Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 23 January 25 >

January 24[edit]

Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in D major[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Fails trivial intersection criterion. Any music involving trumpets earlier than about 1800 was written for natural trumpet (see Natural trumpet). Thus even a category Category:Compositions with natural trumpets would be highly dubious. Acceptance of this category would also open the way for categories such Category:Compositions with violins which would include e.g. every symphony ever written. The items in this category btw are not specifically music for trumpet, they are works for choir with instrumental accompaniment (including various other instruments). The present category however is even more random than Category:Compositions with natural trumpets would be, selecting music in D major only. There is no referential category which sets D major music including trumpets apart from music in other keys (or from music for other instruments which happens to be in the same key). This is just a random category with no encyclopaedic purpose. Btw it appears (from the discussion there) that the category was created in a fit of pique at this discussion at WikiProject Classical Music Talk, in which case it may also be an example of WP:POINT. The discussion there, which was inconclusive, dealt with the inappropriateness or otherwise of the set of 24 categories [[:Category:Compositions in [key]]]. I wasn't originally going to bring that topic to CfD, but in the light of the potential enormous expansion of pointless categories which Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in D major could unleash (20 or 30 instruments x 24 keys applied to virtually every piece of music ever written), editors may care to comment on Category:Compositions by key and its sub-categories, and if it is thought appropriate I will bring that set of categories here for discussion. Smerus (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As to the content of the matter, the scholar reference that sets compositions "with natural trumpets in D major" apart was given in the other discussion: Stockigt, Janice B. (2013). "Bach's Missa BWV 232I in the context of Catholic Mass settings in Dresden, 1729–1733". In Tomita, Yo; Leaver, Robin A.; Smaczny, Jan (eds.). Exploring Bach's B-minor Mass. Cambridge University Press. pp. 39–53. ISBN 978-1-107-00790-1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) – p. 46 middle of the page is what you'd be looking for. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, perhaps you can explain your reference. The one you cite (p. 46 of Smaczny) contains as far as I can see just a reference to trumpets in D in music by Zelenka. It does not in any way make any scholarly characterization of music in D major for natural trumpets, and therefore provides no basis for a category (in which, as it happens, none of the articles categorized are about music by Zelenka). Btw readers of the original discussion (which did not and does not debate this particular category as you claim) can form their own conclusions as to whether or not I had 'little or no support'; and to accuse another editor of 'running away', whether justified or, as in this case, not, is rather bad form.--Smerus (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the region (Saxony), for which Zelenka (and Bach, and Caldara, etc.) are only examples.
Well, don't say you'll leave it alone, if you don't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Francis, not even your forceful personality can command me never to change my mind :-) But in the present case, I never made any comments on this category one way or another before posting this CfD --Smerus (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The recommendable practice after changing your mind would have been to re-enter the discussion place you had left in the first place. Not to re-open the discussion in another place, without even leaving so much as an indicator at the discussion you had left. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oculi, I suggest that upmerge to Category:Compositions for trumpet is not appropriate, as that category is not a true parent of the category under discussion. The music in the category under discussion is not 'for' trumpet, it is 'with' trumpets - and with other instruments and voices. If categories 'Compositions for' are going to be broadened to imply 'Categories including' they become I think meaningless.--Smerus (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct; Category:Compositions for trumpet should not be a parent. Oculi (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I personally am not too happy about 'Composition in [key]' categories, I would support upmerge as above as a resolution of this category. See below--Smerus (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mass for the Dresden court (Bach) cannot be upmerged to Category:Compositions in D major, as the composition is in B minor (with trumpets in the relative key of D major). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so this is a category without any valid parents, in which case it is ridiculous rather than trivial and should be deleted. Oculi (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - then I go back to my earlier request to delete.--Smerus (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "category without any valid parents" – Mass for the Dresden court (Bach) has more movements in D major than it has in B minor, so although the "piece" is in B minor (as designated by its first movement) and thus cannot be placed in the D major category directly, it is correct to place it in a subcategory of that category, as indicated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge This seems like a subdivision too far. I support categorisation of compositions by key. I can also see the use of compositions with natural trumpets. However, this category covering compositions in the key of D simply with and not for natural trumpets is far too narrow a definition to aid navigation. I'm not sold on the fact that such compositions are a uniquely notable variety, compared to, say, compositions with natural trumpets in E minor. I support an upmerge to the Category:Compositions in D major, but I'm also not opposed to creation of a parent category through an upmerge to Category:Compositions with natural trumpets if people feel that is a useful one to have. A much better way of subdividing material from the key category would be by genre (as tried at Category:Jazz compositions in D major) or by classical composition type (e.g. Cantata). These types of categories will gather articles with a much higher relevance to each other than the model of the nominated category. SFB 11:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This category should be deleted. Almost all pieces ever written using natural trumpet are in either the key of D or the key of C, because those were the only keys for which these trumpets were manufactured (unlike modern valve trumpets, which can play a chromatic scale and therefore in any key). Baroque composers chose their key according to the instrument they had on hand; there was no musically notable difference between the pieces written in C and those in D. Francis, this case is substantially different from the case of the category "Pieces in the key of [x]", because there are those who claim that composers saw different musical significance in different keys. That is not the case here - the keys were chosen for purely technical reasons. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A purely technical reason" seems excellent as a categorization distinction, or are you proposing we get rid of Category:Video games by platform and subcategories, while "purely technical"?
    What is playable by one musical instrument and not by another is as much a valid categorization distinction as a purely emotional reason (and if given the choice, I'd rather keep the categorization schemes based on the "purely technical" than those based on the "purely emotional"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename-- A natural trumpet is only able to produce a limited range of notes. There could in principle be natural trumpets, of a different size in other keys. A D-major natural trumpet would not be able to play some of the notes required by a piece in E major. Category:Compositions for D-major natural trumpets would probably fulfill the objective. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Unfortunately for your proposal, the pieces in this category are not 'Compositions for D-major natural trumpets' - they are pieces for choir and orchestra, (the latter including D-major natural trumpets, amongst other instruments). The essence here is that the category under discussion is of the formula 'Compositions with [instrument]' - if it is accepted as a category, it opens the way to , e.g. 'Compositions with violins' and so forth, which would include virtually every orchestral piece ever written, every string quartet, etc., etc....--Smerus (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with Category:Compositions with D-major natural trumpets --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can we please stop saying "D-major natural trumpet"? That trumpet is built in D in terms of its fundamental length but it's not really right to say it is "in" D Major - it's in whatever key you can smash it into and yes, it very often plays in D, but there's just something massively wrong about suggesting that it's IN a key - it's not, it's just "in" a harmonic series which happens in some places to be close to the major scale ... and in other places is not. Sorry, grouchy I know, but I'd hate to see this inaccurate usage gaining any currency. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, the key designates the instrument that can be used for certain compositions, and that's how these instruments are named as a well-established practice:
Note that a natural trumpet can only play a limited set of the notes of the scale of the key it is named after in the lowest octave (basically only the triad); When playing it in any other key usually some notes would be missing from the scale altogether (i.e. simply can't be played by the instrument in any octave). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Francis. I promise that I am trying not to sound tetchy when I say, in the nicest way I possibly can, that I really do know what notes a natural trumpet can play - honest! :) My point, which I obviously failed to explain properly, is that the use of "Major" in this nomenclature is simply wrong. The trumpet plays rather a lot in D Major but it is built in D. So please go ahead and talk about natural or baroque trumpets in D, just not in D Major. I'm worried that we may be talking at cross-purposes here but in the pieces you mention the scores will say D trumpets, not D-major trumpets. DBaK (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And while we are on octaves, for the sake of precision, in the lowest octave it's neither major or minor, being just an octave (if you can get the fundamental!) . In the next octave it's still neuter, being a fifth, and only in the third octave does a major triad emerge - and that is immediately topped off with a flattened seventh ... but don't worry, I don't want to call it a D7 trumpet either! :) DBaK (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in D would be OK then, for me it is anyways. Suppose I was a bit overzealous in applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Accidentals which recommends to always add "major" or "minor" for a key signature (which is not what we need to do here).
I was referring to File:Harmseries.jpg (an image enclosed in the natural trumpet article), which has the major triad in the lowest octave the trumpet can supposedly play (whether the image is correct I cannot say). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with that too. They are surely in D, just not in D Major! :) Thanks for the other points in reply - it's very interesting but if I reply fully it will get unbearably nerdy. That image is largely correct in terms of the usually written range but not absolutely the physics, and for a start its lowest octave could sort of go down to the C, at a pinch. That low G, in the octave that contains only the fifth, does get used, for example in "Großer Herr und starker König" in the Christmas Oratorio. And very nasty it is too! :) DBaK (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. "20 or 30 instruments x 24 keys applied to virtually every piece of music ever written" – no, of course not. Only wind instruments with a "brass" type mouthpiece, and without crooks, valves, tone holes or keys have key signature limitations, and would thus limit the key signature possibilities for the piece as a whole. The vast majority of instruments are not designated by a key (a "piano in C" is an oxymoron). For natural trumpets the designated key would usually be C or D ("The vast majority of baroque trumpet parts were written for a natural instrument pitched in C or D", see article), and never any of the minor keys (there's no way a natural trumped can be pitched in a minor key, physically not possible). For the other major keys, hardly enough material to fill a category. So, we're talking two categories here, not "20 or 30 x 24". --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a tricky moment or two in some Bohemian music where it's written in the dominant minor. But it's an odd, special effect and your point is well made. DBaK (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming, for example's sake, that such dominant minor would be G minor, the instrument with which to play this music would still be a "trumpet in C", not a "trumpet in g" (which doesn't exist). Note that the 10th movement of BWV 243a has a trumpet solo in C minor, which is the relative minor key for the E♭ trumpets required for the piece (the other movements with trumpets being in E♭ major). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Absolutely. And yes, the dominant minor is ALWAYS G minor, unless you are playing English music! :) As for that Bach ... nasty. I'm not sure what the current wisdom is on it. You cannot easily play it on a nat without some incredible pitch bending skills - you're going to have to get the B natural by squishing down a C, or maybe up from the B-flat; the A, which lasts about a week, might come down from the B-flat though if I try to play that it sounds like a constipated pregnant llama. Slides perhaps ... slides might be a nice answer. But I promised no lengthy nerdy replies, so I shall now go and slap myself round the head. Several times. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This analysis is not thorough or thought through by all the contributors. I am afraid that knowledge about, or admiration for, natural trumpets is scarcely here or there when it comes to considering the merits of categorization in Wikipedia, which is what this thread should be discussing. The admission of the category 'Music with [instrument]' would indeed pave the way for 30-odd categories of any music with a particular instrument. The category, e.g. Category:Music with violins would be mind-boggling. But the same principle applies for Category:Music with violins as with Category:Music with natural trumpets - it's, encyclopaedically, a trivial intersection. Consider e.g. by analogy a category Category:Paintings including the colour red. The case for Category:Music with natural trumpets in D is even more egregious. There is nothing intrinsically that different pieces of music, which employ a natural trumpet in D, have in common musically. The next step would be when some bright spark starts categories Category:Music with clarinets in A, Category:Music with clarinets in B flat and Category:Music with clarinets in E flat, for example. All these things may give delight to those who enjoy categorizing and listing things, but they are not encyclopaedic. Take a look at WP:TRIVIALCAT.--Smerus (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re. Bach's "nasty" movement (for the trumpet): I think the composer gave the answer himself – when he transposed the entire piece to D major 10 years later (BWV 243) he gave the solo of the 10th movement to the oboes instead of the trumpet as one of a very few changes to the orchestration of the piece. And for the Mass in B minor (first part composed around the same time as the BWV 243 D major version), he let the trumpets only play in the D major movements. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My answers:

  1. rename, per DBaK
  2. despite the remarks given about these I suppose these are the most viable parent categories, so, yes
  3. yes, takes only someone to put the time in it to start, and start filling, the cat

--Francis Schonken (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the renaming of the category to Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in D on the grounds already expressed. 1) This is covered by WP:TRIVIALCAT: the compositions in the category are not written expressly for trumpets, they are for large ensembles which happen to include trumpets; this is therefore a matter of 'trivial intersection'. 2) There is no demonstrable, (or referencable), quality of such music which makes it a specific category; any more than there would be for Category:Music with violins. For the same reason I would oppose the creation of a new category Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in C.--Smerus (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary (so far)

As this discussion for a deletion seems to have got somewhat out of hand, with numerous digressions, upmerge proposals, creation proposals and alternatives, I present below a summary of the story so far (without the digressions). Implicitly, some of those who have already expressed opposition to the category (Oculi, Ravpapa) may also object to other proposals but I have not assumed this. Please correct me if I have made any errors.

Proposal In favour Against
Delete Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in D major Smerus, User:Oculi, User:Ravpapa User:Francis Schonken
Upmerge to Category:Compositions in D major User:Sillyfolkboy Smerus, Oculi
Upmerge to Compositions for trumpet Smerus, Oculi
Rename to Category:Compositions for D major natural trumpets User:Peterkingiron, Francis Schonken Smerus, User:DBak
Rename to category Compositions with natural trumpets in D Francis Schonken, User:Double sharp, Smerus
Create category Compositions with natural trumpets in C Francis Schonken Smerus

Smerus (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that Smerus can't even count correctly, I decided to continue my part of this talk in the place where it started before the forum shopping, i.e. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Categories:Compositions_in_.5BKey.5D. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, the discussion for this category is taking place here. Do not make unfounded accusations of forum shopping. If you want to leave the discussion in a huff, that of course is up to you. If you feel the table is incorrect, please indicate and correct it. Rudeness is not a valid argument.--Smerus (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the record, I am unconcerned as to whether the category continues to exist or not. I see it as neither very important and helpful for the encyclopaedia, nor damaging. The only strong view I hold is that if it does continue to exist, it should not have a name which sounds even faintly as if trumpets are "in D Major". So if it's deleted then my !vote doesn't count, and if it is retained, my !vote is to change the name to either lose "Major" altogether, or stick it unambiguously right next to the pieces, not the instruments. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated table accordingly.--Smerus (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in D: the natural trumpets are not in D major, but the old title gives the impression that they are. (Although: would this new title then allow compositions with D natural trumpets that are not in D major? The obvious example is Mozart's Requiem, which is in D minor.) Double sharp (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated table accordingly.Smerus (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to resolve this situation, I am prepared to support rename to Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in D - and have adjusted the table to show this - perhaps someone can now close this?Smerus (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tx, closure on recategorisation Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in D major → Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in D would be nice, consensus appears to be nearing unanimity. A similar Category:Compositions with natural trumpets in C seems possible too, but that's where I would stop for now per the above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS, for future reference, in the mean while the broader discussion has been archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Archive_60#Categories:Compositions_in_.5BKey.5D --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and I am now closing as we are agreed.--Smerus (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Houari Boumédiène[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rather needless category that contributes nothing to the person it is suppose to be about. WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCEPON. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a cat that was created quite recently, I first noticed it here; don't recall why I didn't CfD it at the time. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Smerus (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:European Federation of Centres of Research and Information on Sectarianism members[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very few "membership" cats are defining and this one is no exception: membership in this federation is absolutely not defining for any of the organizations listed. Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- affiliation to an international body is not notable. The individual organisations should be categorised as to the field in which they operate - as anti-cult organisations. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not defining for the members (listed or potential). Any notable members should be categorised as Peterkingiron indicated. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Hassan (surname)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT Tavix |  Talk  08:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_24&oldid=1138408665"