Template talk:Karlheinz Stockhausen

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Composers This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers Classical music This template is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this template or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music

These templates are almost always in chronological order, instead of alphabetical. It's jarring to see Cosmic Pulses listed first in Stockhausen's electronic works. Chronological order is the way he lists his own works in his catalogue, and it is the most helpful to users who want a snapshot of his output.

I'm going to edit it to follow the style of other Wikipedia templates. I'll do it in sections. Trumpetrep (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological ordering for works seems generally a good idea, except for the opera cycle Licht, where composition dates and premiere dates have a different chronology. At Jerome Kohl's suggestion at Template talk:Licht, a rotating method was implemented with the current day of the week first; see {{Licht}} and {{Karlheinz Stockhausen/Operas}}.

However, I have doubts that adding years to the names improves the template. It will bloat the template which is already quite substantial. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would nominate for deletion the "Family & Peers", "Collaborators", and "Related Articles" sections of the template, especially given Michael's concerns about its current size. Barring deletion, I would dramatically reduce the size of each section.

For example, Henry Brant has nothing to do with Stockhausen in the same way as Markus Stockhausen does. It is unhelpful to users to see Brant's name in this template, let alone before the appearance of Stockhausen's son and longtime collaborator.

Likewise, how much sense does it make for the Stockhausen template to include related articles on WDR or aleatoric music? Couldn't that be handled better in "See Also/Further Reading" and/or Categories? In comparable templates, such as {{Johann Sebastian Bach}} and {{Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart}}, the "Other Topics" section is brief and has a topical relation to its subject: "Bach festival", "Mozart effect".Trumpetrep (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Nitpick: "With soloists" should spelled with lower case "s" (2×). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]