This article 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
This article 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 article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
An editor keeps adding this image, which I do not think belongs in a Featured Article because the copyright details on the Commons page do not comply with WP requirements. Proof that it was published before 1926 would help a lot, but "Creative Commons" is clearly inapplicable, it seems to me. Advice from an editor more expert on image copyright and WP application thereof would be most welcome. Tim riley talk08:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I have now sought an expert opinion from an editor who frequently does the image reviews at FAC (and indeed did the image review for this article). Tim riley talk13:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Nikkimaria, who reviewed the images at FAC has kindly given us a steer:
At the moment there isn't enough info in either case to be assured that the images are in the public domain - the uploader has claimed CC0 but without evidence of their right to do so, and in both cases the source states the images are reproduced by permission of the trust. Is there any reason that you're aware of to believe the uploader is associated with the trust? Failing that, do we have any further details on publication history of these images?
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
If there are several books in addition to Saylor's, then why don't you add them to "Further readings" instead of getting rid of Saylor's? We editors should be assisting Wikipedia users, not worrying so much about enforcing our rules. But, as I said, I am through with this. It's not important enough to me. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Note: we have tried to explain to this editor that Further reading sections are admirable for books that have "additional and more detailed coverage of the subject", and asked him/her to explain what new or specialist material the suggested title contains, but it seems s/he doesn't know and so far there is no reason to suppose that it needs mention any more than the other numerous books about RVW not cited in the article. We are not a library catalogue. I see the book is published by the OUP, which is always a good sign, but even so, there is no evidence that it would be helpful to the reader to single it out for a Further reading section here. Tim riley talk19:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
According to the OUP site which quotes one review "Eric Saylor's new biography of Vaughan Williams...is the first to take full account of research published in the last twenty years, of the hitherto unfamiliar early works of the composer published for the first time in the last 25 years, and of the online corpus of some 5000 letters written by him only recently made accessible." https://global.oup.com/academic/product/vaughan-williams-9780190918569?cc=us&lang=en&# I would say one needs a review not on the publisher's (even if the OUP) web page. I don't currently have access to the Wall Street Journal or the Literary Review which both have reviews of the work. It does seem a substantial work. --Erp (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
If it contains anything new and important we should add that to the article where appropriate, and not merely relegate the book to "Further reading". I'll order the book at the British Library and see what, if anything, we ought to draw from it for our WP article. Tim riley talk11:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 months ago6 comments2 people in discussion
RE: "Joining the Royal Army Medical Corps as a private, he drove ambulance wagons in France and later in Greece."
Per Stephen Connock's book, The Edge of Beyond (Albion Music 2021), page 58, VW was a wagon orderly, not a driver. Drivers came from the Army Service Corp. I would change this, but I was asked to suggest changes here first. Rgrames (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I made the change, with a parenthetical definition of wagon orderly, as suggested. I used Connock as the reference rather than UVW because Connock's book is much more thorough on the subject and explains, on the page cited, who actually drove the ambulances. Rgrames (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why did you change the citation? Connock's book is the now definitive text on VW's WWI experience and provides the additional information regarding who actually drove the ambulances. UVW's quote of his letter to Holst is ambiguous regarding what a "waggon orderly" is, and has been cited elsewhere as evidence that he was a driver. There is no such ambiguity in Connock's discussion. Have you read it? It quotes the Holst letter, too, but then resolves the issue. And my change was no more "wordy" than was needed to include the term "wagon orderly".
Your WP:CITEVAR violation made a dog's breakfast of the citations, putting the bibliographical details of the book in with the References, rather than, with all the other books, in the Sources section. If you wish to replace the citation with the newer book by all means do so, but don't indulge in CITEVAR: do the job properly, please. The job title is better avoided as there are two contradictory spellings of it and all that is needed here is to say what RVW was doing rather than what the position was called. Tim riley talk07:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed just now that Leopold Stokowski is listed among the notable non-British conductors of RVW's music. But he was British. Although he made his career in the US, he was born in London, worked extensively with British orchestras in the postwar, made his very last recordings with them, and retained to the end of his days a pronounced English accent.
Oliver Daniel's biography states that Stokowski and RVW were "old friends" and had known each other since youth. He further notes that Stokowski's "natural Britishness rather than his flaunted Slavicness" was crucial for his success with RVW's music.
True, Stokowski was born British but he became an American citizen in 1915. Grove describes him as an "American conductor of British birth, and Polish and Irish parentage". He's righly classed as a non-British conductor of RVW's music, I think: he certainly made no recordings of VW's works while still a British citizen. Tim riley talk16:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Before 1915, no conductor, whether British or otherwise, made any recordings of RVW's music. Even if Stoki had wanted to, the state of recording technology prior to World War I would not have permitted him to do so. (Another eight years passed before the first recording of any of RVW's orchestral music: Sir Dan Godfrey's of A London Symphony in 1923. Even that was considerably cut then, they were only excerpts.)
Stoki wasn't a foreign conductor in the sense that Karajan and Bernstein certainly were. Unlike them, Stoki was born, raised, and made his early career in the UK. He studied under Stanford and Davies and played their music, as well as those of other English composers, very early in his American career. In the 1920s, he began to conduct RVW's music and thereafter frequently programmed it; he conducted the Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis in his very last public concert in 1974.
I understand your point, although I still believe that the passage in question as it stands is a little misleading, particularly to readers unfamiliar with Stoki's background and his relationship with RVW. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, it's fine. No biggie. Was just a wrinkle that I personally felt ought to be ironed out. However, I will happily defer to fellow editors whose understanding of RVW exceeds mine. It's an exemplary article, which is why I didn't want to traipse about it in the first place. :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
