Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Excerpts/Merge from Ritual Fire Dance (de Falla)‎ to El Amor Brujo

Discussion referred here by Pianoplonkers from Talk:El amor brujo.

I hope we can discuss when and if articles should be started on excerpts from, and arrangements of, original works. Another example is Au bord d'une source from Liszt's Années de Pèlerinage. --Kleinzach 00:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the specific articles, I believe the present versions are pretty underdeveloped anyway. Eg the Structure and Analysis of the Fire Dance "concerns only the piano redition [sic] of the piece", while the Ballet article is little more than a stub. Both need to be worked on before any decision is made about merger.

Regarding separate articles in general for excerpts, I think that it is a necessary aspect of Wiki that famous sections of complete works (that may not be famous of themselves) are represented in seperate articles. Not that I say we ought to do this for every occurance (The Adagio from Spartacus has no separate article, for example) but that where these articles exist they probably ought to be left. After all, readers are likely to want to know about (and therefore search for) the excerpt (basic info on structure, orchestration, versions, cultural usage etc) rather that the complete work - they can link to the full work easily from "see also" or an inline "this comes from xxxxxxxxxxxx". Vivaldi's Four Seasons are actually part of a set of 12 works, for example, but warrent their own article. Operatic arias often get their own article. More pertinently, the Sabre Dance and Gayane get individual articles despite the former being only a small part of the latter. There are plenty of other examples. We ought to avoid overusing this though: articles on Pop and Rock albums are too often plagued by tiny articles on their individual (non-single) songs. We can avoid that excess. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections — there has been no followup — I'll replace the grey text above with a link. --Kleinzach 06:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, for example is another example of excess which I think should be merged:

• Opus 62 No.1 (Mendelssohn) should be merged with Songs without Words.

The article has nothing to say about this piece save that it is used as an examination piece. We will we end up having separate (non)articles for each of the Songs without Words unless we stop this sort of rot....--Smerus (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This was also created by Pianoplonkers. I'll draw his attention to the continuation of this discussion. --Kleinzach 06:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think articles about movements of works should not exist and they should be a section of the main article. For example, I think it’s wrong to separate the rondo from Mozart’s Piano Sonata No. 11: it is well known by itself as the “Turkish march”, but it is a structural part of the complete work (the Sonata). A different thing is large cycles consisting on separated pieces that may be performed without the rest of the pieces without changing the structural and musical integrity of the work. For example, Liszt’s Années de Pèlerinage consists of three cycles that may be performed separated, and each cycle contains several pieces that by themselves stand as complete pieces with complete meaning and structure (for example Au bord d'une source). These pieces are an exception, and as a general rule I think articles should be about the complete pieces.--Karljoos (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dante Sonata is an even better example of what you are talking about: it is hugely important in and of itself. As is Les jeux d'eaux à la Villa d'Este which really ought to have an article, too. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at this in another way. What harm is done by including the works in the main article and having a redirect from Les jeux d'eaux à la Villa d'Este or whatever? I'm concerned that if we cherry-pick the best bits, the main article will be neglected. --Kleinzach 03:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Assessments redux

Should this project undertake assessments?

Previous discussions arrived at the compromise now explained on the assessments page:

There is no internal WikiProject rating system for articles at the moment, so articles should only be rated with a class on the assessment scale if they are listed as a stub or have been selected as a good article or a featured article. Only in these three cases should the talk page be tagged with {{Classical|class=stub}}, {{Classical|class=GA}} or {{Classical|class=FA}} respectively.

New members generally don't understand this position, so I think we need to clarify it. Here is the general situation:

1. The project is diverse, covering all aspects of mainstream music "that aren't covered by other classical music related projects" which in practice means everything except composers and opera. We include biographies of performers, as well as articles on compositions, forms, music history etc. (For a compete list of what we cover, see here).
2. We now have 10,320 articles of which 5,144 are unassessed (15 Nov,). The assessments are only nominal, few if any are written (i.e. reviewed).
3. The only successful CM-related ratings system are those of the Composers Project (4,953 articles, see here) and the Wagner project (86 articles, see here). The Opera Project and Contemporary Music have notably failed to implement one — even though they are much smaller than us!)
4. It's now possible to enter a parameter into a project banner to make it non-assessing (i.e. no assessments will be visible on the talk page) so the project would join the Category:WikiProject banners without quality assessment.
5. It would be difficult for us (here) to banner selectively (e.g. by task force), however the project implicitly encourages the development of specialized (daughter) CM projects, which can substitute their own banners for this project's ones (by bot) and introduce assessments.

IMO, that leaves us with three options;

A. Assess all CM articles (requiring an assessment plan and a volunteer group to carry it out)

B. Mark project as completely non-assessing.

C. Mark project as non-assessing and encourage the creation of daughter projects to handle selective assessments.

Hope this isn't too complex and technical — anyway what do people think? --Kleinzach 03:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure that assessments really have much value. Different projects routinely assess the same article differently, and, like the overgeneralized claims in information boxes, the assessments strike me as more misleading than useful for the general reader. Moreover, at least I as a newcomer found the biography project's routine assessment of everything I contributed, no matter how extensive, as "stub class" (essentially, "little or no useful information") to be discouraging, and I can't help but think that others might have a similar reaction and, if less butt-headed than I am, just give up on contributing. So my vote, given that we don't have elaborate assessments already, would be not to go down that road at all. Drhoehl (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Biography's assessments are mostly useless (consider for a moment how many biography articles there are on WP, and how many project reviewers it has). In my opinion, ratings below B from many projects are also mostly irrelevant, as violating many types of standards and guidelines (concerning content and formatting) might result in a lower rating. To me, ratings ought to be an indication of how well the article measures up to some standard. Many projects (including biography) use canned standards that don't tell the editor much useful about how to improve a specific type of article.

If this project were to adopt some meaningful standards (describing, for example, what sort of content an A-class article about a performance space should contain), and had a useful review process (for at least A-class articles, and maybe even B), then editors have a place to go to get feedback on how to improve their articles. However, setting this up is work -- if editors here aren't interested in it, then it may not be worth the work to set it up. Hence Kleinzach's posing of the question. Magic♪piano 21:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The option exists in the banner and it looks silly (IMO) when we just get "???". I'm with Magicpiano that we need specific guidelines. I recently assessed some articles for the Contemporary Project but was painfully aware that the assessments were entirely my own opinion. We could easily adopt the guidelines published by other projects - but only if we could actually be bothered to assess, which is the real point! Who does it? How often? What if they are away for a long time or leave the project? Etc. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Thanks for the feedback. Considering the size of this project etc., it may be best to adopt Option C (Mark project as non-assessing and encourage the creation of daughter projects etc.).

I propose the following text for the Assessments page:

The Classical music project does not currently assess articles, however we encourage the creation of 'daughter' (or sub) projects, for various purposes including quality control assessments.

New projects should be proposed on the Classical music talk page (to see if there is the necessary interest and support). Categories within the scope of the new project should be identified. Subjects that are clearly categorized (e.g. conductors, cellists, symphonies, music schools etc.) are most suitable for projects. Following the categories, the new project's banners can be automatically placed on talk pages by bot. (Classical music project banners should then be removed because we only cover articles "that aren't covered by other classical music related projects").

Please agree, disagree or comment as you wish! --Kleinzach 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagree The proposal seems good to me in general, but I think I would be opposed to having assessed articles be removed from WikiProject Classical Music. It sounds counter-intuitive. For example, let's take the Rhapsody in Blue article. If it is assessed by a hypothetical "WikiProject Classical Music Assessment", it would therefore be classified under that WikiProject, and its WikiProject Classical Music banner would hence be removed. Now, let us say that the article needs to be cleaned up and verified (both of which are actually currently marked as needing to be performed on the article). It would be outside the scope of WikiProject Classical Music Assessment, yet would not be covered under Wikiproject Classical Music. (Unless I'm understanding something wrong, in which case please correct me.) Meanwhile, what would be the difference between having Assessment as a daughter WikiProject, and having it as a Task Force? Getmoreatp (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. This is complicated so I'll try to explain. To start with your last question. assessments are done within banners. Projects have exclusive banners, so they can do assessments. Task forces don't have their own banners, so they can't do assessments (except on a haphazard ad hoc basis, without the use of bots etc.).

Second, the scope of this project is explained in the first sentence on the project page: it maintains "all articles . . . that aren't covered by other classical music related projects." It's a kind of 'basket' project, looking after articles that no-one else is editing. In the case of Rhapsody in Blue all the work would go over to the new project, though in practice this wouldn't amount to much, as the 'To do list' etc. is hardly used. --Kleinzach 06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. I should also add that there are no genuine project-based assessments here at the moment, only nominal ones. --Kleinzach 08:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

• First, perhaps it should read - "The Classical music project does not currently assess articles..." That would leave it free to change its mind in the future.

OK. I have added the word 'currently'. --Kleinzach 02:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• Second, Why encourage "daughter" projects? Why not encourage "sister" projects? That way we don't have to worry about whether or not they should be assessing. As I understand it, a "parent" project is a higher authority that "daughters" can call upon to settle diputes. (Correct?) Having daughters (in this sense) could possibly increase the work load exponentially as the projects increased! (Though the present two are pretty autonomous.)
• Third, the basic idea is good, though.

--Jubilee♫clipman 02:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 'daughters' and 'sisters': WP is hierarchical. It has parents and descendants (or daughters), but there are no siblings! However 'parents' are not a higher authority. In practice the higher level projects defer to the lower level ones, where much of the writing is done. Higher level projects also can debate guidelines which can be applied to the descendant projects. (This is good because it can spare editors tedious and repetitive debates about trivia, boxes, style issues etc.)

'Daughters' remove work from the 'parent' rather than adding. For example Wagner and Gilbert and Sullivan have taken over maintenance and assessment work from Opera, leaving the main project to focus on other things. If a small group of editors start a project on 'Cellists' then 200-odd articles will simply be transferred into their care, making this project a little smaller and more manageable.--Kleinzach 02:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. In that case, my final comment applies and is reinforced: this is a good, solid and workable system. Thanks for this, Kleinzach. One question: do we have to "unassess" articles, as it were, or do they lose their assessment automatically once the meta-tag is dropped from the template? --Jubilee♫clipman 04:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The existing assessments will automatically disappear from the banner, when the parameter is changed or removed. Here is an example of what it will look like. The assessments of course will remain there on the talk page (in situ) so the process can be reversed if necessary. --Kleinzach 06:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

As I thought. Cheers! --Jubilee♫clipman 13:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Now implemented. Thank you. (P.S. On 1 December, I asked Getmoreatp if he had any remaining concerns, but I didn't hear back from him.) --Kleinzach 01:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(Bump)

Just to remind everyone of the ongoing discussion above about (non-)assessments: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Assessments redux --Jubilee♫clipman 04:56, 27 November 2009 (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.

Pavel Chesnokov

Hi. I found out that the article about Chesnokov is inconsistent in the use of his name and three forms of his name are used through the article. He is not included in the Grove dictionary so I could not check it with that but the Google search seems to return more results for Tschesnokoff than for Chesnokov. Does someone have (more reliable) suggestions on this? --Tomaxer (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are any Russian speakers here. How about asking the Russia Project? I think Tschesnokoff may be a German romanization. --Kleinzach 01:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I've written about this issue there. Moreover regarding that 'tsch' variant; it really looks overcomplexified compared with the Cyrillic transliteration. --Tomaxer (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We had some interesting replies at WP:RUSSIA. For the record, there's a Russian name guideline at WP:RUS. --Kleinzach 02:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Quartal and quintal harmony (again)

I propose replacing the present text with the text I've edited in my userspace: User:Jubileeclipman/(mirror) Quartal and quintal harmony. Please answer on the talk page: Talk:Quartal_and_quintal_harmony#Finished_basics. Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

YDone. Comments welcome on the talk page. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Tuba Mirum (Mozart)

Members may wish to comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum. Voceditenore (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Tfd: Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous

This template is being considered for deletion here. --Kleinzach 07:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Classical composers time-line

This timeline (which overlaps with the one highlighted by Kleinzach) is in desperate need of experts... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD of potential interest

Editors may wish to review these performer-related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Borowsky and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Borowsky. As far as I am concerned, I see WP:COI here as well as the following related articles: Cecylia Barczyk Young American Virtuosi

Does anyone know anything of these performers? Eusebeus (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of correcting the second AfD link in your post. Neither are yet notable enough, anyway, IMO... --Jubilee♫clipman 16:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It does look suspiciously like a bit of family self-promotion. I note that one sibling has already been deleted. --Deskford (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The group article Young American Virtuosi is now up for AfD too: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young American Virtuosi. --Deskford (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

PROD of Beethoven relatives

I've proposed deletion of Johanna van Beethoven and Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven; I believe they fail notability (especially WP:NOTINHERITED); things known about them appear almost exclusively in the context of Karl's better-known brother (and both are given coverage there). Feel free to disagree and move the discussion to WP:AFD. Magic♪piano 18:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Now at AFD: Johanna, Kaspar. Magic♪piano 22:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OREL Foundation

A user called Composers of the World has been adding external links to a website called "The OREL Foundation" to composer biography articles including Bohuslav Martinů, Kurt Weill and Mieczysław Weinberg among others. This looks a bit like spam to me — I had never heard of the OREL Foundation. Does anybody know if it is a respectable organisation? Should Wikipedia be providing links to it? --Deskford (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I raised this same issue here on 18 November. BTW this really belongs on the Composers Project.--Kleinzach 23:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry — I missed that! I've now added the Composers Project to my watchlist. --Deskford (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Excerpt articles: guideline proposal

Musical excerpt articles are now an issue, re. Ritual Fire Dance from El amor brujo, Au bord d'une source from Années de Pèlerinage and Opus 62 No.1 (Mendelssohn) from Songs without Words. These have been discussed above, and here and here.

IMO we need a guideline on this in order to avoid having to repeat the same discussions. --Kleinzach 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the following project guideline:

We discourage separate articles on excerpts of famous works already covered by Wikipedia pages. This is because of issues of reader access, consistency of information and disproportional coverage. Moreover in most cases, redirects from excerpt titles can make these articles unnecessary. Separate articles can be justified if the music is notably performed in a different context, or arrangement, from the original complete work. However these cases are rare, so editors are asked to propose 'excerpt articles' here on the Classical Music Project before creation.

Please agree, disagree or comment as you think fit! --Kleinzach 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - there has to be some guideline for this. The bizarre fact that Mendelssohn's op.62 no.1 has its own article but nos.3 & 6 don't (nor op.19/6 or op.67/4) makes this clear. The Ritual Fire Dance fits your def later, viz. the music is commonly performed in a different context, or arrangement, from the original complete work, so that should get its own article. Not sure about Au bord... specifically, but some of the Liszt works do justify having full articles of their own, the Dante Sonata at the very least. Perhaps we need to consider the wording a little more to reflect the individual notability of certain pieces or some such. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO The Ritual Fire Dance (Falla) would fit the criteria if it only covered the non-ballet versions (in a convincing way), unfortunately it now covers all of them, thus overlapping with El amor brujo. (BTW Please suggest improved wording. These things need to be hacked a bit to get them right.) --Kleinzach 03:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, There is a lot of overlap at that article. Not sure how to fix that... Before I dive in and suggest new wording for the guideline, I need to understand a couple of things. First, what are the issues of reader access? Second, how do we alert every single Wiki editor to propose 'excerpt articles' here? --Jubilee♫clipman 03:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

1. The reader needs to find all the WP information, properly contexted. Often poor structure on WP results in the reader only finding some of the information after a Google search or whatever. 2. We can't. However guidelines can be referred to when issues arise. In my experience they save us a significant amount of time. --Kleinzach 03:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Next: how does the Opera project handle this issue? I note that Ride of the Valkyries has a separate article, for example, as does O mio babbino caro, but La ci darem la mano redirects to its opera. Aida's Celeste Aida has an article but the famous chorus and trumpet bit does not, oddly (or at least I can't find its link in the article). Another point is that some excerpts are far more famous than their parents, eg Sabre Dance. Also, how does one classify The Four Seasons given that they are actually part of a 12 work cycle? There are also "works" that are mere collections of pieces rather than actual coherent cycles, eg most of Chopin's Mazurkas are collected in this way and, to be fair, so are the Songs Without Words. This is not easy! --Jubilee♫clipman 03:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The opera project has always discouraged articles on arias. O mio babbino caro and similar are not by members of the project but by fans of the tunes. (They invariably contain texts that should be in WikiSource rather than WP.) The Ride of the Valkyries is different because it is an orchestral version of a sung passage of an opera, so I think it's a valid stand-alone article. --Kleinzach 05:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

They would reject a separate entry for the Triumphal Chorus & Grand March from Act II of Aida then? Unless there were notable reworkings etc. That makes sense. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I like Kleinzach's guideline. Opus33 (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a good start. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

New wording

(But see my questions above about the opera project etc)

We discourage separate articles on excerpts from famous works and cycles already covered by Wikipedia. This is because readers need to be able to find coherent and consistent information about the full work not just the excerpt: poor structure on WP results in the reader only finding some of the information after using a seach engine, and disproportionate coverage of one part of a work can lead to misconceptions about the rest of the work. Moreover in most cases, redirects from the excerpt title to the complete work or a disambiguation page can make these articles unnecessary. Separate articles can be justified if the music is notable in its own right being performed in a different context outside of the complete work, or if there are notable arrangements that are regularly performed separately. However these cases are rare, so editors are asked to propose excerpt articles here at the 'Classical Music Project before creation. Note that if the full work is hardly ever performed but the excerpt is regularly performed, then the main article should reflect this fact anyway.

Better? Worse?

BTW, the link would redirect to itself if it were correct: as it was, it linked to the community portal

--Jubilee♫clipman 04:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. Maybe without the last sentence? Perhaps, it's a bit on the long side? Maybe make into two paragraphs? Second one starting " Separate articles can be justified if . . . .". Also precise targeted section linking (i.e. in the form #REDIRECT [[La Gioconda#Dance of the Hours|Dance of the Hours]]) was meant, not ordinary article redirects. That sense has been changed in the new version, so I think the original version of that sentence was better. --Kleinzach 05:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It was ambiguous: I misunderstood... Remove the last section, try to make the point about redirects less ambigous (I think I followed you), reparagraph and reorder a little:

We discourage separate articles on excerpts from famous works and cycles already covered by Wikipedia. This is because readers need to be able to find coherent and consistent information about the full work, not just the excerpt: disproportionate coverage of one part of a work can lead to misconceptions about the full work, and poor structure on WP can lead to the readers only finding some of the information after using a seach engine. Moreover, in most cases specific redirects to sections within an article when searching for the excerpt title can make these articles unnecessary.

Separate articles can be justified if the music is notable in its own right being performed in a different context out side of the complete work, or if there are notable arrangements that are regularly performed separately. However these cases are rare, so editors are asked to propose excerpt articles here at the Classical Music Project before creation.

--Jubilee♫clipman 05:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Or why not just this?

We discourage separate articles on excerpts from famous works and cycles already covered by Wikipedia: editors are asked to discuss proposed excerpt articles here at the Classical Music Project before creation.

We can explain as and when they ask.

--Jubilee♫clipman 05:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we make a few small stylistic edits?:

We discourage separate articles on excerpts from famous works (and series of works) already covered by Wikipedia. Readers need to be able to find coherent, consistent information about the complete work, not just the excerpt. Disproportionate coverage of one part of a work can lead to misconceptions about the full opus, and lead to readers only finding partial information after searching. Moreover, in most cases specific redirects to main page sections can make excerpt articles unnecessary.

Separate articles can be justified if the music, being performed in a different context from the complete work or in an alternative arrangement, is notable in its own right. However these cases are rare, so editors are asked to propose excerpt articles here at the Classical Music Project before creation.

How about that? --Kleinzach 06:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Didn't see the short version (above) before I posted, but I think the longer version (immediately above) is about right. --Kleinzach 06:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach's latest version seems very good to me.--Smerus (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a comma to the second to last sentence which makes the middle clause an explanatory subclause and directly joins if the music to is notable. With that it is perfect! --Jubilee♫clipman 06:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. Let's leave it for a day or two to see if there are any more comments. --Kleinzach 07:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way of sticking it to our banner? --Jubilee♫clipman 07:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines usually go on project pages, see here and here. --Kleinzach 07:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds very good to me: We discourage separate articles on excerpts from famous works and cycles already covered by Wikipedia. This is because readers need to be able to find coherent and consistent information about the full work not just the excerpt: poor structure on WP results in the reader only finding some of the information after using a seach engine, and disproportionate coverage of one part of a work can lead to misconceptions about the rest of the work. Moreover in most cases, redirects from the excerpt title to the complete work or a disambiguation page can make these articles unnecessary. Separate articles can be justified if the music is notable in its own right being performed in a different context out side of the complete work, or if there are notable arrangements that are regularly performed separately. However these cases are rare, so editors are asked to propose excerpt articles here at the 'Classical Music Project before creation. Note that if the full work is hardly ever performed but the excerpt is regularly performed, then the main article should reflect this fact anyway.-Karljoos (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but can you punctuate and ideally highlight so we can all see what changes you are suggesting. --Kleinzach 11:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach: That's identical with the text I first proposed but without the highlights. (It even includes the stray apostrophe next the word Classical.)

Karljoos: We felt that there were several problems with that text that were ironed out in later versions, not least the fact that I misunderstood what the bold section in Klien's very first version meant. It was also felt to be a little over-long and that the last sentence was redundant. Do you disagree with the changes? If so we welcome your frank opinion! To help navigate this discussion I'll place the latest text in an new subsection, below. --Jubilee♫clipman 14:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Like it. Go with it. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest version of text

We discourage separate articles on excerpts from famous works (and series of works) already covered by Wikipedia. Readers need to be able to find coherent, consistent information about the complete work, not just the excerpt. Disproportionate coverage of one part of a work can lead to misconceptions about the full opus, and lead to readers only finding partial information after searching. Moreover, in most cases specific redirects to main page sections can make excerpt articles unnecessary.

Separate articles can be justified if the music, being performed in a different context from the complete work or in an alternative arrangement, is notable in its own right. However these cases are rare, so editors are asked to propose excerpt articles here at the Classical Music Project before creation.

Comments in this section, below. Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 14:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's very good... Maybe there could be an example of what would be "(...) music, being performed in a different context from the complete work or in an alternative arrangement, (that) is notable in its own right". I would add "(...) articles on excerpts or movements" and "(...) information about the complete work, not just the excerpt or movement". Good job guys! --Karljoos (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it short otherwise people may not read it. After all, this a guideline, not legislation. --Kleinzach 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. As it I said, I think it's very good as it is now.--Karljoos (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Guideline added

 Done The new guideline is located here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Compositions_task_force#Excerpts. Thank you to everybody. --Kleinzach 00:50, 17 December 2009 (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.