Talk:William Walton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Walton article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability William Walton is related to WikiProject Composers which has been provided as a place for editors of biographical articles of Music Composers and Songwriters to discuss common issues, discover neglected composer articles and exchange ideas. All who are interested are invited to comment and contribute. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Archives Contents 1 Clarification 2 Wikilinks 3 Image

[edit] Clarification

I believe he also have written for a guitar (dedicated to Julian Bream?) a set of five shorts guitar pieces called "bagatelles"

Yes; I heard them back in 1993 in a concert during my first visit to London, and just a few days ago over the BBC too. I believe he orchestrated them (as the Varii Capricii (sp??) poss.) later on, also. Very few of the composer pages here aim for an exhaustive worklist, though - perhaps more should, if not exhaustive, at least more complete! Schissel : bowl listen 16:18, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinks

I recently added some wikilinks that ended up getting changed around a bit, so I changed some of them back. My feeling is that the disambiguation term (musical composition) or (opera) should be used in cases where a given title might apply to multiple things outside of music. For example, Crown Imperial (disambiguation) links to Crown Imperial (musical composition), because a Crown Imperial is also a type of car. However in cases where the title would be something in the realm of music, such as Symphony No. 1, the disambiguation term (Walton) should be used, because there may be several articles about first symphonies, all of which are musical compositions. The idea is that the term should be used thats most appropriate for what the other pages that need to be disambiguated from are. I also don't think the disambiguation term is needed for Orb and Sceptre, as there is not an article there already, so the disambiguation is not needed until other terms are added to the encyclopedia. Also, I don't really think this article is a stub, there's a little meat to it, if not a lot. If there are any questions, let me know. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The purpose of disambiguation is to disambiguate. To take one of the examples, Crown Imperial (musical composition) could potentially be another disambiguation page, whereas Crown Imperial (Walton) is unquestionably unambiguous. I have more sympathy with (opera) as a disambiguation qualifier, but even then Troilus and Cressida (Walton) seems to me more specific and unambiguous than Troilus and Cressida (opera). --RobertG ♬ talk 11:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should go for specificity though, I think we need to evaluate disambiguation based on what disambiguates something at the highest level, not the lowest. Crown Imperial is a term that applies to things in a broader sense than just music, so the disambiguation should seperate it out based on what makes them distinct within that level, so in this case you have Crown Imperial (automobile) and Crown Imperial (musical composition), whereas things that apply mainly to music, such as Symphony No. 1, which there will be several of, should disambiguate based on what will distinguish them within the world of music, which would be composer names. Disambiguation should be as simple as possible, not as specific is posssible.

To give an example, say somebody writes a play called Bob and Bill. So we have Bob and Bill. Now let's say someone opens a Fast food chain called Bob and Bill, so we'd have Bob and Bill (restaurant). Now if Philip Glass adapts that play into an opera, we'd then have Bob and Bill (play) and Bob and Bill (opera). Now let's say 100 years later, some composer named Svengardt decides he wants to write an operatic version of Bob and Bill, so then we would have Bob and Bill (Glass opera) and Bob and Bill (Svengardt opera). But what if, 100 years later, there's no restaurant anymore and no one produces the play anymore, but we still have the operas? Then Bob and Bill could be Bob and Bill (Glass) and Bob and Bill (Svengardt), because Bob and Bill of itself implies an opera. However if you also have a play and a restaurant chain to disambiguate with, you need to provide the (opera) distinction. Do you follow my meaning at all? We shouldn't disambiguate unless we need to disambiguate, and when we do, we need to evaluate how specific the disambiguation needs to be, and in my mind, it should be more general before it gets more specific. Crown Imperial (Walton) might be more specific, but unless you happen to know who Walton is, and that he wrote a piece called Crown Imperial, you might not know what Walton is referring to, whereas if you see Crown Imperial (musical composition), you at least know youre looking at a musical piece. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not feel as strongly about this as you do, obviously! I would totally agree with you if we were forbidden to explain anything on disambiguation pages or to have any content in articles. The introduction to the article would be, however, "Crown Imperial is an orchestral march by the English composer William Walton written for the coronation of King George VI in 1937," so anyone coming to the article immediately finds out who Walton was and that it's a musical composition; the only Wikipedia links which aren't explained are the category links, and the category does the explanation. In fact, that's quite a good introduction, I'll post it as a stub rather than waste it here (I'll even go with your disambiguation, although it still looks odd to me). --RobertG ♬ talk 10:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a good introduction, I was thinking "I'm totally stealing that" before I got to the part where you'd actually started the article. Thanks, that filled in a red link for me on an article I'm trying to clear red links from. You make a good point on that we can explain things on disambiguation pages and in article content. For some reason I'm still feeling the page title itself though needs to get as much mileage as it can, regardless of the article content. What would really be nice would be to get some more opinions, as right now it's just been you and me discussing it. Thanks again for your work, and nice intro. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Aaaar, mateys! For whatever reasons, there is no current image of Walton. Oddly enough, the image labeled William_Walton.jpg is of William Wilton, and appears at the article on William Wilton. Did Walton's image get bumped for this wrongly named image? Signinstranger 17:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)