Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 61

Archive 55

←

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

→

Archive 65

John Ireland disambiguator

I've only latterly become aware of a private discussion @ User talk:Narky Blert#John Ireland, where he and another editor agreed between themselves to change the disambiguation tag on all his works from (Ireland) to (John Ireland).

This required a wider consensus and a more open forum than just 2 editors chatting privately. I've now added my thoughts about this, including my disagreement that this change was necessary.

I guess the debate should continue there for now, since that's where it started. But we can move it here if appropriate-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This forum seems the best place for this discussion. It's gone midnight here - I'll post my reasoned arguments here later today.

For now - I'll just say, "all his works" means about six of them. Narky Blert (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Since I was the one who started this whole thing, I had better contribute. Yes, I suggested that (John Ireland) was a better disambiguator than (Ireland). If you hear one of his pieces on the radio, the announcer will generally say something like "That was the piano concerto by John Ireland," rather than "That was the piano concerto by Ireland", whereas they won't hesitate to say "That was the piano concerto by Beethoven". I think the reasons for this are obvious - the name "Ireland" is ambiguous in the context of music, whereas the name "Beethoven" is unambiguous in the same context. We didn't agree "between ourselves" to change the disambiguation tag. I suggested it might be a better disambiguator and was unaware of how many articles already existed. However, I think that, if the question had been considered before the first such article was created, this might have been recognised.

Looking through Category:Compositions by composer, I see several other composers who might have benefited from a similar level of consideration prior to a disambiguator being added. Peter Maxwell Davies, for example, could easily be confused with Walford Davies; fortunately, no articles have as yet been created for compositions by the latter. Hubert Parry and Joseph Parry are even more likely to be confused. However, we're only dealing with one ambiguous disambiguator at the moment, and the suggestion that "German" is somehow less likely to confuse a general reader than "Ireland" is not, in my opinion, an argument that holds water.Deb (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Narky Blert, it's the principle, not the quantum. It doesn't matter whether 6 or 6 million articles are affected. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's highly relevant. You've implied above that some kind of cabal met to agree - wow! - that all articles with this disambiguator should be moved. And because only two people discussed it, that somehow makes it an inappropriate move. What happened was that we discussed whether the disambiguator was suitable when Narky Blert was just setting out on a project to create new articles for many of John Ireland's compositions. There is no rule that says all moves have to be discussed by more than two contributors, or even more than one, so it's not clear what principle you believe you are upholding. Deb (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I implied no such thing, Deb. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion has now been forked and different parts of it are happening on both pages. Please could we have it in one place, preferably here? Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion the articles should be named "Composition (John Ireland)". The following example illustrates the argument Deb makes: Ballad (John Ireland) is much clearer under that name than "Ballad (Ireland)", which connotes an Irish ballad like any of those at List of Irish ballads. Syek88 (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well this is just getting silly. Ballad (John Ireland) has just been created by Narky Blert, presumably to make a WP:POINT. When I can bother, I will get round to AfDing it, as the piece is not in anyway WP:NOTABLE. As regards the general argument for expanding the qualifier, it is in no way convincing or even relevant. "If you hear one of his pieces on the radio, the announcer will generally say something like "That was the piano concerto by John Ireland," rather than "That was the piano concerto by Ireland"" is a prime example of WP:OR, but irrelevant in any case to disambiguation in an encyclopaedia. (And alas we don't get enough of Ireland on the radio in any case). Can I remind Syek88, Deb, Narky Blert, and indeed Jack of Oz, that April Fool's Day was more than a month ago. Any piece by Ireland should it need a disambiguation should simply need the qualifier '(Ireland)' and that's it. In the mean time the action unilaterally taken to give any articles a 'John Ireland' disambiguator should be reverted until there has been a proper discussion.--Smerus (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Er... what happened to "Assume good faith"? Nor has there been any "unilateral" action. There was a sensible, if slightly heated, discussion going on prior to your arrival. Deb (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't written any article with any Ireland-type disambiguator since I became aware that Sonatina (Jon Ireland) had been renamed to Sonatina (Ireland), so WP:POINT is not an issue:

Ballad (John Ireland) - created 18:27 2 May

Sonatina (Ireland) - renamed 12:57 3 May

I only became aware that the Sonatina article had been renamed because it was still on my watchlist. If I'd taken it off, I might never have noticed.

Here are two possible articles on John Ireland which I submit need more than a one-word disambiguator: "Full Fathom Five" (because of the Shakespeare forger William Henry Ireland) and "Legend" (because of the island's mythology).

I also submit that consistency is desirable: the same disambiguator should be used (where necessary) in all instances. Narky Blert (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. It occurs to me that the first sentence in my preceding post may be incorrect - I haven't checked my editing history. However, I haven't done that since User:JackofOz first posted on my talk page and I said I would not. Narky Blert (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Narky Blert, It seems to me that you and Deb are contradicting each other. She is saying that the extended disambiguator (John Ireland) was not intended to apply to all the articles we have on Ireland's works, but you're now saying that consistency requires exactly that. As I said on your talk page, I might be persuaded that (John Ireland) is required in a particular case, but that doesn't suddenly mean it's required in all cases. (Ireland) will do in the general case. Consider Magnificat (Bach) and Magnificat (C. P. E. Bach). In the first case, the surname alone is enough, because unqualified "Bach" is always assumed to be Johann Sebastian. The reason for the CPE in the second case is obvious. So, when we're talking about a Sonatina or a Piano Concerto or any other of Ireland's works where the word "Ireland" could not reasonably be read as a reference to the Emerald Isle, (Ireland) is plenty. In some other cases it may not be as clear cut and hence (John Ireland) is called for, and you've pointed out a couple that I would not object to. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm baffled by your conclusion. I have not said anything of the sort. I completely agree with Narky Blert on this, including the need for consistency. Deb (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Deb:: I was interpreting your sentence "You've implied above that some kind of cabal met to agree - wow! - that all articles with this disambiguator should be moved" as you saying that (John Ireland) should NOT necessarily apply to all articles, but that (Ireland) should suffice for some of them. That's how I read the italicised all. If I misinterpreted this, I withdraw. But what, then, was the point of italicising all in your refutation? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The point was - and maybe I misunderstood you - that you seemed to be suggesting that a lot of articles had been moved without consultation, and that this was the reason for your opposition. But as Narky pointed out, there was a total of only six. Hence my comment. So let's call it a day on that one. Deb (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

(1) @JackofOz: In all frankness, I could not care less if Deb and I disagree. We're not a team. From what I've seen, though, we both have the same goal: WP:CONSENSUS, reached by discussion, and acceding to the will of the majority.

(2) J. S. vs C. P. E. - strawman argument. Many people have set the Magnificat. "Bach" is an adequate disambiguator for J. S. in English, and IMMHO in German also. "Bach" is both a surname and a noun, but I cannot imagine a case where that disambiguator might cause confusion in either language.

I'll add another example: Hugo Wolf, the best-known but not the only composer with that surname. (Wolf) is a perfectly good disambiguator for him where needed. I cannot imagine any possible confusion with Canis lupus.

(3) The contributors to this discussion are people who create and edit Wiki articles. We are unimportant. The people who matter are those who read Wiki articles. That's why I at least am here: to help people who might sometime want to learn something, but don't know where to start. It is their possible confusion or lack of searching skills we need to address.

@Smerus: You mentioned Ballad (John Ireland) as a candidate for AfD. OhKay ... now, put yourself in the shoes of someone who's only just come across that lovely piece, knows little or nothing about classical music, but wants to find out more about it. Umm sorry! do your own homework! it isn't on Wiki! even though AllMusic (whose limitations we all know), the John Ireland Trust, and IMSLP have the info you need, and someone who knew where to look found it, easily. But, the article has been deleted... Narky Blert (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Compositions by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach holds three articles with disambiguators, which illustrate the desirability of consistency:

La Caroline (Bach)

Magnificat (C. P. E. Bach)

Passions (C.P.E. Bach)

Narky Blert (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

All three at "... (C. P. E. Bach)" now. This is already covered by WP:NCM#Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title, just needs to be applied properly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I just boldly moved Mother and Child (John Ireland) to Mother and Child (song cycle) with this edit summary: WP:NCM#Articles not belonging to a series: common name and disambiguation, compare Wiener Blut (waltz) example. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Sound idea, I've updated Mother and Child to reflect the move.

I note that "Mother and Child (Ireland)" would have been confusing. The Mother and Child Scheme (or, Service) was a healthcare programme in Ireland. Narky Blert (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that

• Three Songs (1918-19)
• Three Songs (1926)
• Two Songs (1916)
• Two Songs (1917-18)
• Two Songs (1920)
• Two Songs (1928)

which are all generic names for generic composition types, should all get a "composer name" disambiguator by the same WP:NCM#Articles not belonging to a series: common name and disambiguation and/or WP:NCM#Articles in series. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The time has now come for us to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves - where this discussion should have been in the first place. It's not a music-specific topic, it's to do with article naming. Deb (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Dunno... I tried to find third-party discussion of the songs listed above, but there seems to be pretty little apart from material provided by publishers, the dedicated composer website, recording artists, and the like, and even then mostly limited to listings. It is all very well to start a host of stubs on such compositions, but maybe these don't need separate articles, and can safely be grouped in a (summary style) article similar to Schubert's song cycles. WP:RM is not about notability of such separate articles, and before taking them to AfD or starting unilateral action further discussion here might be beneficial. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: An article called something like "Songs by John Ireland" could work; but it would have several hundred references, and that worries me. I agree: it's something to think about, and perhaps discuss on this board. (Oh for composers who publish works in sets rather than one or two at a time, and award opus numbers.) Schubert is the elephant in the room: how to make his Lieder, other than the obvious ones, findable on Wiki? I have no good answer. List articles with redirects in and lots of references, ready for editors to split out articles, could be one solution; but I'm unsure.

Category:Musical settings of poems by author needs populating. (There's a seriously major omission in that category under Goethe, which I'm currently working on: Wolf's Goethe-Lieder Even Heidenröslein was missing until a minute or two ago.)

Anyone own one or more of the biographies of John Ireland? I don't. They could be additional sources.

I had a swift look at Schubert's song cycles. It's underreferenced – and (aside from the facts that it neither distinguishes between genuine cycles and groups of related Lieder published or sung together, nor mentions Graham Johnson's proposal Auf dem wilden Wegen (which works for me)), there's a very obvious, and important, omission under Schwanengesang. Narky Blert (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Re. "several hundred references": Ireland's List of works is eight pages on the dedicated website, IMSLP lists less than 50 songs by Ireland (and {{IMSLP2}} allows to group several direct links in a single unit) – Applying some diligence reusing and grouping refs I don't think number of references would be a problem.

Re. Schubert Lieder ("Schubert is the elephant in the room: how to make his Lieder, other than the obvious ones, findable on Wiki? ... List articles with redirects in and lots of references, ready for editors to split out articles, could be one solution ..."), and Re. populating Category:Musical settings of poems by author: ongoing process, at List of compositions by Franz Schubert all covered & sorted up to D 208 thus far.

Re. biographies of John Ireland: at Boosey & Hawkes - at Bach-cantatas - at dedicated website (surprisingly the website doesn't seem to mention any printed biography of the composer) - Bibliography by Stewart R Craggs (afaics limited to articles in periodicals and a few thesises) – a collection of essays published by the John Ireland Trust - ... all in all not convinced whether this warrants a separate Wikipedia article for every print of songs by the composer.

Re. "Schubert's song cycles ... underreferenced" – well, err, no, the current content is completely covered by the current references afaik. This wasn't my doing. If you see unreferenced content, please add {{cn}} where needed.

Re. Auf dem wilden Wegen → Auf den wilden Wegen

Re. "omission under Schwanengesang" – song No. 14 added to Schubert's song cycles#Schwanengesang (with ref update). --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Having slept on it, I think you're right: the way to deal with things like Ireland's less well-known and -documented piano pieces is to reference them up in a list-type article. Good enough for searchers, and a starting-point for any editor motivated to create a new article. I'm minded to extract the info from some of my tiny articles into a list article, blank them, then post them as AfDs.

Any problems in relating songs in list articles to Category:Musical settings of poems by author can be left to another day.

dem/den - I blame Fat Finger Syndrome

(For the avoidance of doubt, and off-topic from the foregoing part of this post: I still say that the disambiguator, where needed, for Ireland's works should be "John Ireland". Notably, in Sonatina (John Ireland) and Piano Concerto (John Ireland). And in Legend (John Ireland), as yet unwritten. The issues of correct disambiguator and of the need for articles are distinct. On the first, I stand firm. On the second, I've been persuaded.) Narky Blert (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Noting that Three Songs, 1918-19 (etc) is the format used at the List of works at the J. Ireland Trust website I'd propose these renamings (for the time being, pending whether some might be regrouped or not - note that no AfDs are necessary when this happens, convert to redirect, and ask for a page history merge if desirable):

• Three Songs (1918-19) → Three Songs, 1918–19
• Three Songs (1926) → Three Songs, 1926
• Two Songs (1916) → Two Songs, 1916
• Two Songs (1917-18) → Two Songs, 1917–18
• Two Songs (1920) → Two Songs, 1920
• Two Songs (1928) → Two Songs, 1928

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested moves

Just to make sure you are all aware, the discussion is open at Talk:Sonatina (Ireland) and Talk:Piano Concerto (Ireland).Deb (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ‎

Seems to risk having local consensus at each individual article talk page. Why not have a single generic RfC here for all John Ireland works first, Deb, and then implement the result across all affected articles? --Stfg (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I was going to do that, till I realised there were only two articles affected. Deb (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh, what? What about the ballad? And how many more waiting to be written? There are already 22 articles listed just in Category:Solo piano pieces by John Ireland. The three two-piano-pieces have no composer disambiguators but should have. And several use (John Ireland): you're assuming that these have gone the right way, but that pre-empts consensus. Please, withdraw these and let's get this right, for all Ireland's works. No de facto, please. --Stfg (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No. The original discussion arose because two of us thought it would be useful for the Ireland articles to have a better disambiguator. Another person felt this was precipitate, but most were already at the preferred disambiguator and it turned into an argument about consistency. I have no reason to request for the others to be moved; the only thing lacking in the original discussion was a recognition that the moves we made then were potentially controversial and might need a requested move. I can't anticipate what articles might be written and what moves might be required in the future, so it would be dumb of me to try to request them in advance.Deb (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The original discussion, which may not be over, also contains opposition to the change, so that controversy is actual, not merely potential. What you call the preferred solution is merely your preferred solution. Many of the articles are at that solution because of those premature moves on May 1st. Of course you're not going to RM those, since they are where you personally prefer them. There's no need to anticipate what articles might be written in the future, since what is needed isn't RMs for non-existent articles, obviously, but a consensus for a consistent approach to articles about Ireland's works. Forget article-by-article RMs: we need a general consensus about these article titles.

I'm not willing to pursue this alone. Anyone else have a view please? --Stfg (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's my preferred solution - and the article creator's. I said that potential controversy was not foreseen, and that was what I meant. If controversy, either potential or actual, had been foreseen, we would have gone straight to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Deb (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

(←) I understand that the controversy was not foreseen, and the initial six moves were simply WP:BOLD. That's no problem, but now that we know that it's controversial, imho it is wrong to plough on with RMs to the controversial solution without addressing the concerns of those who prefer the other solution.

Look, the obvious solution to all this is to forget who did what and why, and to raise an RfC on the issue itself. The question would be what disambiguator to use if and when an article title needs to be disambiguated by the name of this composer. The two viewpoints expressed in the discussion above are (a) John Ireland always, or (b) Ireland where there's no ambiguity, but John Ireland where the surname alone. This approach would allow both sides' positions to be considered equally, and would render moot both the current RMs and the request to revert the first six moves. We'd end up with a consistent consensus applicable to all these articles and any future ones. I'm willing to raise such an RfC, but not unilaterally. Any takers? Any objections? --Stfg (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Stfg's suggestion is helpful and constructive. The comment at 'Naming conventions (music)' (see below) simply states that the discussion is being held at three different places and invites comments at those places, which is a complication that makes the issues rather difficult to follow and collate.--Smerus (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed there is a WP:FORUMSHOP dimension regarding taking some of the examples to WP:RM before the discussion here is concluded (or archived, whatever comes first). Also the RMs would better have been grouped using the "multiple" option of the {{Requested move}} template as to avoid duplicating virtually identical RM discussions on two separate article talk pages. As could have been expected when handling this in such poor fashion all three fragmented discussions seem to have halted by now... So inviting to resume the discussion on the *content* of the disambiguation options here in order to see whether it is possible to draw nearer to a broad consensus (as opposed to a bunch of local consensuses that might go in unrelated directions).

My view on the topic:

• In a first step I'd avoid using any parenthical disambiguator containing "Ireland" as much as possible (see above Mother and Child, and grouping proposals)
• I have little preference for the one or the other (English is not my native language so some sensibilities might elude me), but would like to draw attention to the somewhat similar The Devil's Advocate (Morris West novel), twice confirmed by WP:RM, notwithstanding recommendation in the relevant guidance of "last name" only before "novel" in the parenthical disambiguator. So I suppose this would go the same way, adding the first name, in the end.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. Seeing no objections, I've created the RFC below. I've notified WT:WikiProject Composers and placed notices under the two RMs (which Francis temporarily hatted today -- thank you, Francis). I've also notified WT:WikiProject Ireland in case anyone there has an opinion on this. --Stfg (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NCM

Topic launched --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that a somewhat similar (and as yet undecided) discussion has been taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (books)#Disambiguating books by just surnames --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Its not that similar, composers are often mononyms, apart from Dickens and Tolstoy authors rarely are - particularly the vampire and pop culture authors that clog most of WP book article space. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Composer name disambiguator for articles on works by John Ireland

When article titles about works by the composer John Ireland are disambiguated using the composer's name, should that name take the form John Ireland in all cases, or should it normally take the form Ireland and only use the form John Ireland when Ireland alone would be ambiguous or misleading?

Notes:

1. This RFC is not asking whether the composer's name should be used as disambiguator, but only what form it should take when the name is chosen as a disambiguator.
2. The question applies whether the name is the sole disambiguator in a given title or whether other information (e.g. a date) in used as well.

--Stfg (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• 1. I submit that where related articles require a disambiguator: it should be the same in every instance, for consistency and clarity. The present discussion relates to one example, but I suspect that the question may have wider implications in Wikipedia. In this specific case, I vote for John Ireland.
  2. I accept Stfg's points (1) and (2); I do not think they are or should be issues. Nor should the principle that disambiguators be as concise as possible. Narky Blert (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support John Ireland in all cases. "Ireland" on its own is always potentially confusing. Scolaire (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• At WP:NCM replace

E.g. (Ireland) as a disambiguator may refer to Ireland or John Ireland, ...

by

E.g. (Ireland) as a disambiguator may refer to Ireland or John Ireland, so the precision criterion for article titling would usually call for (John Ireland) when the composer name is used as a parenthical disambiguator.

E.g. (Ireland) as a disambiguator would rather refer to Ireland than to John Ireland, so the precision criterion for article titling calls for (John Ireland) when the name of the composer is used as a parenthical disambiguator.

...and have this done with. (note: when this disambiguator should be used and when it should be avoided already explained in that guideline, no need to repeat it specifically for Ireland) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

rephrased. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support John Ireland in all cases. Article titles should aim to tell readers who may have limited knowledge of these matters what they can expect to read about. This is far more important than rigorous non-redundancy. An editor has pointed out on the sonatina page that laypeople may not know what a sonatina is and may imagine that Sonatina (Ireland) could refer to a place name on that island. Admittedly Piano Concerto in E♭ major isn't a very likely placename , but if we go for consistent use of the given name we don't need to worry about where the borderline is. --Stfg (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, as there's more than one "Irish" Piano Concerto (by John Field, by Hamilton Harty,...) I submit there's more than "consistency" favouring Piano Concerto (Ireland) → Piano Concerto (John Ireland). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree :) --Stfg (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Prefer John Ireland in all cases, per Scolaire. --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support John Ireland in all cases. There are articles that need to be "X (John Ireland)", like the Ballad and the Sonatina. And there are those that don't require it. However, having rules that stipulate when something should be "X (Ireland)" or "X (John Ireland)" would be an unnecessary complication of the issue. As Stfg says, "if we go for consistent use of the given name we don't need to worry about where the borderline is". Syek88 (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support use of John Ireland. I'll post verbatim what I wrote in the 2 RM's Ireland usually refers to either the island or the sovereign state. Zarcadia (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support John Ireland in all cases. "Ireland" is so much more frequent than "John Ireland" (he's not that famous a composer, right?) that we would be helping readers by spelling it out. Opus33 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)