Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 → Archive 35

RfC about to close

The Infobos RfC will close in a few days. Are there any further thoughts? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 21:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Still ongoing...

Although the bot has delisted the RfC, there are still questions to resolve. The closing admin is on hold for now while we decide a) whether or not the other projects should adopt the guidelines now used by this project and b) whether or not we should adopt the infobox developed during the debate. Drhoehl has proposed a workable solution for the latter. Therefore, I urge every one to read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC#Two questions and comment as appropriate. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 06:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And now for something completely different exactly the same

Is anyone here following Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Instrument listings in infoboxes? It resulted in these postings on Hélène Grimaud's talkpage:

I am removing the infobox per this guideline.THD3 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That was wrong to do. The infobox was not a "biographical infobox" but a "musical artist" infobox. Fanoftheworld (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Similar postings were made on Talk:Krystian Zimerman and Talk:Lang Lang (pianist) (though Opus33 reverted the reversion in that latter case).

These editors were working without knowledge of the RfC and the guidelines until I informed them. However, the CM guidelines have been shugged off. Note the subtle distinction made by Fanoftheworld. That editor is now blocked because of his disruptive editing, but that's beside the point: the other editors appear to favour the use of a biographical infobox and are simply debating the contents of the Notable Instruments field—in {{Infobox musical artist}}, of all things! The debate has been ongoing since 25th of March. Either I am missing something fundamental here (viz, certain classical musicians get a box even without discussion) or nobody is watching the CM talk page...

My point, though, is this: being debated are the specific details included in an infobox, without acknowledgement that the project deprecates their use. Now do you see why I am pushing you all into discussing the issue in the open? --Jubilee♫clipman 03:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

My concern is with the implementation of specific Wikiprojects views. How is the average editor able to find this projects conclusion of no infoboxs (if that is the case). The Project view stats shows some people see the projects page, but many more editors (thousands) edit articles under this projects overview. All of the talk that has gone on does not resolve what i believe is the fundamental problems, that is how the project will not come into conflict with other projects and non-WikiProjects editors. Also does the current project wording on the subject help to resolve the past concerns of ownership of articles or will conflicts continue to arise? Does the current wording encourage editors discretion of the matter or will a "talk page debate" happen ever-time an infobox is included in an article that happens to be under this projects overview? Will outside editors even listen to what your saying on the subject and if they dont then what? ( As Jubileeclipman has pointed out above more conflict). Most Wikiprojects that have had the problem of misleading infoboxs have taken the time to make a proper Infobox to customizes out subject field related concerns (In hopes that it will be used). This is the purpose of WikiProjects, that is to resolve problems and standardizes articles, all be it within the greater wiki communities views. I see great effort was made in making the infobox, but that did not happen i guess. So i would expect that you will see editors adding boxs that simply do not fit, i have done this in the past myself until i realized some Wikiprojects have made specific subject related infoboxs. I DO believe your projects view on infoboxs is correct after seeing all the arguments, however this is simply not the greater communities view on the matter as i see it.(Buzzz)Moxy (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
To quote Pink Floyd: "...-re we came in? ... Isn't this whe-..." The debate was clearly a failure as Moxy has eloquently pointed out and as I have suspected it would be for several weeks now because of the increasingly obvious boycott by most of this project. Shame, because we were getting somewhere at the beginning: we changed the iron-fisted "guidelines" and worked out a very minimal box. Now, even most of those from this project that helped create that box have turned tail and shown their true colours... I will ask Martin to close it up, tomorrow, and you can all get on with fighting against The Wall the wind. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 04:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
"This project" can't have a view, because "this project" is not a single entity; it is simply an umbrella, or meeting place for a bunch of editors. Until that bunch of editors, who currently attempt to operate as a cabal, accept that they do not own the set of articles on whose talk pages they have put a project banner, and that their collective views can never trump real, Wikipedia-wide consensus, this issue will not be resolved. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you advocating that the various projects abandon their style guidelines, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Article structure, Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music), Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Article guidelines? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
As I read it, he is voicing the perception of these projects by not a small number of editors who are not members of them—or who even avoid them because of that perception. It is an issue recently brought up by Eusebeus and me, among others, and still needs to be attended to. The "guidelines" are, technically, only local advice (expect MUSTARD and the MoS, of course, which are genuine WP guidelines) as has been pointed out several times: rather than dropping them we should be promoting them more widely, even requesting that they are included in the MoSes; in particular, the project's objections to infoboxes need to be in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), IMO, if these projects are going to be afforded a fuller acceptance of their views --Jubilee♫clipman 22:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Michael, when a WikiProject puts together an advice page, it has exactly the same value as any other {{essay}} on Wikipedia. The fact that a small group of editors, rather than an individual or a couple of editors, wrote the advice doesn't mean anything at all about its status. If it's good and helpful advice, then people will normally follow it; if the community largely disagrees with it, then the community will largely ignore it.
I don't support removing such advice pages -- they are often (but not always) written by some of the most experienced editors in the community -- but their authors/members need to remember that the community's practice is far more important than a few editors' advice. In other words, WP:Wikipedia is not that important, and WikiProject advice pages are really not that important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't speak too soon... CCC and it just might, yet. I have answered Tony's objections to infoboxes, FWIW, in the RfC. His arguments all fell down quite easily as it happens. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 10:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Book clean up

The following books have been identified by Headbomb (talk · contribs) as having problems (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Book clean up). Any questions, ask Headbomb. Thanks.

--Jubilee♫clipman 04:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Olivier Messiaen for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification regarding Wikipedia-Books

Hadronic Matter
An overview
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter

As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:

The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)

Also, the {{saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class Composers articles should have covers.

If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.

This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 01:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot (owner • talk) 01:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Giulia Recli

(1) Was she a notable composer? The references are rather weak, and I haven't found anything better.

(2) Was she born in 1884 or 1890? See recent edits, both to Giulia Recli and to List of female composers by birth year.

--Deskford (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) I'd say yes, sufficiently so for WP. There are sources in Goggle books, here and here although they're almost all 'no preview' or 'snippet'. She also appears to have an entry in The New Grove Dictionary of Women Composers‎ (no preview)[1].
(2) The 1884 seems to come from it:Giulia Recli. Reading between the lines on the Italian WP, the creator User:Gdac seems to have access to the family's archives (note also the image). But all the published sources give 1890.
– Voceditenore (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

2 articles on the same subject

I think these two articles might be on the same person: Jack Elliott (composer) and John Elliot (songwriter). Their dates of birth are different but the death date is the same and so is a lot of the article content.4meter4 (talk) 05:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks to me as if two different people have been thoroughly confused with one another. The fact that one is said to have been born under a different name is the key element, I think. The sources in John Elliot (songwriter) are especially weak, and the different spellings of the last name are particularly worrisome.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
From snooping around the histories, this is what appears to have happened:
  1. The original (and quite strange) article for John Elliot (songwriter) created in 2005 [2] was about another songwriter John Elliot (aka John M. Elliot aka Jack Elliot) who died in 1972 and was this person: [3] [4], [5], [6]. It was subsequently stubbed and cleaned up but still about that person.
  2. Then Frongle over-wrote the article in 2008 with information about Jack Elliott (composer) [7]
  3. Meanwhile in 2006, Alanelliott had expanded the stub of Jack Elliott (composer) [8], a different person who died in 2001, and who was Alan Elliott's father. In 2008 Alanelliott tried to correct the error in John Elliot (songwriter) [9] but was repeatedly reverted as a vandal and that's where we are today.
The whole issue has been compounded by people editing IMDb using the Wikipedia articles as sources and mixing up the two people there too. Another demonstration of why IMDb is not a reliable source. I'm going to re-write John Elliot (songwriter) to reflect who he really is. Hope I don't get reverted as vandal. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 09:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow what a mess! Thanks for sorting it out voceditenore. The John Elliot (songwriter) article is much better :-). We might want to double check the Jack Elliott (composer) and Ramblin' Jack Elliott articles to make sure their content is accurate as well. A footnote about the name confusion on those articles would probably be good too. Also the in-coming wikilinks should be double checked to make sure they are all going to the right person.4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I've checked the incoming links to John Elliot (songwriter) myself and they are all correct. But, the incoming links to Jack Elliott (composer) ought to be checked as I suspect some of them might be going to the wrong person. I've also created redirect pages for the other common forms of this person's name in reference works: Jack Elliot (songwriter) and Jack Elliott (songwriter) - Voceditenore (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Composers RfC closed by uninvolved admin (finally)

Please read Martin's closing remarks. Thanks all for taking the time to discuss it rationally and calmly (with a few, ah, blips here and there... cough...). There are actually far more composers with an infobox than any of us realised: I have run catscan recently and will post the results here once I have figured out what they really mean. For example, some of the people aren't actually classical composers or are not really notable and anyway the majority are contemporary composers; however, a signficant handful really are notable non-contemporary classical composers that need to be carefully handled. I checked only {{Infobox person}} and {{Infobox musical artist}}, BTW, so there may well be other infoboxes used in classical composer articles, such as {{Infobox scientist}} etc --Jubilee♫clipman 01:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look out for {{Infobox writer}} as well. I reversed one of those added to a composer page just yesterday.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah! I forgot that one. I'll add it into the mix and get back with my scan results tonight or tomorrow. Once a) we have analysed the scan results and b) Martin has moved Template:Infobox composer/draft to Template:Infobox classical composer, added his warning text and semiprotected it then we can decide on the next steps --Jubilee♫clipman 16:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Scan results and thoughts

I am going to take the bull by the horns here (as usual) and ask the questions that no one really wants to ask.

Now that Quiddity's draft infobox has been moved over to mainspace as Template:Infobox classical composer‎‎, I think it is time to address the (at least) 280+ composer articles that have infoboxes. First, some raw data from CatScan.

  1. This scan gives the list of all articles in Category:Classical composers that also have one of {{Infobox musical artist}}, {{Infobox person}} or {{Infobox writer}}. There are presently close to 300 of them. Other infoboxes might be used also, so the list is not exhaustive. Given that:
    • a) many of those articles are only in that category because the subject happened to write classical music even though that is not what they are primarily notable for (e.g. Ezra Pound, Captain Beefheart, etc)
    • b) a large number of the articles are on contemporary composers (who might be a special case, as pointed out several times in the RfC; see later)
    • c) some are blatantly miscategorised (a fairly common factor to take into account in any consideration of category trees etc)
    then we need to focus in further.
  2. This scan removes most (if not all) of the contemporaries by factoring out the categories Living people, 21st-century classical composers, Postmodern composers, Experimental composers, and Modernist composers. There are still over 100 names on the list. It is still true that some were not primarily classical composers (haven't yet worked out how best to factor those out). However, the majority were certainly classical musicians: these need to be addressed by the other projects, of course. The miscats can't be factored out for the obvious reason that they are miscatted.

The question, then, is: how do we deal with those 100+ names? Any systematic removal of those infoboxes would be disruptive. However, replacing those templates with the new infobox would almost certainly be seen as a positive exercise. I propose, therefore, that we start with such articles as Enrique Granados, Gabriel Fauré and Robert Nathaniel Dett (all discussed in the RfC), replacing the other infoboxes with the newly available infobox. We can then move on to articles on other important figures such as Samuel Barber, Hubert Parry, Arthur Bliss, William Lloyd Webber, Percy Grainger, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor and Engelbert Humperdinck (none of which were even noticed during the RfC, IIRC). Finally, we can look at the lesser names at our leisure.

As far as contemporary composers as concerned, it seems that most editors are happy enough that they get an infobox with or without any discussion on the talkpage. Those articles could be immediately updated with the new template, IMO. Correct? Perhaps this is more something for WP:CTM to discuss, however?

As regards classical musicians... I have run scans for those also. I will post those results over at WP:CM, if requested. The results are complicated by several factors, however. First, Category:Classical composers is a subcat of Category:Classical musicians and would need to be factored out. Second, there are a huge number of miscats, IMO. Third, I haven't yet thought of a way to factor out contemporary musicians. I will need longer to figure out the best way to deal with these issues before posting any scans for musicians, therefore.

Any help sorting this all out would be appreciated. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 21:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have tried the new box in Gavin Bryars (which had had {{Infobox musical artist}} for over 3 years). IMO, it looks pretty good, indeed far better than that other one. I'll try it out on other contemporaries, soon, if no one reverts or otherwise objects to my change there --Jubilee♫clipman 23:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps while people think this over, you would consider directing your energy towards a list of miscategorized pages. Then people could look over the list, and see about fixing the miscats (by bot, if wanted). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'll see what I can do --Jubilee♫clipman 00:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange subcategorisation

I just noticed this section was removed, but it ought to be archived, not deleted. I've archived it at WikiProject Composers/Archive 30. Except for patent nonsense/vandalism, it's not a good idea to simply 'erase' things from project talk pages. Voceditenore (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I (and only I) posted here but then later felt that the posts weren't really that helpful so I deleted the entire section. Archiving is better though, I agree --Jubilee♫clipman 09:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Miscategorised articles and more clear notables with a box

As promissed above, here are my preliminary findings after clicking all 111 names in the second catscan linked above (i.e. the non-contemporary classical composers). Further research may reveal more, of course.

People for whom no composing is mentioned in the article (are are thus most likely miscatted):

Composers/songwriters who were not not necessarily classical composers (and who thus may not be correctly catted):

Important composers/songwriters who crossed over genres (and are thus almost certainly correctly catted though their inclusion might be questioned):

Other people far better known for anything other than their classical compositions (and thus may or may not be correctly catted, depending how you look at it):

I also spotted some more very notable musicians and composers with infoboxes:

More extremely notable musicians who composed who could be given the new infobox instead of that which they presently have (they are far better known for other things but were indeed also noted composers):

Some more extremely notable composers with an infobox that could be replaced with the new one:

Those already mentioned in my post above who could also get the new box instead of the one they presently have:

Finally, here is one extremely questionable article edited primarily by one editor using two consecutive accounts:

Each of these articles needs checking out and the cats verifying. I might send the last to AfD, in fact. In the mean time, I'll do what I can to sort out some of the above articles --Jubilee♫clipman 09:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry....questioning Gershwin? What the hell are you smoking? Not to mention Anderson, Piazzolla and Joplin, and thinking Bennett (who wrote one of the most frequetly played wind ensemble pieces) not a classical composer? And Harty...I for one didn't even know he was anything BUT a composer as far as notability, but that one's probably my fault. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you misread me, Melodia. I said that Gershwin et al "might be questioned" by some: Gershwin is usually thought of as a Jazz composer (even his piano concerto is sometimes seen as a Jazz concerto); not that many people know that Joplin wrote an opera (and ragtime is more often thought of as "proto-jazz" than "classical" by the public); Anderson might be thought of as a pop-music composer rather than a clasical composer; and Piazolla is best known as a composer of tangos (which are, again, not usually thought of as "classical" by most people). As for Harty: have you read his article recently? Anyway, I really do think of him as a conductor who championed Berlioz and also happened to compose (the only work of his I have heard is An Irish Symphony and I don't remember being all that impressed). Anyway, the point of the first set of lists was to highlight articles that are either miscatted or might be thought of as miscatted after looking at the articles. The second set really highlights articles that might benfit from the new box (if it survives). Ignore my commentry and look at the articles: do they really do justice to the person; are they really correctly catted? BTW, my baccy tastes great: should I pass the Hookah around? --Jubilee♫clipman 15:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a note to say that a number of the above composers, most notably Humperdinck, fall within the scope of WikiProject Opera. I can't say that I would be very happy for opera composer articles to be subjected to random infobox creep. Maybe if Project members agreed to OK the new box provided it was implemented by the Composers Project ... but we haven't had that discussion yet. And not until Pigs start Flying will Template:Infobox musical artist be acceptable to many/most/all of us. --GuillaumeTell 17:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This isn't random infobox creep, GT, every single one of the above articles already has an infobox. The question is: what do we do to deal with those present boxes? We can't delete them wholesale (disruptive) and we can't live with having inapproprate boxes in composer and musician articles: the only solution seems to be to use the new box, as far as I can tell, and the consensus here seems to be that this is the correct interpretation of the facts. Am I wrong? BTW, I like your passing allusion to Andy...! --Jubilee♫clipman 17:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What I think I meant was that if one opera composer (say, Humperdinck, who didn't write anything much else) has been given an infobox - whether an appropriate or inappropriate one - then people will start sticking them on to other articles for composers who are primarily opera composers - Verdi, Puccini, Gluck, Rossini, Wagner et al, and things will get worse and worse. At the moment, if your lists above are accurate, and I'm sure they are, not very many (primarily) opera composers have infoboxes, and I'd be entirely happy to remove all of them. I'm not going to repeat Opera Project members' views on infoboxes, which have been reiterated ad nauseum, but obviously there is room for discussion between the Opera Project and the Composers Project (and the Music Theatre people, etc.) where opera isn't a composer's primary activity. --GuillaumeTell 21:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This scan takes category:Opera composers as its point of reference. I only recognise a handful of names, though you will recognise far more. Good, bad? --Jubilee♫clipman 21:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Good (IMO), in fact:
  • Names I recognise as particularly relevant to the Opera Project (though it depends on how one defines Opera, as ever): Fauré, Barber, Fibich, Humperdinck, Gershwin (Porgy and Bess certainly).
  • Names I regard as peripherally relevant: Vives (Zarzuela), Pound (maverick), Telgmann (operetta), Chisholm (Janacek expert), Dessau (contemporary of Weill).
  • Names I recognise but not for operas: Theodorakis (Never on Sunday), Waters (uh, Pink Floyd?), Kreisler (violinist and pasticheur), Swann (Emily Butter), Sor (guitar music), Harrison (conductor of the orchestra in Hastings where I was born)
  • Names that mean nothing to me: everyone else.
Encouraging! --GuillaumeTell 23:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Waters: Ça Ira --Jubilee♫clipman 23:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, Humperdinck has had a box since March 2008, whatever that proves --Jubilee♫clipman 21:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Not a lot. --GuillaumeTell 23:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure any of these scans prove much, now I think on... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What's the goal with the composer cat? Is it for people who were primarily notable for composing, or for anyone that ever published anything, or something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
As I see it, it is a container cat for the more specific categories such as Category:Romantic composers etc. As such it should be empty of all but those categories. My scan dug down 5 levels into the subcats: none of the above are in the top-level cat. As regards the goal of the specific categories, i.e. whether they are "for people who were primarily notable for composing, or for anyone that ever published anything, or something else", I am unclear. I would favour the first interpretation, though, given that many great people have composed music for personal use or even for publication but that music is still entirely non-notable. The four people above who "may or may not be correctly catted" actually did write noted music now I think about it more. However, a major philosopher who happened to dash off a few ditties for his mates while they all gathered around the piano almost certainly does not warrent inclusion in one of those cats, even if those ditties were written down and dished out to said mates. Unless those ditties actually became notable, of course. Any other thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 21:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Archive_31&oldid=1088216873"