Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner)

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.

---

Merging

This article was specifically a topic split, and the creation was original, not importing text from another article. There have been a number of additions made under the guise of "merging"; however, in many cases these additions were not improvements to the article. In particular, an infobox has been added under false premises: it was not added by the article creator (me), nor is it "lovely", nor was it excluded by mistake - I made a deliberate editorial choice not to attempt to represent this piece in such a way, as it is a poor medium for doing so. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I support the infobox as referenced content. It is consistent with the other compositions by Bruckner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The referenced content is already included elsewhere in the article. The editors of other Bruckner articles may make different editorial choices, but that does not require the same choice here. If we want to go with the consistency argument, those articles are actually the unusual ones within the compositions area. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We are not supposed to discuss general yes or no. Everybody knows that I am for yes and you are for no. In this case, the original author wanted an infobox, and didn't want an article split. - You may have good reasons to split, but I see no good reasons to have removed the infobox which was there, and solid sources replaced by Allmusic. I talk about consistency of these two related articles, which readers of both will notice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor you refer to has an infobox in the article he wrote. The author of this article does not want an infobox. I am trying to create a complete and coherent article on this topic here, an option not available to me within the constraints of an article mostly about another topic (even if that topic is related). Many approaches - citation style, writing, etc - are and will be inconsistent between those two articles. We cannot have consistency unless we can agree on which approach is better, and as you note we do not. So let there be an infobox there and none here, and we will live with that, as we must. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the user who put again the infobox. I do not want to dispute. However, some references currently used as, e.g., those from AllMusic on from the booklet of a CD, which have been found on Internet, are perhaps less opportune than some of my references as that to the anthology of C. van Zwol (2012), a book of 782 pages on Anton Bruckner and his work. Van Zwol devoted 20 years of his life to the composer and was regularly in touch with scholars as Leopold Nowak (editor of many Bruckner's works). I do not understand why some data coming from that reference concerning e.g. the original manuscript were removed.

As you know I have update nearly all pages dedicated to Bruckner's works and created several new ones. Moreover I was one of the three authors of the new List of compositions by Anton Bruckner, a page I update every time new info is available.

I think that the infobox is an interesting tool in the case of Bruckner's compositions, because a lot of them either exist in several versions and editions, or were not published / performed during the composer's life, even were published / performed first at the end of the 20th century, i.e., about 100 year after the composer's death. Two examples: Psalm 146 (Bruckner), String Quartet (Bruckner). Furthermore, we have to be consistent, i.e. have an infobox on all pages dedicated to Bruckner's work or none at all.

For the discography I am in close contact with Hans Roelofs and John Berky, who via a broad network of contacts are updating their website on a regular basis. Discographies from other origin are in my and their experience incomplete and sometimes not reliable. I have a large discography of Bruckner's works, including all versions of the symphonies and other instrumental works, and all vocal works for which at least one commercial or (known) private recording is available. For my contribution see e.g. "Informanten"[1] and "Links" on Hans' website, and "First known recording of Pange Lingua (1836)"[2] on John's website. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"we have to be consistent, i.e. have an infobox on all pages dedicated to Bruckner's work or none at all" - no we don't. These are optional features, and ones that are often the subject of disputes. For that reason, some articles have them and others don't, and the best way to avoid disputing is to recognize that this will continue to be the case unless they are either mandated or prohibited. For the record, though, since infoboxes are meant to be at-a-glance reference points, they are a poor medium for exploring the often intricate publication histories of Bruckner's works. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This was clearly a fork from the other article, which is now a redirect. The idea that this version is an original creation is really flat-out dishonest. I am getting very tired of this little game of "hide the infobox." Arbcom decided it is an individual article case by case decision, and here, the person with the original version - Meneerke - should be given some respect. Montanabw^(talk) 01:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The creation of this article was explicitly a topic fork, but that does not make the editors of the previous articles the creators of this one - it's really quite easy to compare the two and note that the creation here had different content, different sourcing, different style until efforts began to dump stuff from there into here. Meneerke has an infobox on his original work; I have good reason not to put one on mine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

For your info: Hans Roelofs, who is responsible for the discography of Bruckner's non-orchestral works, has in the meantime had an independent look on the pages String Quartet (Bruckner), Rondo in C minor (Bruckner), String Quintet (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner). He thereafter e-mailed the following reaction to me: "Wanneer iemand zoals jij, die je sporen al bij Wikipedia heeft verdiend, dan een lemma schrijft over een onderwerp dat relevant is en binnen het Wikipedia-Bruckner-concept past, heeft dan iemand anders het recht dat tegen te houden? Wordt die betreffende user door de redactie gewaarschuwd?" (Translation: "When someone like you, who has already won his spurs by Wikipedia, writes a lemma, which is relevant and suits the Wikipedia-Bruckner-concept, has someone else the right to hold it? Has the concerned user got a warning from the Wikipedia redaction?"). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 21:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A few points:

1. Re. "an infobox has been added under false premises: it was not added by the article creator (me)": WP:OWN ownership issues
2. Re. "topic split, and the creation was original, not importing text from another article", in other words a WP:content fork, and a pernicious one apparently, when combined with the previous point: a content fork with the objective of claiming ownership over an article, its content and its appearance
3. Re. "This article was specifically ..." — the way this first communication on this talk page is formulated looks like a continuation of one or more previous discussions: can somebody enlighten the first time readers of this page and point us to where and when? Links would be appreciated! --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The initial post is in response to incorrect edit summaries used in the article, for example claiming that the infobox was added by the "article creator" (which it was not). The article is not a content fork but the split of a sub-topic from the main article, as explained below. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

So if I'm correct the first comment above was a reply to this edit summary: "Article creator used an infobox prior to split and same user restored infobox to this version, so consensus is 2:1 See WP:OWN" [3]

Who created an article is of no relevance per WP:OWN. Consensus is relevant. In the edit summary a contention is made about consensus. It is difficult to "prove" consensus via an edit summary, so let's gauge what the consensus is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis Schonken (talk • contribs)

Actually, it is relevant. It has been the contention of two of the editors commenting above that since infoboxes are neither mandated nor prohibited, the wishes of the main author should be respected. Indeed, the concept of respecting the editorial choices of creator/author is well established on Wikipedia - compare for example WP:CITEVAR. Meneerke has made certain choices at the quartet and quintet pages about presentation, and here different choices were made. This is the best means of compromising that has been found so far. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Re. "It has been the contention of two of the editors commenting above that since infoboxes are neither mandated nor prohibited, the wishes of the main author should be respected." — since when? Where? Links please...

Re. "...has made certain choices at the quartet and quintet pages about presentation, and here different choices were made." — seems like an attempt to defend content forks — a defense that seems largely insufficient to me.

Re. "This is the best means of compromising that has been found so far." — Please show where such compromise was made. —Francis Schonken (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

See above: "the original author wanted an infobox", etc., and continued in many other discussion venues.

As I just said: this is not a content fork but a topic split, covering a subtopic, which is actually encouraged by policy because it allows for more complete coverage of the subtopic without overwhelming the parent article. Already this article has more readable prose than the quartet article, and it's by no means complete.

Also as I just said: the quartet and quintet articles have infoboxes, even though I would prefer they did not, because Meneerke chooses to have them; this and the intermezzo article do not have infoboxes, even though Meneerke would prefer they did, because I chose not to include them. This is a broad compromise between the pro- and anti-infobox viewpoints. You are of course already aware of the agreement with Gerda, which as she says is not ideal but better than the alternative. "Surveys" of the type you have begun are not viable, first because we don't vote, second because the issue is a polarizing one with no clear policy supporting either side (so most if not all arguments presented will be inherently subjective), and finally because, as with this discussion, behaviours like canvassing become an issue, and undermine any "consensus" that might be divined. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no compromise, at least no specific place you could show me there would have been one, so no, there is no compromise. I never asked to "vote": the edit summary I quoted above claimed there was a consensus, so time to show there is one (or not). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Two articles have infoboxes and two do not; what else would you suggest would constitute a compromise on this issue? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There, you have your "compromise". Now can we get on with actually improving the article, please? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no recorded compromise, only single parties proclaiming one (and not the same). Please familiarize yourself with WP:CONSENSUS --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Survey on infobox

Who supports this version of the infobox to be added to the article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI: I have previously used a similar argumentation as Aymatth2. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Gerda, you're breaking your restriction. Again. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Nikki, this is the FIRST time this question has been asked. If you keep playing "gotcha" about this, I am going to ask that you be restricted in the same manner, so knock it off. Montanabw^(talk) 21:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support – An infobox is consistent with almost all the articles in template:Anton Bruckner. They should all have a similar infobox since it is highly likely that a reader interested in one of Bruckner's works will be interested in other works, and will expect a "one of a series" visual identity. I would go further and support using the same smallish image in all the infoboxes in the set, but that is a separate and less important question. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Zounds and forsooth! The things WP editors decide to wage long battles over. Did I ever pick the wrong article to do a DYK review for ... Wasted Time R (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per Aymath2. ——Marrante (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2014 (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.

To split or not to split

Splitting was not my decision. Originally I put the Rondo in C minor in a section of String Quartet (Bruckner) for the following reasons.

• The String Quartet was an instrumentation exercise asked by Otto Kitzler. Bruckner started its composition on 28 July 1862 and completed the Rondo on 7 August 1862. The original manuscript of the Quartet is found on pp. 165-196 of Bruckner's "Kitzler Studienbuch".
• After reviewing it Kitzler was not satisfied by the Rondo (193 bars) and asked Bruckner to make a Rondo 'in grösserer Form'. The composition of this new Rondo (233 bars) was ended one week later (15 August 1862). The manuscript of this new Rondo follows that of the Quartet on pp. 197 to 206 of the "Kitzler Studienbuch.
• Because of editorial purpose (later retrieval of the Rondo in C minor) the Quartet and the Rondo were put in different bands of the Gesamtausgabe, XIII/I and XII/I, respectively. But, as van Zwoll writes: "... het Rondo 'in grösserer Form' dat als Band XII/I is gepubliceerd, maar beter als 'Zu XIII/I' ingedeeld had kunnen worden.", it appeared logical that the Rondo in C minor would be an addendum to String Quartet (Bruckner) with its own infobox, instead of be put on a separate page.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference

• Cornelis van Zwol, Anton Bruckner – Leven en Werken, Thot, Bussum (Netherlands), 2012. ISBN 90-686-8590-2

Per WP:SPLIT, articles should be split to "allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article", assuming that the subtopic meets WP:GNG. This is the case here: there are sufficient sources to support a complete article, one that cannot adequately be written as a subsection of the Quartet article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think WP:FORK applies here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you mean WP:CFORK, see WP:SS. There is more than enough sourcing available to support an independent article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

An independent look

Hans Roelofs has in the meantime had an independent look on the pages String Quartet (Bruckner), Rondo in C minor (Bruckner), String Quintet (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner). He thereafter e-mailed the following reaction to me: "(Translation) I find your Wikipedian 'adventure' with the Canadian user boring – it is knowledge on democratic base, it will end with a voting! I am understanding the philosophy, which is behind it. One wants so to avoid proliferation and manipulation, as well as garbage, but the whole construction has holes. … In a 'old-fashion' encyclopedia you could not describe people, who were not enough relevant to be taken into account for it. On the opposite, of course people, works, etc., which were faulty forgotten, can now be put to attention of the audience – anyhow in a single language. When someone like you, who has already won his spurs by Wikipedia, writes a lemma which is relevant and suits the Wikipedia-Bruckner-concept, has someone else the right to hold it? ... I find the idea behind Wikipedia very pleasant, I have already found a lot in Wikipedia, but I know that I have always to check whether the article is accurate, on a more critical manner than by an encyclopedia or a manual." --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

I have a suggestion for improving the quality of the content:

• Find better references than the popularizing website AllMusic or Fanfares.

I have also a suggestion for improving the consistency within the Bruckner-project:

• Add a link to the page in String Quartet (Bruckner)

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: I have created un Template "Bruckner chamber music" and added it to the concerned article. Adding a link to the page in String Quartet (Bruckner) is perhaps not more necessary. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• The article cites a variety of sources, all of which are considered to be reliable. If you would like to suggest additional sources that you think should be cited, feel free.
• There are already several links to this page in String Quartet (Bruckner). More broadly, there is no such thing as the Bruckner-project—these articles fall under the Compositions task force of the Classical Music WikiProject. There is no requirement that all Bruckner articles have stylistic consistency beyond that imposed by broader project guidelines, and in practice such consistency will not be achieved. As such, the style and content of these pages is left to editorial choice.
• Small navboxes like the one you have created are undesirable when their content is already included in a pre-existing navbox. I have edited the existing Bruckner navbox to make clearer which works are chamber works, and have removed this new navbox as redundant. You may wish to create a subcategory of Category:Compositions by Anton Bruckner to assist in grouping. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As you suggest I have created a subcategory "Chamber music by Anton Bruckner". I will also remove the superfluous navbox from the two other concerned page. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 19:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Discography

Discography of the Rondo in C minor by Hans Roelofs was removed, why? It's a list readable in any language, - even people who don't know German will guess that the first entry is a quartet's name, the second a date, the third a duration and the forth a data about label and number. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NONENGEL, this does not fit one of the circumstances in which we should include a non-English link. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The linked page is a table, a "circumstance" mentioned in the guideline. The listing is clear and not confusing, it will be helpful to some readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It may be helpful to German readers, so perhaps include it on a relevant page at de-wiki? For English-only readers it can be confusing. Besides, all four entries are already included on the page, so what is the point of the additional link? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hans' webpages are updated each time a new recording of the concerned work is issued. It is thus very helpful to put the link to it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If/when there is an additional recording issued we can discuss whether to include that new recording in the article directly or whether to link to a discography. For the moment, however, the link provides very little that is not already in the article, and so does not meet WP:EL. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thus you decide, as the "Bruckner specialist of Wikipedia" whether a new recording is valuable to be put or referenced, and you also assert that the commented discography used for the international Bruckner Archive is of dubious quality. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

At the moment there is no new recording to potentially put in or reference, so we cannot know what we might decide about it. The link proposed does not meet the guideline for external links because it does not currently provide much beyond what is already in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

My knowledge of German is limited to greeting people and ordering beer, and I found the page easy to understand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WAB deest

The phrase WAB deest needs to be explained, as its meaning is not clear to a lay reader. Can someone do that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Deest: Latin word for missing, placed after a catalogue abbreviation, indicates that this particular work does not appear in it. The Rondo in C minor, as about 30 other Bruckner's works, was not yet retrieved or classified when the WAB catalogue was completed. See List of compositions by Anton Bruckner. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added a paragraph to that effect. Feel free to improve it! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Bruckner portrait in infobox

The portrait of the composer is IMO inappropriate for the infobox, and should be removed from it. Please read WP:LEADIMAGE especialyy and very carefully point 1. The portrait of the composer does not in any way represent the composition, and it does not distinguish this composition from any other by Bruckner. I this case, under the guideline, a page of the score, a book cover, or a record/LP/CD/DVD cover of this work would be appropriate. Kraxler (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have such a more appropriate image, great, some works of Bruckner have it. Most however show the composer, at different stages of his long life, to give an immediate idea of when he composed a piece. Perhaps go to most operas by famous composers and address the fact that most of them show the always same image of the composer instead of something relevant to the specific work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

An informative infobox or not?

In presumably the best encyclopedia of Bruckner's works (Uwe Harten, Anton Bruckner. Ein Handbuch. Residenz Verlag, Salzburg, 1996. ISBN 3-7017-1030-9), the description of the works begins with the following summary table:

• Name
• WAB No.
• Key:
• Composed: date and place
• Versions (if applicable)
• Number of Parts (if applicable):
• Author of the Text (if applicable):
• Voices and/or Instrumental:
• Dedication:
• First performance: date and place
• Manuscript location:
• First publication:
• Publication in Bruckner's Gesamtausgabe:

Thereafter the history of the work, etc, is described in detail.

A really informative infobox should provide the readers with a similar quick overview of the relevant data of the Wikipedia page, before they begin to look for more detailed data in the page self.

I have used a quite similar content in the infoboxes of the about 50 pages, which I have recently created for several types of Bruckner's works.

In this point of view, I was adding more data to the obviously too limited number of data of the current infobox of this page. However another user, who is apparently not in favour of using really informative infoboxes, has repetitively reverted my edits.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Meneerke! We are not bound by the format used by another source, but rather by our own policies and guidelines, and our own consensus. If there are specific changes you would like to propose to the current infobox, by all means do so. However, it's not particularly "informative" to tell the reader that a piece with the title "Rondo" is in rondo form - we should assume that our readers are not idiots. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I find it very strange that the Wikipedaia policies and guidelines, which you are referring to, would apply to the two pages Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner), which you have originally split from other existing pages, and that the same policies and guidelines would not apply to the about fifty other pages dedicated to works of Anton Bruckner, which I have updated/created in the meantime in a constructive collaboration with other users.

As a result of this constructive collaboration, all the works of the composer are now covered by a page or al least by an overview page, as for the piano and the organ works (See Book:Anton Bruckner).

I am not a beginner on Wikimedia. For the quality of my about 40,000 edits, of which more than 7,000 on the English Wikipedia, I have recently been granted "autopatrolled". Moreover, Wikimedia has also asked me for translating some of my edits for the French Wikipedia...

Let me please work and further update the pages dedicated to works of Anton Bruckner and avoid to repeatedly revert my edits according to your own interpretation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as well as sterile discussions about it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: We are apparently not on the same wavelength... Even when Rondo is in the title, "form = Rondo" is a different story, similar to when "in C minor" is in the title, "key=C minor" is still needed to tell search functions it's a piece in C minor. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia policies and guidelines also apply to the fifty other pages you mention, but at the moment we are discussing these two particular pages, and the argument you presented at 8:59 is not relevant to what their content should be - we both have editing experience, we both have been asked to translate, etc, but that really makes no difference to this discussion. Your 14:01 point is more relevant, but not entirely correct: we don't currently have a search function capable of filtering by form or key, as we're not a specialized music encyclopedia - the regular search function will find this piece with a free-text search of "rondo" or "C minor". Wikidata would be a more appropriate venue for these metadata pairs so they do not clutter the output for our human and therefore more intelligent readers. 14:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This infobox is far from cluttered, in fact, it is really quite sparse. While perhaps the infobox would look a bit bloated if every parameter listed above was added, as it sits, it could be expanded. Just visually, I like to see an infobox with up to as much data in terms of column inches as the image takes up; a 2:1 vertical balance is visually appealing in terms of layout. That said, that's just my two cents, not an official guideline. Remember also, that the infobox material can be (and should be) parsed as wikidata. Montanabw^(talk) 17:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Montana, I agree that more extensive data should be hosted at Wikidata. However, I notice you have restored the content as "status quo" - it is not, it was just added. Further, quite separate from the raw length of the box, telling a human editor that this rondo is a rondo is not really helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

In the title, we would not link Rondo, nor a key. In the discussion about Beethoven's Mass in C major, the key was wanted in the header line, - but (as you see in the template talk) it is recommended to keep it in the group with named parameters. Let's serve also readers for whom "C major" and "Rondo" are like Chinese. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It would certainly be possible to link both in the infobox header, though I don't even think that would be needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The question is not "needed or not", - ultimately nothing here is "needed". You and I know what a Rondo is and what C major means, but why not help (with a link and a label) a reader who doesn't? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Because a reader who doesn't know what C major means will equally not know what key or form are and would not be helped by a labeled pair. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: At the very least, the infobox should include composition and premiere years [ETA: and locations]. There's no reason to have an infobox if it doesn't provide any info. Softlavender (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC); edited 05:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is proposing removing the year of composition or premiere. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC) No one is proposing removing the premiere location - can you explain why the composition location is something you consider so important? It's not currently mentioned in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If the time of composition is close to a notable performance, I normally keep things simple and don't mention it. We often don't really know from when to when (and where) a creative mind was busy with a work. in other cases. If a work was not performed or the time is not known, composition time is good to have, a year, a decade, or a century. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

In most of the instances, the only date of "composition", which we know for Bruckner's smaller works, is the date put by Bruckner on his manuscript. The row "composed" of the infobox allows to replace "Start date" by "End date". If you agree, I will do it for the other concerned pages (the motets and secular choral works, etc.).

The location of composition is easy to know, i.e., where Bruckner was living at that time (see Motets (Bruckner))

• Before 3 October 1841: only Pange lingua, WAB 31, composed in Hörsching
• Between 3 October 1841 and 23 January 1843: Windhaag (only the Windhaager Messe)
• Between 23 January 1843 and 23 September 1845: Kronstorf
• Between 23 September 1845 and 24 December 1855: St. Florian
• Between 24 December 1855 and 1 October 1868: Linz
• Thereafter: Vienna

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Easy to know is not the same as important. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It is easy to know for Bruckner's knowers. It an important info to be added, because each of these periods are characterised by other types of compositions or an evolution of their style. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Several references on this page are second-hand references, obviously written for news papers, internet reviews, etc. The most of the info can be found in van Zwol and Harten. Replacing them by van Zwol and Harten would provide the page with a higher-quality label. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

But someone who is a "Bruckner's knower", as you put it, would already know, and someone who is not would not understand what significance it might have simply from seeing it in the infobox. Further, the stylistic characteristics of a particular period are also - and better - expressed for "knowers" by knowing the date of composition. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not English native. I apologise for it! Perhaps, I would had to write "a Bruckner connoisseur" instead of "Bruckner's knower"? In German, it is "ein Bruckner Kenner", in French it would be "un connaisseur". (As you probably know, the English word "connoisseur" is derived from the old French word "connoisseur"). Is "a Bruckner connoisseur" then more accurate? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: It is a pity for English-speaking people that the two top-handbooks over Bruckner and his works are in German (U. Harten, 1996) and in Dutch (van Zwol, 2012)... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

For not "Bruckner-connoisseurs" and internal consistency, I will, according to where Bruckner was living at that time, add in the history the city, in which the work was composed. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Sentence to be removed?

I find that the sentence "However, Bruckner did not intend for the Quartet to be publicly performed with either rondo, or for the Rondo in C minor to be performed independently, as he saw these compositions only as technical studies for the purposes of practicing form." should be removed. It is not an assessment by scholars, as Leopold Nowak or David Griegel, but rather a speculation of people writing guidebooks for music fans.

As C. van Zwol writes on p. 676 of his handbook, "XII/1 ... Deze compositie had beter in Band XIII kunnen worden uitgegeven, want het gaat over een uitgebreidere versie van de finale van Brukners Strijkkwartet, dat in Band XIII/1 werd gepubliceerd." (Translation: XII/1 ... This composition [The Rondo] would have better be issued in Band XIII, since it is a more elaborate version of the finale of Bruckner's String Quartet, which was issued in in Band XIII/1.). As C. Howie writes on p. 121 of his online Documentary Biography, "Bruckner continued his compositional / analytical studies with Kitzler by writing a complete four-movement String Quartet in C minor WAB 111 as well as an alternative Rondo Finale." --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you have other sources that speak to Bruckner's intentions? We could also approach this by providing inline attribution, to clarify the source of this detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The works, which Bruckner composed during the St. Florian period, were only intended for local performance or for a Liedertafel. None of the works, which Bruckner composed during Sechter's tuition (Psalm 146 and a few other vocal works) and Kitzler's tuition (String Quartet and its additional Rondo, Four Orchestral Pieces, Study Symphony in F minor, Psalm 112, as well as an earlier Scherzo for string quartet, 16 piano works and 12 lieder), was, so far van Zwol and Harten know, ever performed or issued during Bruckner's life.

Bruckner was very critical about his earlier compositions —the reason why he started Sechter's tuition. The first work, which was issued for performances, was Germanenzug of 1863. Only two earlier compositions from the St. Florian period (Four Tantum ergo, WAB 41 & Tantum ergo, WAB 42), and his beloved youth motet Pange lingua, WAB 31 were judged worth to be issued in a revised version (1888 and 1891). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This would seem to suggest that the text is correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It should only be "correct", if it placed in a broader context, i.e., "Bruckner was very critical about his earlier compositions. None of the works composed during the St. Florian period or Sechter's and Kitzler's tuition was ever performed or issued during Bruckner's life. (Only two earlier compositions from the St. Florian period and his beloved youth motet were judged worth to be issued in a revised version [1888 and 1891])." Otherwise, I consider the sentence superfluous, even misleading. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

By all means add that broader context, if you have appropriate sourcing for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: A sentence, as e.g., "As the other works composed during Sechter's and Kitzler's tuition, the Quartet and the additional Rondo were not performed or issued during Bruckner's life." would be more appropriate. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, with ref to the other works of this period and appropriate sourcing. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I deeply regret that the majority of my neutral change based on handbooks dedicated to Anton Bruckner, has be removed and replaced by the tendentious sentence coming from the popularising "AllMusic" and "The Rough Guide to Classical Music". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 21:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your characterization - you stated above that the text would be correct if placed in a broader context, which you have done. What I removed was simply the listing of other works, as they are neatly encompassed by the phrase "other works Bruckner composed during Kitzler's tuition". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that we are not on the same wave length. I indeed regret that you have removed the detail of "Kitzler study book", and the links to the existing wiki pages. I worked about one hour for it... I also regret that you have restored the (I find) superfluous and tendentious sentence "Bruckner did not intend for the Quartet to be publicly performed with either rondo, or for the Rondo in C minor to be performed independently, as he saw these compositions only as technical studies for the purposes of practicing form.", based on popularising sources, which I had removed on 22 November, 19:16. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 22:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed we are not then, as I find the details you added to be superfluous to this article (although they might be better suited to a more general article about the study book). In the conversation above you indicated that the so-called "tendentious" sentence would be correct if placed in a broader context, as it now is. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion to create a more general article about the Kitzler Studienbuch, all the more since it recently became publicly available.

I regretfully see that you are again arguing as a barrister and playing with words. I have indeed written that it should only be "correct", if it placed in a broader context. As you can see, the word correct was put in quotation marks, what means that it then would become no more faulty. However, no more faulty is not synonym of appropriate... I find this sentence superfluous, because it does not add any additional useful information to the neutral sentence As with the other works Bruckner composed during Kitzler's tuition, the Quartet and the additional Rondo were not performed or issued during Bruckner's life. You apparently forget that I have also written A sentence, as e.g., "As the other works composed during Sechter's and Kitzler's tuition, the Quartet and the additional Rondo were not performed or issued during Bruckner's life." would be more appropriate. I indeed find the sentence However, Bruckner did not intend for the Quartet to be publicly performed with either rondo, or for the Rondo in C minor to be performed independently, as he saw these compositions only as technical studies for the purposes of practicing form. not appropriate, even tendentious, because it is coming from popularising sources.

I do not want to escalate further, but, even when you are the initiator of an article, you are not owner of it and you have to accept that other people could be more expert in the field for improving its content. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I realize that, but we are not discussing a matter of personal preference but rather what is supported by sources. There are sources that, even if they are not handbooks, are considered reliable and do support the text. Thus far, you have not presented any sources that contradict the text. You have written another sentence, but it does not say what this sentence does - it says that the works were not performed, but does not speak to why. Thus, this sentence does offer additional information to your sentence. You are welcome to seek dispute resolution at WP:3O if you like - that would be the appropriate next step to "escalate". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I have gone ahead and listed this at WP:3O to receive a neutral third opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

In Reisig's popularising description, it is indeed stated that "the current one was not intended to supplant the original finale. Thus, the Rondo in C minor stands on its own." - a not-sourced information. This is contradiction with the opinion of van Zwol and Griegel, who say that "it can be regarded as an alternative to the first Rondo." - the reason why I consider Reisig's info as tendentious.

With a few exceptions: the five Tantum ergo, WAB 41 & 42, and the Pange lingua, WAB 34 (in a revised form), Bruckner, who was a compulsive perfectionist with a high level of self-criticism, did not consider the works composed before 1864 as "valuable". If you know why Bruckner did follow tuition at Sechter and Kitzler, the reason why the Rondo, a "student exercise", was not performed or issued during Bruckner's life becomes then obvious. Even later works, as the Symphony in D minor, WAB 100, composed in 1869, were sometimes rejected because not "worthy" to be performed and issued. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I have other more important things to do than continue this sterile discussion. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

As you will, but the sentence at issue here does not discuss whether this Rondo supplants the original finale or serves as an alternative, but rather why it was not performed in either context. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I don't know anything about this specific subject, but I do have experience working in culture (music, cuisine, etc.) articles. First, it must be made clear that sourced content should not be removed unless there is consensus that the source is not reliable (and this can be established at the RS noticeboard) or that the material in question is not supported by the source. Neither of these points has been met to support the deletion of the sentence in question. In this case, I find it unlikely that either source used to cite the sentence will be declared unreliable. It has also not been made clear that there is a controversy about the statement in the topic's literature, and no direct quote is present in the sentence, so an in-line attribution is unnecessary. Lastly, I'd like to remind all that personal conclusions and source synthesis should also be avoided. Thanks for requesting the 3O! Have a good day. MarshalN20 Talk 09:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply: I avoid as much as possible to use references from popularising sources as, e.g., "AllMusic". They mainly use ad hoc writers, who are not citing their sources. See the sentence coming from van Zwol's handbook, which I have added in the meantime to String Quartet (Bruckner): (Translation of the Dutch text) "The Quartet was not issued during Bruckner's life, since it concerned a sample of capability during his study period at Kitzler." In this section, van Zwol cites also the additional Rondo, which he describes further on p. 676, because it was edited later in another Band (XII/1) of the Gesamtausgabe. I think this would be a more credible reference. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added van Zwol's reference the to section "History". After checking the references from the popularizing "AllMusic" and "The Rough Guide to Classical Music", I suggest to remove these superfluous —because they have no real added value— and less credible —because they are not sourced— references from this section. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Based on your initial reply, though, van Zwol does not fully support the sentence, which is why the additional sources do provide added value. Can you post exactly what content from van Zwol you believe is an appropriate reference? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

My suggested text to replace that coming from the low-credibility popularising references:

"The String Quartet (U. Harten, p. 406, C. van Zwol, pp. 682-683) and its additional Rondo (U. Harten, p. 370, C. van Zwol, p. 676) were not issued or performed during Bruckner's life, because he considered them only as samples of capability during his study period at Otto Kitzler. (U. Harten, pp. 233-234, C. van Zwol, pp. 682-683)"

Sources:

Uwe Harten, Anton Bruckner. Ein Handbuch. Residenz Verlag, Salzburg, 1996. ISBN 3-7017-1030-9.

Cornelis van Zwol, Anton Bruckner 1824-1896 - Leven en werken, uitg. Thoth, Bussum, Netherlands, 2012. ISBN 978-90-6868-590-9.

This is my very last suggestion. The ball is in your court... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOENG, could you please provide the content from those two sources that you believe supports your proposed addition? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI: During my past career, I was Medical and Pharmaceutical university-aggregated Scientist and guest lecturer at the university. I have written about 50 scientific papers in high-level medical and scientific journals and participated in a lot of medical and scientific congresses in Europe and in the USA. I have also reviewed articles from other authors to approved their issuing in such journals. When I was Head of Medical writing at our international pharmaceutical company, I wrote reports of clinical studies and participated in filing for submissions for approval by the EMEA and the American FDA. I thus think that I have the background to judge whether a reference is reliable or of low credibility. In my former career, references from news papers or popularising journals were banished. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a medical article, so WP:MEDRS does not apply here, nor is Wikipedia compelled to use the same sourcing standards as a medical journal, nor indeed are these standards relevant to a non-medical topic. As Marshal indicated above, you can raise the sources at WP:RSN if you so choose, but they are unlikely to be deemed non-reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I will not tilt further at windmills... "Bruckner connoisseurs", as John Berky and Hans Roelofs, say that the about 80 Wikipedia pages, which I have created or updated in-depth —without such sterile, time-consuming discussions— are of a good quality standard. On the contrary, they find that Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) should perhaps not have been split from the main page String Quartet (Bruckner), and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner) from the main page String Quintet (Bruckner), and that the current content of the "orphaned" Rondo in C minor (Bruckner) and Intermezzo in D minor (Bruckner) should for sure be improved.

The policy, which you mention, is the reason why people in my neighbourhood say that the content of Wikipedia pages from other origin or by other authors has to be taken cum grano salis and checked versus more "reliable" sources... I find it very regrettable!!! --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussions that you refer to as "sterile" and "time-consuming" are the bedrock on which this collaborative encyclopedia is built. If you do decide to continue to participate in this project, there are some points above that you could address. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion started when you split on 4 September 2014 (I really never understood why you did it) the additional Rondo from the main page of the String Quartet, in which the additional Rondo was (better) integrated. The same kind of discussion started when you split on the same day the Intermezzo (I also really never understood why you did it) from the main page of the String Quintet, in which the Intermezzo was also (better) integrated. Are you so a Bruckner specialist, to have taken these decisions without knowing the "Bruckner bibles" (van Zwol's and Harten's handbooks) and the mining of scholars about these two additional pieces? (Somewhat sarcastic) If a more than one-year long discussion without reaching consensus happens for each created page, Wikipedia would never have contained so many articles... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This particular discussion began on 24 November, which is not so very long ago at all. If you want to revisit previous discussions, I suggest opening a new section for that purpose. Here we are discussing one sentence and whether it should be included, modified, or excluded. I've asked above for you to provide the content from those "Bruckner bibles" that supports your suggested modification, as the quotes with which you opened this section do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Please stop to split hairs. We have not to open a "new" discussion. See above To split or not to split. I never was in favour to split the section "Rondo in C minor" from the String Quartet (Bruckner), as you did it on 4 September 2014 (see: "it appeared logical that the Rondo in C minor would be an addendum to String Quartet (Bruckner) with its own infobox, instead of be put on a separate page"). I also never was in favour to split the section "Intermezzo in D minor" from the String Quintet (Bruckner), as you did it on the same date. Since the start of the two splits, these articles have continuously been subjected to repeated discussions about content, discography, infobox, etc. The articles on Bruckner's String Quartet or String Quintet had better never been split, but, considering yourself as a specialist of the topic, you went on without taking into account my arguments and that of Bruckner's scholars Leopold Nowak and Cornelis van Zwol ... --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 21:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No, if you want to revisit an older discussion with which you are unsatisfied, a section focused on a different issue is not the place to do that. Here we are trying to discuss this one sentence, not other content, discography, etc. If you want to make an argument about this sentence based on Bruckner's scholars, please present the content from those scholars that supports your proposal. Otherwise your comments are better placed in a different section. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, as you want. Let us then go back to square one. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

An article, which started on a shaky base

As I wrote on 7 September 2014, splitting was not my decision. Originally I had put the Rondo in C minor in a section of String Quartet (Bruckner) for the following reasons:

• The String Quartet was an instrumentation exercise asked by Otto Kitzler. Bruckner started its composition on 28 July 1862 and completed the Rondo on 7 August 1862. The original manuscript of the Quartet is found on pp. 165-196 of Bruckner's "Kitzler Studienbuch".
• After reviewing it Kitzler was not satisfied by the Rondo (193 bars) and asked Bruckner to make a Rondo 'in grösserer Form'. The composition of this new Rondo (233 bars) was ended one week later (15 August 1862). The manuscript of this new Rondo follows that of the Quartet on pp. 197 to 206 of the "Kitzler Studienbuch.
• Because of editorial purpose (later retrieval of the Rondo in C minor) the Quartet and the Rondo were put in different bands of the Gesamtausgabe, XIII/I and XII/I, respectively. But, as van Zwoll writes: "... het Rondo 'in grösserer Form' dat als Band XII/I is gepubliceerd, maar beter als 'Zu XIII/I' ingedeeld had kunnen worden.", it appeared logical that the Rondo in C minor would be an addendum to String Quartet (Bruckner) with its own infobox, instead of be put on a separate page.

--Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I never was in favour to split the section "Rondo in C minor" from the main article String Quartet (Bruckner), as Nikkimaria did it on 4 September 2014. Despite well-grounded arguments by an user, who is analysing Bruckner's works since more than 50 years and that of scholars Leopold Nowak and Cornelis van Zwol, which advised to not split, Nikkimaria decided to go on, considering herself as a specialist of the topic and without having the basic knowledge from the Bruckner's handbooks to justify the soundness of her decision.

Because it started on shaky base, this lame article is, since its beginning, bogged down in repeated discussions about soundness of its content, discography, infobox, referencing, etc. The "Rondo in C minor", which is an annex to Bruckner's String Quartet, was well-integrated in its main article. The repeated discussions on the soundness of several topics of the split article confirm that it had, as it was advised, better never been split from its main article. You cannot expect that an article with a false start get a course with no obstacles to a successful end...

PS: The Intermezzo in D minor, which was composed as an alternative to the scherzo of Bruckner's String Quintet, was also well-integrated in the main article. I also never was in favour to split the section "Intermezzo in D minor" from the String Quintet (Bruckner), as Nikkimaria did it on the same date. The repeated discussions on the soundness of several topics of the split article confirm that it also had better never been split from its main article. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagreements about things like discography and referencing have little to do with whether this should be an independent article or not - if it were not, those disagreements would simply occur on a different page. Instead, we consider Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in deciding whether or not to split, and in this case they are in support. The Rondo is certainly related to the Quartet, but that does not preclude a standalone article. Indeed, there is sufficient content relevant to the Rondo that, if it were to be integrated into the Quartet article, would by disproportionately large relative to other content (a key consideration in splitting). Instead, it is more appropriate to summarize the Rondo there, per WP:SS, and have the more extensive article here to expand on details. There is also sufficient sourcing to support the existence of the more detailed content available here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

There is of course sufficient material available to support the existence of a stand-alone article, if it is written by an expert, who is basing his writing on credible references —not by a sorcerer's apprentice, who obviously does not has sufficient knowledge about the composer and the complex history of his works, and is basing his writing on references coming from popularising or promotional works written by ghost writers, who are paid for doing it... Do you have access to the two "Bruckner's bibles" by Cornelis van Zwol (782 pages) and Uwe Harten (544 pages)? If no, I advise you to acquire them before going further with this discussion. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 22:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

So your argument is not actually that the articles should not be separate, but rather that I shouldn't have been the one to write this one? In that case, this discussion is at an end, since your argument has no basis in policy. We can discuss further what content or references should or should not be included, if you want to go back to the previous conversation that was interrupted, but please read WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor first. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving the content of the article

If you do not have access to the two "Bruckner's bibles" (Harten and van Zwol handbooks) for improving the content of the article, there is an excellent encyclopedic work available online: Bruckner online. Unfortunately for English-speaking people, the main literature about Bruckner and his works is in German language (see de:Anton Bruckner). There are only a few good basic references in English, as the The Cambridge Companion to Bruckner (however, with somewhat outdated content), and the ongoing Crawford Howie, Anton Bruckner - A documentary biography, online revised edition (3 chapters edited as yet). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 11:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I have in the meantime added some additional info and sourcing to improve the section "History" of this article. I will later review the section "Music". Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Section "Music" expanded, with analysis by Harten. Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: This page has now got a—for a Bruckner connoisseur—acceptable quality level. Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)