Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Use of the word "The" in names of symphonies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To my ear, the lead in symphony articles should be, for example, "Symphony No. 5 by Gustav Mahler..." and not "The Symphony No. 5 by Gustav Mahler..." That sounds more natural. I found a mixture of styles on Wikipedia regarding the use of "The" in the lead for such names. For example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Rhapsody_No._19......"The" not used
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_No._9_(Beethoven)......"The" used
The website of Encyclopedia Britannica seems to corroborate my opinion.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Symphony-No-9-in-D-Minor
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Eroica-Symphony
There is also a discussion called "Why?" on my talk page about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BrightOrion
BrightOrion | talk 14:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it, but I rather prefer the use of the definite article, not least for the sake of consistency. When a composer has left us only one symphony - e.g. Bizet - we say "The Symphony in C is an early work by ..." and it would read rather oddly if we just said "Symphony in C is an early work by ..." If a one-off symphony calls for a definite article I think the same goes for symphonies by composers who wrote two or more. I see, for instance, that the articles on all four of Stravinsky's symphonies start "The Symphony ....". Not something I'd be inclined to man the barricades for, but on the whole I'm for the use of the definite article. Tim riley talk 14:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. But I am specifically talking about the wording "The Symphony No. 2" or "Symphony No. 2". Not "The Symphony in C" or such like. BrightOrion | talk 15:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Afterthought: I wondered if it might help guide us if I checked what our FAs on symphonies do. We are hardly awash with them: there are just four: Symphony No. 3 (Górecki), Symphony No. 4 (Mahler), Symphony No. 8 (Mahler) and Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius). The first three begin "The Symphony No. x ..." and the last, "Jean Sibelius's Symphony No. 8 was ...". No unadorned "Symphony No x ..." in this select group, and as FAs represent our best practice I'm for following the Górecki and Mahler precedents. Tim riley talk 15:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But they are all Wikipedia articles. It's kind of a self-fulfilling argument. Please look at sources outside Wikipedia too. Did you see my Britannica links above? And your last point "Jean Sibelius's Symphony No. 8" is what I'm saying. It's not "Jean Sibelius's the Symphony No. 8" is it? BrightOrion | talk 15:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that the Górecki and Mahler symphony articles are in some way wrong. I disagree. I don't put much store by Britannica as a musical authority, but if you look at Grove you will find examples of both "The Symphony No x" and "Symphony No x", which in my view indicates that either is permissible. My own preference is for the inclusion of the definite article, but I should not dream of sailing in and imposing it in articles where the main authors have preferred not to use it. Tim riley talk 15:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that a lot of the Wikipedia articles on symphonies use unnatural English in the lead, saying "The Symphony No. 2" etc. Britannica is not so much a musical authority, but I'm suggesting it uses natural English wording. Please give me a link to Grove. If I can use the Margaret Mitchell novel Gone with the Wind as an analogy. The title of the work is Gone with the Wind. You don't say "The Gone with the Wind". Similarly, "Symphony No. 2" functions as the title of the work, so the definite article is not needed. BrightOrion | talk 15:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I rather agree with the sentiment that "The Symphony No. 7" is not natural native speaker English, though I suspect that the word-replacement version in many (most, even?) European languages would look exactly like that. A quick look at Beethoven's fifth in the Romance languages shows: La symphonie en si mineur,..., La Symphonie no 5 en ut mineur, La Sinfonia n. 5 in do minore Op. 67, and I guess that in those language omitting the article would not look natural. But I submit that "The Symphony No. 5 in C minor of Ludwig van Beethoven" is not native English (the "of" should be "by" as well). We say "the fifth row" or "row 5", not "the row 5", and this is a general rule of English. Imaginatorium (User talk:Imaginatorium) 16:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. And I suspect a lot of the symphony articles on the English Wikipedia were initially created by French or German speakers etc. (because that was the nationality of the composers) so that may be how the "The" crept in in so many articles. Just a theory. BrightOrion | talk 16:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised anyone pronouncing about musical terminology has not as a first resort and a matter of course consulted Grove - the acknowledged authority. The online version is a subscription site: I don't know if you are based in the UK, but if so you can probably get access through your local public library. Britannica is an American publication, and not particularly enlightening about BrE. As to the patronising idea that the FAs are by people whose native tongue is not the Queen's English, the main author of the Mahler articles was the late Brianboulton, whose English was recognised on all sides to be superb. And regardless of the location of any main author, you may not realise that the FA process, involves close scrutiny and review of all aspects of an article, including the prose. An article will not survive unscathed at FAC, or peer review or GAN, if the experienced editors reviewing it think there is anything amiss with the prose. Tim riley talk 18:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that input, but this discussion is not about music per se. It's about the wording of works and the definite article. It could be the same discussion about novels or movies. Whether it's BrE or AmE doesn't apply here either, it's the same. You mentioned Groves uses both styles, which suggests an inconsistency on the part of Groves does it not? Anyway, I'm not subscribing to Groves just to check out that one source. The FAC, or peer review or GAN, does strike me as odd, to be honest. I'm not sure how that happened. But it doesn't mean the articles are perfect. Nothing patronising in my tone -- this is a question about English nuance and so it is important to know the first language of the people discussing it here. BrightOrion | talk 18:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If you use "its" and "it's" interchangeably, as above, I do not propose to argue about English usage with you. Let us see if there is any consensus here for your proposal. Like the ODNB and indeed Wikipedia, Grove does not impose a rigid house style in such matters. As both forms are entirely correct, both forms can be used. My advice remains to forbear from altering other editors' correct wording to suit your own personal taste. I am sure other editors will exercise a similar courtesy with regard to all the symphony articles you have written here. Tim riley talk 18:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Where did I use it's and its interchangeably? I corrected myself after about 10 seconds, but you couldn't wait to pounce could you. Stick to the topic please. BrightOrion | talk 18:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Alas, you haven't corrected yourself. We all make mistakes in our drafting, but "Whether its BrE or AmE doesn't apply" is not English (unless one is GBS). Be that as it may, let us see if there is a consensus for your proposal. Tim riley talk 18:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair point, but this isn't an article it's a discussion so I don't spell check it. By the way, about Groves -- how do you know what house style Groves applies? And have you read the Gone with the Wind? BrightOrion | talk 18:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Er, as Grove (n.b. not "Groves" plural) prints both "Symphony No x" and "The Symphony No x" it would be unfair to accuse it of applying a rigid house style on this point. As to Gone With the Wind (which I confess I have not read) have you heard "Third Symphony by Brahms"? I think most of us would add a definite article, but, as I say, let us see if there is a consensus for your view and against mine. Tim riley talk 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(Excuse interject) You miss (part of) the point. Yes, it's "the third row", but it's "row 3". There is a difference. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Perfect explanation Imaginatorium! And it's definitely not "Ah yes, go along to the row 3" in natural-sounding English.

I have no idea about Grove or Groves, and I’ve never heard of it/them. As I said, it's not actually a music question. I have dismissed your failed attempt at bringing up BrE and AmE and Grove as a bible, and so you grasped at straws with one spelling mistake. You're not sticking to the topic are you? I specifically said it’s about the wording in the lead "The Symphony No. 2" or "Symphony No. 2", and no other forms of wording. So you don't actually know the house style of Grove, correct? Er, funnily enough I started this discussion to see what the consensus is, but well done for pointing it out. By the way, you wrote "Symphony No x" but I think you'll find there's a full stop after the No -- "Symphony No. x".

I disagree that it is "not a music question": the matter of terminology is, to my mind, a musicological matter, but, as I say, let us see if you can gather a consensus for your opinion and against mine. Tim riley talk 18:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, let's see. Also, please don't edit my comments here again [[1]]. Thank you. BrightOrion | talk 19:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Good gracious! Not seen those words before. An edit conflict, presumably. Tim riley talk 20:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

What was that phrase about glass houses and stones again...? BrightOrion | talk 21:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, just a few more examples to make my point.
1) https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/arts-culture/wallingford-riegger-1885-1961/ has the wording
“String Quartet no. 2 (1948), Symphony no. 3 (1948)”
2) https://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Alexander_Glazunov has the wording
"Opus 33: Symphony No. 3 in D major (1890)"
3) https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/eroica-symphony has the wording
“Eroica Symphony (Sinfonia Eroica). Sym. No.3 in E♭ major”. No "The" used in these. BrightOrion | talk 20:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with "the". Its use originates from BrE English, and academic writing more broadly. Since the symphonies are all generic names, "the" makes more sense. In AmE having things like "playwright William Shakespeare" is more common than "the playwright William Shakespeare", so this is probably reason enough to avoid standardization, and work on an article to article basis. I don't think the suspicion that "a lot of the symphony articles on the English Wikipedia were initially created by French or German speakers etc." is correct, or has anything to do with the matter at hand really. Aza24 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

But they're not generic names, they're titles! You can see that from the fact that the word symphony has a capital "S" -- "Symphony No. 2". It's got nothing to do with BrE and AmE. BrightOrion | talk 21:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

They are generic names, at least by Wikipedia's standards, see WP:NCM#Definitions – italics. The difference between BrE and AmE does absolutely apply here, and denying that because you think it shouldn't be the case is unproductive. As Tim (a BrE speaker) has said, using the definitive article is more common in BrE, and as I've said (being an AmE speaker) the opposite is true in America. If you are going about trying to establish consistency in WP, you are fighting a lost cause. This is the encyclopedia that has no consistent referencing or dating styles, after all; again, there should be no fast rule. Aza24 (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Even if they are generic names, as "row 3" is a generic name, in neither BrE nor AmE do people say "Go to the row 3" or "Have you read the Gone with the Wind?". BrightOrion | talk 21:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You are comparing apples and pears. What you say about rows and novel titles is correct, but as has been carefully explained to you the use of the article in "The Symphony No x" is idiomatic in musicological terms. Not compulsory (as also explained, above) but entirely correct, which explains why one of our leading editors, the painfully missed Brian Boulton, used it and the editors reviewing the FACs were happy with it. Tim riley talk 21:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

So you are saying because a certain editor did it that style that makes it correct? No sources or references needed then. BrightOrion | talk 21:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

And everyone else at FAC approved. Sources? If you seriously imagine they are wanted for a drafting point like this you could possibly be bothered to go to your library and have a look at Grove... For another example of a definite article that may or may not appear in referring to the subject, consider British peers. Formally, a noble lord is "The Lord Thingy of Whatsit", but informally is just "Lord Thingy". Both are correct. Tim riley talk 21:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It's because "Symphony No. 2" has a number in it. I don't really think its analogous to people's names or titles, like say "Duke of Westminster" or "The Duke of Westminster". We'll just have to agree to disagree, I think. BrightOrion | talk 21:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Featured articles have, by virtue of the process required to reach the status, formed an unusually strong consensus that they accurately summarise their subject. Contested changes should not be made unless and until they, the proposed changes, have been discussed on the article's talk page and a new consensus formed. Given that the four FAs on symphonies noted above by Tim riley were nominated for FAC by three of the most experienced and respected of Wikipedia's content creators I suspect that this would not be easy. Indeed, the very fact that three such advanced students of the appropriate use of English seem to have independently arrived at the same conclusion might normally be expected to terminate discussion. Their authors, Ceoil and GeneralPoxter, may be interested in contributing to this discussion. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If I feel something in an article on Wikipedia is incorrect, I’m going to bring it up for discussion regardless of who wrote it. There is no “royalty” here. That’s what Wikipedia is all about. Now I may be wrong sometimes (never known to have happened), but it’s still correct to discuss it. That's what I have done here -- get it discussed. BrightOrion | talk 22:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Having read through the somewhat tedious discussion above can I draw the attention of BrightOrion to the third paragraph of the lead of the Manual of Style: "Where more than one style or format is acceptable under MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable." This is followed by a footnote making a pointed reference to the Arbitration Committee. I would suggest that BrightOrion contemplates Meta:Don't be a jerk and Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates and drops the stick. Attempting to impose firm, clear rules on the English language is just silly and the initial use of a definite object seems to me to be a clear example of a stylistic choice. (Accually, it seems to me – having read the above, it is not, praise the lord, something I have previously given thought to – that "correct" English, should such an improbable thing exist, would require an initial "The". But I wouldn't dream of imposing this view on an editor who differed, even if the MoS permitted me to.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I can contribute a definite opinion on this topic. While I agree that "The Symphony No. 4" does sound a bit awkward to me, at the same time, another FA I have contributed to–Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven)–does use "the" in the lead before introducing the name of the numbered piece title. Same goes for the FA Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart) (which I did not contribute to). Not sure if I can produce a reasonable justification as to why "the piano sonata" and "the piano concerto" sound less awkward to me. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that I didn't really notice "The Symphony No. 4" vs just "Symphony No. 4" during the FAC (and honestly didn't have the time to fuss over it); I just went along with what seemed to be the standard for previous Mahler FAC Symphony No. 8 (Mahler). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Encyclopedia Britannica isn't fully consistent on this either. Numbered symphony titles by Leonard Bernstein are prefaced with "the". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a very good point GeneralPoxter! BrightOrion | talk 11:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

There are hundreds (at least) articles on symphonies, sonatas, string quartets, divertimenti, concertos etc. that use this wording, as do thousands more about buildings, and some about paintings and sculptures. These have been used since time immemorial here, and tens of thousands of editors have seen nothing wrong with them. Neither MOS:FIRST nor WP:THE nor MOS:THETITLE have ever been darkened with the OP's considerations. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is always a dead end; WP:DROPTHESTICK. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

These are weasel words and not helpful in this discussion. BrightOrion | talk 06:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Does not this article answer the question? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That's more about article titles than the text in the lead. Interesting though! BrightOrion | talk 12:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Late to this after vacation, a few remarks:

1. BrightOrion, please close "br" for new lines by a slash, or the colours of the editor are confused.
2. Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style (MoS) which sometimes is in conflict with other encyclopedias.
3. Per this MoS, Piano Sonata No. 31 is a generic title, - capital letters but no italics, and a preceding "the".
4. If it was a title, it would have to be italic. But is isn't.
5. It also makes sense. A piano sonata with a number should work the same way as an only piano sonata, and I guess you wouldn't say: Piano Sonata in C major is a sonata by NN.
6. The solution to have the composer first might be a compromise for those (few) who have a problem with the "The": Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 31.
7. We have real problems, and this is not one of them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Someone with a clear comment (finally).

1. Wikipedia has its own Manual of Style (MoS) which sometimes is in conflict with other encyclopedias. My response: Agreed.
2. Per this MoS, Piano Sonata No. 31 is a generic title, - capital letters but no italics, and a preceding "the". My response: As I mentioned, generic or not, people don’t say “the row 3”.
3. If it was a title, it would have to be italic. But is isn't. My response: Then why capitalise the S and N in Symphony No. 2? I put it to you that it is functioning as a title even if it is not the real title.
4. The solution to have the composer first might be a compromise for those (few) who have a problem with the "The": Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 31. My response: That is much more preferable in my view as an editor. I think all the symphonies should be named that way to avoid the current situation which is slightly unnatural sounding.
5. We have real problems, and this is not one of them. My response: That in no way invalidates my genuine question about this. Otherwise, no one would be able to discuss anything other than real problems. BrightOrion | talk 06:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, but I don't think you understood me. Wikipedia's Mos calls these things generic title, indicated by capital letter(s) but not italic (Motet vs. motet, Violin Concerto vs. violin concerto), and you abide by that even if it sounds unnatural to you, or you have a discussion at the MoS to get it changed, or you change to composer first. I tried to have Bach's name first in cantata articles (not numbered but a lot of German in the title), but in FA reviews, the standard wording with the title first was preferred. Example BWV 1. So, even for the latter, you probably should argue at the MoS. Here, I believe we are done, and please stike that "(finally)" in your comment. No need in further replies (generally) to repeat the text of numbered comments, - they are numbered for a reason. Happy editing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

BrightOrion, yesterday morning you added these words (the slur was aimed at Michael Bednarek, one of our most respected contributors on musical topics): "Weasel words, and not really helpful in this discussion. I still stand by my remarks, but I will end my part in the discussion here.". You later deleted that addition, but I suggest that it will be a relief to everyone here if you stick to that offer to end your part in the discussion. I think we are by now all aware of your personal views, for which I see no consensus here. Tim riley talk 07:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I deleted it so I see no reason for you to bring it back here. It's not a slur they are weasel words. Can I ask you to please stay on topic. BrightOrion | talk 07:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you should try to learn how Wikipedia works. Deleting your earlier contributions on the sly is not a sign of good faith. You should either strike them through or at least add an edit summary indicating that you have changed your mind. I regret that change of mind because - on topic - you have been bombarding us with xenophobic, arrogant, barely literate rubbish for too long now. Try to understand: we do not, collectively, agree with you. Tim riley talk 07:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear, you've stooped to mud-slinging. Come on Tim riley, you're better than that! BrightOrion (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Goedel, Escher, ....

FYI, there is currently[2] a requested move discussion here: Talk:Bach cantata#Requested move 15 February 2022. -- Mathsci (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Citing contemporary classical music

Hi,Is there a template available that cite a reference for a symphony that includes all the details of a particular piece. It is regarding the The Aesthetics of Resistance book article. In the corresponding article in the German version it has a list of symphonies that are associated with book. Each one in the list, has lots of extraneous details, for example conductor. It there any kind template that can be used to cite this information or is it just a case of putting it in as plain text. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 17:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you looking to cite printed music or a recording? {{cite score}} exists as a redirect to {{cite book}} for the former, or {{cite AV media}} for the latter. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: How are you? The {{cite AV media}} was the template I was originally going to use, but its really designed more for tv and streaming programmes. I was trying to find something that would have a property for the conductor for a specific recording and properties for the type of recording like cantata for example, and properties for example cantata for 4 voices or for example, naming the choir. This doesn't seem to be on Wikipedia. That vast majority of popular recording is covered by the templates that are available but for almost every classical piece from symphony to opera to sonata and so on, seems to put down as plain text in a bulleted list. Its is really weird. scope_creep^Talk 13:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a little bit of flexibility in templates in parameters like |others=, which could be applied to name a conductor; you're right though that it's not specifically designed for that purpose. I'm not aware of one that is, but you could potentially design one or request parameters be added to the existing templates to better accommodate other source types. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess its plain text then. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 21:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixing up List of compositions by Cécile Chaminade

So yesterday there were some major changes to List of compositions by Cécile Chaminade that....well suffice it to say it's a mess. Anyone inclined to fix it up? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

For the moment, would it suffice just to revert to the page as it was the day before yesterday? Tim riley talk 19:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Given its current state as an indecipherable table, reverting seems like a good idea. I struggled to locate the concertino. Mathsci (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we wait 24 hours or so to see if anyone has opposing views, and then, if not, revert. Does that seem a sensible approach? Tim riley talk 21:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I do. Were you Riley in Kosenko's peer Review ? I am now in South America. Sorry if I am late. If nonetheless any of you do consider "reverting" I do suggest you do it now. Krenakarore ^TK 21:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. Done. Tim riley talk 21:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Ludwig Titze article

I'm not sure how to tag this article, so bringing it to your attention. The content is mostly taken directly from the Grove 1st Edition article, but it's not referenced that way. See Wikisource:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Titze, Ludwig, which I've just proofread and created. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe the creator of the article, User:MinorProphet, can belatedly fix the attribution. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I had forgotten about the "onlie begetter" of "Hark, hark, the lark". The Titze article was one of my earlier efforts, when I hadn't quite worked out the importance of painstaking referencing. Thanks, @Beeswaxcandle and Michael Bednarek: for bringing this to my attention, I'll update the refs. MinorProphet (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

AfD for SATB and Four-part harmony

Both SATB and Four-part harmony were suggested to be deleted, and no notification here it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Debussy Danses

I've run up an article on Debussy's Dances for Harp and String Orchestra, but am dithering about the title of the article. I have used the title Debussy gave it, but I have a strong feeling the work is more usually referred to as "Danse sacrée et Danse profane", "Danses sacrée et profane" or variations thereof. I've added several redirect pages from the latter titles and similar, but would welcome thoughts on whether I have picked the most useful title for the article itself. – Tim riley talk 14:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

IMSLP calls them: Danse sacrée et danse profane (Debussy, Claude). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That is also how Norton/Grove Concise labels them, although I don't access to full Grove. PianoDan (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Both Debussy's manuscript and Durand's original publication (1904) give the title Danses and, as subtitles, I. Danse sacrée and II. Danse profane, which Durand modified as indicated in your article, Tim. Durand republished them under the same title at least until 1966 (the date of my copy, in pocket score format). It appears therefore that the title you gave is the correct one, despite IMSLP and The New Grove (I checked the 1st edition; I cannot access the online version just now). After all, cannot WP do better than others?

On the other hand, I am slightly surprised by your statement that "Debussy adopted modal forms for the two dances:" why "forms"? And further, "the faster Profane Dance is in the Lydian (the relative major of the Dorian)." In what sense would the Lydian mode be the relative major of the Dorian? One might argue that F (Lydian being the "F mode") is the relative major of D, but here both dances are in D, the Danse sacrée mainly in D Dorian and the Danse profane mainly in D Lydian; there is also quite a lot of pentatonicism. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The pentatonic element I grant you, but as to "modal forms" and "relative majors" I can barely find Middle C without a map and compass and I couldn't recognise a modal form if it were served up to me with watercress or a relative major if it bit me in the leg: I've merely cribbed from the sources. If you care to redraw, pray do − very pleased if anyone improves my start. Tim riley talk 16:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Which Hucbald.SaintAmand has now done, for which my cordial thanks. Any further improvements also welcome! Tim riley talk 13:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

According to Grove Music Online: "Deux danses, chromatic hp, str, 1904: Danse sacrée, Danse profane; full score (1904), arr. 2 pf (1904)" — CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw the manuscript titled I. Danse sacrée and II. Danse profane, but that's hardly a suitable article title. The French Wikipedia calls it fr:Deux danses (Debussy), the Japanese Sacred and secular dances. Maybe Two Dances (Debussy) – or leave as it is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The title on the manuscript and in the first edition is Danses (plural!). The titles of the two individual dances follow as subtitles, with Roman numerals. And the indication pour Harpe chromatique ou Harpe à Pedales, ou Piano avec acc^t d'orchestre d'instruments à cordes follows (as written here: with somewhat erratic capitals and no accent in "Pedales.") To summarize all that, I think with Tim Riley that "Dances for Harp and String Orchestra" is the best compromise.

The article should also explain that although the piece was commissioned for chromatic harp, Debussy was clever enough to make it also playable on a pedal harp (which means that enough time had to be given to adjust the pedals before adding or removing an alteration to a note). I am looking whether I can find references for this and the modal aspect of the pieces. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

On the basis of the title "Six épigraphes antiques", the concise and unambiguous title "Deux danses (Debussy)" seems more natural. The recordings with the Introduction and Allegro (Ravel) paired are standard. Both pieces have harp/piano scores published by Durand. Ravel's is marked "Transcription à 2 Pianos par l'AUTEUR". Debussy's piano reduction also seems to be by the author.[3] The other piano Danse on IMSLP is the Tarantelle styrienne (cf Tarantelle (Chopin)). Mathsci (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Mittelmann

Comments, whatever they may be, would be welcome at this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Reynaldo Hahn

I am hoping to take Hahn's article to FAC, and as a preliminary I have it at peer review. If any visitors to this page would like to look in at the peer review, they will be more than welcome. Comments and suggestions gratefully received. Tim riley talk 13:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I've had some splendid input from 4meter4 and will welcome further input, whether big or small, from anyone who likes to look in. Tim riley talk 21:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Input needed

Input is needed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 15#Violoneux. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Andreyev

Project members may wish to comment here.4meter4 (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Pachelbel's Canon

External audio
Pachelbel's Canon in D, P 37 3:46 The Academy of Ancient Music, C. Hogwood

External videos
Pachelbel Canon in D, Project based in Ukraine, Leopold Nikolaus, Lesya Dermenshi (vlns), Anastasia Fedchenko (fl), Vitali Alekseenok (hpsd) & Ilona Les (gba)

Pachelbel's Canon was popularised as a result of a version first heard in a film score; its popularity extends to light music, pop and rock versions. In the article, until fairly recently, several audio links were available, including a video with period instruments. The version with two violins and harp now replaces a US string marching band [truncated and with the canon elements permuted] with no audio external links. On IMSLP there are several synthesised versions (some originating in mutopia).

Normally WP:ELYES does not discourage properly licensed recordings, especially if they have an educational purpose – e.g. listening to how the three identical canonic parts combine in the musical analysis. As a point of reference without prejudging other available versions, here are two examples of external audios/external links for videos – Christopher Hogwood and the Academy of Ancient Music along with a collaborative Ukrainian version made during lockdown.

Pachelbel has a well-deserved reputation as a 17th century baroque composer of keyboard, instrumental and vocal works, which, as is well known, influenced 18th century musicians. Usually for those keyboard works or comparable works like Buxtehude's Membra Jesu Nostri, there is a selection of properly licensed audio links. If anybody wants to propose an RfC here or elsewhere, that might be an idea. As often happens on wikipedia, things are slightly arbitrary: allowing more options seems fine but other users might have different opinions. Mathsci (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

So, let me see:

1. After never editing the page in question in their decade-and-a-half on Wikipedia, Mathsci comes there right after I edit it and of course finds a reason to revert.
2. They engage in some minor edit-warring until it becomes clear there isn't a consensus on the talk page for their preferred version.
3. After this, they leave an unnecessarily-long notice here; one which is also very non-neutral and thus raises WP:CANVASS issues... A short "There is a discussion about which audio file should be included in the article. Your participation is welcome." would have been plenty sufficient.

'nuff said. The RfC - which is the logical next step if Mathsci insists - should be on the article talk page, as RfCs about stuff in an article are usually held on the talk page of the relevant article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Having read the above twice, very carefully the second time, I have not the faintest notion what the casus belli is. Is it that one editor has added a synthesised version the other thinks awful or is it a question of copyright? Or something else? Could we have a sentence or two in short, easy words to explain the matter to the old and befuddled like me? Tim riley talk 22:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. I've taken my cocoa now. "Time to go home, Time to go home, Andy is waving goodbye." Mathsci (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Tim riley: There is a discussion about which audio file should be included in the article. Your participation is welcome. The casus belli is that, for right or wrong, Mathsci followed me around to an article they never edited before, and then edit-warred for a bit about which audio file should be included. Given the subsequent lack of consensus for their preferred version on the article talk page, they've now resorted to posting this here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been editing this talk page since 2009. Today is the first time RandomCanadian has edited this page, with a newly re-created template.[4][5] Following 3 reverts by Dumuzid in 24 hours, we amicably discussed a tentative RfC, mentioning this as a reasonable venue. In the last week another editor had requested the marching string band four times (or possibly five, with one logged off) giving their reasons[6] together with a response.[7] That is the recent context. Only external audios are of interest to me. Mathsci (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You made a post here which you linked to on the talk page of the affected article. Stop acting surprised when people show up.

Also: In your over decade and a half on Wikipedia, you have never edited the Canon page until I edited it. Give me a friggin break. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Checking my own edits since 2006, I've made thousands of edits about music: in the articles Orgelbüchlein, Canonic Variations, Clavier-Übung 3, Great 18 Chorale Preludes, 6 organ sonatas, Pachelbel and Buxtehude (and other 17th-century composers) often appear, sometimes with musical quotations; same for An Wasserflüssen Babylon (references to John Butt). The Wollny-Maul article on Bach's 1700 tablature featuring music by Pachelbel, Buxtehude and Reincken is also discussed. For Buxtehude, there's content on BuxWV 179 based on an article on the "totentanz" by Markus Rathey. On wikipedia, often errors occur and they will show up on watchlists. That happened with Lübeck – at one stage I used an image of a Cavaille-Coll chamber organ in the Musikhochschule for 8 Short Preludes and Fugues in Jan 2021. Similarly on the talk page on the main page, I've had to check for errors there.

Here, however, the discussion here really concerns the use of external recordings, either as external audios or links. It might be of interest to people who've previously used this page. Checking available recordings, as for cantatas, can be a pleasant and serendipitous experience, as happened in discovering the Ukraine recording. I recognize Dumuzid from previous discussions (dealing with R&I sockpuppetry). In previous music-related RfCs, such as the sexuality of Chopin, things were resolved without too much name-calling, except for words like "straightwashing" (just last night, two edits had to be reverted). Mathsci (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The Decca Ring

Noticing that dozens of pop albums have their own articles, some of them GAs, and feeling that perhaps it is time we had an article on what critics in three continents have referred to as the greatest recording ever made – the Decca Ring – I am putting one together gradually in my sandpit. My reason for mentioning it here is to ask for suggestions about what to call the article when I post it in main space: "The Decca Ring", "Der Ring Des Nibelungen: 1958–1965 Decca recording" or what? All ideas gratefully received. (Equally, if you think it's a daft idea to have an article at all, please don't hesitate to say so.) Tim riley talk 14:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe looking at Category:Opera recordings might give some guidance. The prevailing custom seems to be "opera title (conductor> recording)", so maybe the unwieldy "Der Ring des Nibelungen (Georg Solti recording)" is a starting point, or closer to your suggestion, "Der Ring des Nibelungen (Decca recording)" (I'd prefer the former). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd second, for what it's worth, Michael Bednarek's suggestion of "Der Ring des Nibelungen (Georg Solti recording)". What other classical albums might warrant an article? E.g. Schnabel's Beethoven sonata cycle? Gould's Goldberg Variations? - Best, --Smerus (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm also on board with the former title. "Decca Ring" would be confusing as the label had recorded Joseph Keilberth's live Bayreuth cycle about a decade before Solti. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I am much indebted to colleagues for these helpful suggestions, and I think I'll adopt the first of MB's suggestions. Thank you all. Tim riley talk 20:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I could have sworn this already had an article... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I assume you'll also create a redirect from "The Decca Ring." - kosboot (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and one or two others, I think. Another link will probably be good from the Ring discography page. But I've got to top and tail the article first. Tim riley talk 17:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The article is now open for business (and duly linked, as suggested.) Additions, amendments etc all gratefully received. Tim riley talk 12:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

late (returning from a long weekend rich in music, with two services and two concerts): I believe that "(Solti recording)" would be enough for a dab, as he seems the only conductor with that surname. Thanks to all! (I remember having searched the recording for orchestral passages, or meaningful sentences ("Hier rasten wir.") to (ab)use it as comment and background music of a private travel film. - Read Lorenzo Gaggero today, - I took the pic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added an info-box, which is useful, I think, for an article of this kind. If anyone can improve it, please do. Tim riley talk 14:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a fantastic effort! Well done. DBaK (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I say! Thank you so much! Room for improvement still, though, I have no doubt... Tim riley talk 15:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Schumann overcategorisation dispute

I'd appreciate any comments at Talk:Robert Schumann#Recent category edits. Graham87 18:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Miguel Farré Mallofré

Hi, I added the article Miguel Farré Mallofré to this WikiProject. I created this article from the point of view of WikiProject Chess. His achievements as a chess player make him notable from our project's point of view, but in reality chess was a relatively minor part of his biography once he decided to dedicate himself to music. It would be good if someone from this project could edit the article to expand on his career as a pianist. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Partita (Dallapiccola)

Hello, classical music project, does anyone monitor talk pages? I posted on Talk:Partita (Dallapiccola) about a week ago and nobody has responded. Can I assume this means no-one objects to the changes I proposed, or just that nobody has seen my post? I may go ahead and try to make the changes, but it would be good to know that what I am proposing is felt by the project to be appropriate. 94.197.156.134 (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quintetto Chigiano

people of this wikiproject may be interested in this afd i started. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 15:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Bruce Faulconer

How a Prominent Composer Lost His Wikipedia Page—and Got Entangled in Kafkaesque Nightmare Trying to Get it Back - kosboot (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Meh. Sounds like Churchill's "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." If anyone has an idea for a more effective system, they're welcome to try to implement it. I'm not losing sleep at night over whether or not I have a Wikipedia article. PianoDan (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems pretty sound thinking to me. Tim riley talk 16:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A rather whiny and petulant account. One can't help but be bewildered when a publicly-accessible, free, consensus based, universal encyclopedia in hundreds of languages is called 'Kafkaesque'. Truly, one must be born with unimaginable privilege to muster such an assertion, Kafka would be appalled. So much of the analysis is skewed and disjointed, for example When a troll demanded that he have an entry in the Grove Dictionary of Music (run by Oxford University Press), you begin to understand the biases they hold—all a user said was "No mention of him in Grove Music Online, where we'd expect any notable composer to appear", a point they made among other evidence. At no point did anyone say, "he does not have a Grove article so should not have a Wikipedia one", a dishonest implication made by the article, and one of many. For some people, nothing is good enough. Aza24 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As stated in The Signpost, the article has been rescued from deletion with some more editing. it's deletion & Gioia's blog post are mentioned on the talk page. I think you should copy your comment there, Aza24 - kosboot (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

An old merge discussion needs some input!

Hi all, a merging discussion was begun almost a year ago here and could use a few more eyes. If a few folks are able to lend some insight, I will submit a request to Wikipedia:Closure requests. Aza24 (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I've put my oar in, but a few more oars wouldn't go amiss. Tim riley talk 16:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Sensible outcome there, I see. Nice one, Aza24! − Tim riley talk 12:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Help Needed: Miriam Shatal

We have an article at Miriam Shatal that just barely survived a deletion nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miriam Shatal. Help is needed from anyone who can dig up information about classical and religious music from the mid-20th Century. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry – I've drawn a blank in all my usual sources: Grove, Baker's Dictionary, The Oxford Companion to Music, The Oxford Dictionary of Music, The Times and The British Newspaper Archive. Shatal is not mentioned in The Cambridge Companion to Jewish Music. A performance of one of her choral works (unspecified) is mentioned in The Pacifica Tribune, 24 Nov 1999, p. 4, and she is listed along with 31 other composers as "representative" in the section "Cultivating an Israeli Style" in Music in Jewish History and Culture (2006) by Emmanuel Rubin. That's all I can find. Tim riley talk 08:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Napoleon Distelmans

Napoleon Distelmans. Created with zero references in 2006 and nothing has been added since. Does anyone in this project fancy having a look at it and fixing or PRODing it as necessary? I've tried searching, but not sure what sources this project classes as reliable, and I think there may be a lot of citogenesis going on. Thanks. - X201 (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

X201, from a relatively quick glance it looks like you found a rather old hoax. Many of the article's fundamental details do not make sense and a glance on the internet produces no coverage that is not based of the WP article. The only Prix de Rome prize for music was a composition one, there was none for viola—unless the article is referring to a viola named the 'Prix de Rome viola', which probably makes even less sense. I've not been able to find any sources to back up the rather humorous Antwerp Zoological Society anecdotes (again, only from a quick search), which make little sense anyways (none of those composers spent significant time in Belgium, and performing Mahler's massive-scale works anywhere other than a concert hall at that time is rather nonsensical). There's also the matter of a 'shoemaker' teaching his children how to play the violin, viola and cello, which just sounds made up. I found this, which seems to prove nothing, really. Aza24 (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Possible hoax did start getting louder in my head as a I read through it. I've done an insource search for Napoleon Distelmans, and he's mentioned in a few more articles: Jef Maes, Ernest van der Eyken and August Baeyens. So perhaps he could be real, but those articles aren't bursting at the seams with references either. - X201 (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Shades of Dag Henrik Esrum-Hellerup in Grove! But Napoleon Distelmans is not totally fictional: he is mentioned in Grove as the teacher of the violist and composer Jef Maes, and he is twice mentioned in JSTOR as a player:

• ...each program was signed by the performers. Besides the conductor Ontrop, other performers include Maria Ontrop (soprano and piano), Marguerite Linssens (contralto), Edmond De Herdt (violin), Napoleon Distelmans (viola), Hendrik Ceulemans (cello), Alfons De Vestele (double-bass), Ferdinand Valck (flute), Jeanne Rullaert (contralto and harpsichord...
• ...les membres de l'orchestre les violonistes Hendrik Adriaens et Jozef Van Poppel, les altistes Napoleon Distelmans et Lode Vets, le violoncelliste Jaak Snellaert, le contrebassiste Florimond Gilleir, les flûtistes Louis Stoefs, Fr. Thomas, Karel Torfs et August Verbesselt, les hautboïstes Orner Creviaux...

I think the first sentence of the article may well be accurate: it fits with the two JSTOR references (both from the Revue belge de Musicologie) but I share Aza24's reservations about the rest of the article. Even if some of the purported facts are accurate they are uncited, and on top of that I doubt if a violist unknown to Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians (or to Grove as a player rather than a teacher, and then only in a single mention in someone else's article) meets our notability criteria. Tim riley talk 08:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This all indeed seems rather strange. The article was created on 10 August 2006 by someone signing User:Gustenglish. There exists a Dutch version of the article, created on 4 August 2006 by gust~nlwiki (red link in Dutch as in English). Both articles contain recent (2022) changes signed by User:Napoleon Distelmans (also red link in both languages). The Dutch version mentions some of his students in the Antwerp Conservatoire: these are real people and their respective WP articles describe them as students, among others, of Distelmans. Jef Maes, in particular, was said to have been student to Distelmans at the creation of his article on 4 May 2006. (See also https://eng.ichacha.net/zaoju/napoleon%20distelmans.html.) I checked the catalogue of the Belgian Royal Library for Napoleon Distelmans and found ... nothing. The Library of the Royal Conservatoire in Antwerp does mention him as viola teacher in the biography of some of his students. IMSLP mentions that August de Boeck's Fantasy for viola is dedicated to Napoleon Distelmans (https://imslp.org/wiki/Fantasia_voor_altviool_(Boeck%2C_August_de)). The Library of the University of Antwerp mentions two typescripts by Distelmans, a history of the viola and one of the viola d'amore. Etc. Several other documents on Internet indicate that Distelmans really existed. But it seems obvious to me that he does not meet the notability condition for the English Wikipedia. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The user Napoleon Distelmans (talk · contribs) mentioned above by Hucbald above has a habit of adding unsourced material. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The Dutch article nl:Napoleon Distelmans has this reference: https://anet.be/record/isaarkc/au::5757/E which leads to several further links on that site. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Although it does not clearly say so, anet.be is a website of the Antwerp University. I didn't find there any other link than to the two manuscripts that I already mentioned above. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Napoleon Distelmans happened to be my great-uncle, I"m in a good position to confirm these entries as being factual. It's my own family history recited in the article. His father didn't teach his own children but he compelled them all to study music including the brother of Napoleon Distelmans, my grandfather Joseph Distelmans..

I don't know who wrote the original article but I can confirm its factuality as a close relative of Napoleon Distelmans. Napoleon Distelmans (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, Napoleon Distelmans, your confirmation means very little, since Wikipedia is based on verifiability via secondary reliable sources with out conflicts of interests. Aza24 (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not correct the Prix de Rome wasn't awarded for the viola. My great-uncle obtained a scholarship to complete his studies in London with one of world's leading alto players after winning the Prix de Rome at the Antwerp Conservatoire immediately after which he was given a professorship Viola at the same Antwerp Conservatoire which fact is well-documented in the Conservatoire's archives.

The Orchestra of the Royal Zoological Society which ceased to exist in the 1960s used to have a good reputation for its avant-garde programming of contemoprary composers.

The concert hall was only a few steps away from Antwerp Central Railway Station and easily reachable from abroad which might also account for the occasional visits of foreign composers.

I don't know the person who wrote the original article which I discovered by accident adding a few minor details of my own.

Whoever this person was, he is very well informed about my family history. Everything accounted in the article corresponds exactly with what my own grandfather told me, half a century ago up the the smallest detail. I got my information first-hand, from the brother of Napoleon Distelmans. Napoleon Distelmans (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

As it is abundantly clear there is not enough coverage of Napoleon Distelmans, I have nominated the article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napoleon Distelmans. Aza24 (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The Prix de Rome in question here is the Belgian Prix de Rome. Second Prizes are mentioned in the article, but it could be that other prizes were given as well, in the form of scholarships. In any case, it doesn't seem that this Belgian Prix de Rome involved being sent to Rome, as it did in France. It therefore is plausible that Napoleon Distelmans won a scholarship under the name "Prix de Rome." Whether that makes him notable enough to be mentioned in the English WP is another matter. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The Prix de Rome is still awarded at Conservatoirs in several European countries but outside France this never implies being sent to the Villa Medicis in Rome.

I found a reference in a Flemish publication from 1911 which confirms him winning this award as the string quartet of which he was member consisted exclusively of Prix de Rome winners. Napoleon Distelmans (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe so, but doesn't make him WP:NOTABLE.--Smerus (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move needing eyes

Comments from others would be most welcome at Talk:Dufay#Requested move 23 August 2022. – Aza24 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions for viola: A to B

List of compositions for viola: A to B (and the other letters) are nominated for deletion. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)