, and removed them from this article in anticipation of their deletion. - Toast for Teddy (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

UPDATE: The files have been deleted. - Toast for Teddy (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)