Talk:Albert Ketèlbey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Albert Ketèlbey is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 9, 2016.
January 16, 2016 Featured article candidate Promoted


"His most famous compositions include . . . Phantasy for String Quartet Listed but never found (1915)" --- does this make sense to anyone else? It doesn't seem that a lost work could be one of his most famous. Jason Fruit (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


The original author of this article is a supporter of infoboxes and therefore this article should have one. The infobox makes the article look much better as it balances the lead section, and occupying the whitespace at the top right with both image and text creates a much more pleasant aesthetic effect. --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, User:RexxS. I agree that the infobox improves the article, not only aesthetically, but also in terms of providing a handy quick overview to our readers, and by emitting machine-readable metadata. It's a win-win-win scenario! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a ghastly step backwards, but if you really wish to own the top right hand corners of every article, you'll only bully, bluster and lie your way into doing so, as you have done time and time again. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Whoa people, let's take a big, deep breath. I'd say we can respect article creators and lead editors - in both directions. Montanabw(talk) 03:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So because Pigsonthewing created a stub 11 years ago it's his call on the infobox?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

When you created a stub on a musician, it was your call which I couldn't change, not by any expansion, - per arbcom decision. That should go both ways, no? I am not in the mood for ibox discussions, getting ready for holidays. Support this infobox, regardless of who created the article,unless you find a better solution to have the data of birth and death together, which Persondata used to supply.


If you are going to claim you wrote the BCC page (believable, given the errors it contains), you need to note that somewhere on this talk page. You also need to provide a citation on the page. – SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

FFS Pigswill, instead of your knee-jerk reversions, see the thread on MRG's talk page (referred to in the edit summary), and do the fecking thing properly, rather than just edit warring to keep an unsourced COPYVIO in place. – SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
That sort of name-calling is beneath you. Please remove it. There is no copyvio and Moonriddengirl was clear: "It wouldn't need to be removed from a copyright standpoint, but attributed ... to the government source until he demonstrates authorship." I've added an attribution at the top of this page, for the moment, as an aid to our re-users. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You may have added an attribution, but given the laughably inaccurate information on the BCC page, it's not a reliable source, especially as no-one has bothered to add a fecking citation to the article! Attribution is one thing, but it's still a lazy-arsed cut and paste job. It's about as sub-standard a piece of work as anyone can achieve. – SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information[edit]

We are not in a position to dictate to readers how much detail they may wish to have about this subject. It is quite common for biographies to include detail such as the address where the subject lived, particularly when the address still exists. After all, if not for that curiosity, we would never have blue plaques on buildings where their notable subjects lived. I agree that there will always have to be a balance between the amount of detail and breadth of coverage, but I don't feel that:

  • The 1901 census shows him living with his parents and four siblings, at 168, Antrobus Road, Handsworth, Staffordshire (now Birmingham).[1]

    is "crap", but rather a perfectly encyclopedic detail showing that Ketèlbey was registered as still resident with his parents in his mid-twenties, despite also living in a house in Bruton Street, London. That may, of course, have been symptomatic of how his father viewed his career at the time, and perhaps there is some published analysis that could expand on his relationships at that stage. In any case, I find such unexpected facts to be interesting and I suspect that I wouldn't be the only one. I'd like to see that paragraph and source returned to the article. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    What nonsense. Editorial discretion is exercised at all levels of articles to ensure we are not lumbered with waffling bloated rubbish filled with true but entirely useless waffle. The census "information" is an excellent example of such crap. It's also entirely spurious (and OR) to state that "Ketèlbey was registered as still resident with his parents" based on such a scant and misleading "fact". – SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    It really is most unhelpful - and happily rare in my experience - to have substantial changes to an article while it is being peer reviewed. It is not very fair to those who are kind enough to peer review if they find the text is suddenly unstable. Constructive comments at PR would be most welcome, naturally. Tim riley talk 18:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Rare or not, PR doesn't give you, Schro or anyone else a lock on an article nor exempt it from Wikipedias norms or policies. Any instability is your choice, though your unnecessary edit warring. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    [ec] And yet, when editorial discretion other than yours is exercised, you once again become abusive. And yes, that would indeed by "OR", but that's not what the paragraph in question said; the word "still" was not used. Without your addition of that word, it's not "OR", it's what the source says. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    As I have said, constructive contributions to the peer review would be most welcome. The path to FA is hard, as I'm sure you know, and all help is gratefully received. Tim riley talk 18:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    No-one has strayed from Wiki norms or policies, despite you insinuation to the contrary. We have standards that the addition failed to live up to and it was removed. It's a poor addition that if left in during PR or FAC would be commented on negatively by anyone adhering to high standards. That is the only basis for its removal, no others. – SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Absolute nonsense. You don't define standards and trying to claim special privilege for your own personal preferences is inimical to collegial editing. Removal of well-sourced, relevant content is disruptive editing and you need to be looking for consensus, not calling other editors' contributions "waffling bloated rubbish". in addition, you clearly have no idea what original research means. He was registered in the 1901 census as living at the same address as his parents and siblings, and that is a fact. Stating that in the article is cannot possibly be OR, even by your distorted perspective. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    I have neither tried to define standards, nor claim special privilege, so could you try and keep your ad hominem comments on the truthful side do have an idea of OR: it appears either you do not, or you fail to grasp what the census is. It means he was present in the property on one night. Nothing more, nothing less. To try and claim some residential status is very much in the OR camp, and really does back up the "waffle" status. – SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't need your patronising, as I've been filling in census forms on behalf of myself and the members of my household for longer than you've been alive. The relevant legislation is Census Act 1920, Schedule Section 1 which requires the "Place of abode". It would take research to determine whether Albert was actually resident with his parents in 1901 or merely visiting, and you'll note that it was precisely the existence of such further research that I was speculating on. I'll repeat that I believe many readers would find it intriguing that Albert was seemingly working in London, but still appeared on his parents' census return, sufficiently so to make the inclusion of that information worthwhile. All I've heard from you so far is "IDON'TLIKEIT" and I'm not prepared to accept your bluster in place of good reasoning. --RexxS (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    "I've been filling in census forms on behalf of myself and the members of my household for longer than you've been alive."Thanks for the further ad hominem comment: you know nothing about me rex, so don't try to double guess me, or play silly buggers with me. The "fact" of where he was on one particular night in 1901 still means nothing (and I really don't know why you've quoted 1920 legislation for the 1901 census...) All Ive heard from you is obstreperous balls trying to try and force meaningless dross into the article without any context. Any coments on why it is important? Any comments on how it informs or educates us as to what sort of individual he was, or how it influenced his music? - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well, if you finally want to engage in a debate about the actual issues, I'll happily oblige. Not only does the census information give us the address where the Ketèlbey family lived, but it raises the question of why Albert was still registered at his parents' home in 1901, while as far as we know he was living and working in London at the time. Was he just coincidentally visiting his parents at the time? Did his father still regard him as resident at home and merely living in 'digs' in London? Or was he out of work and living back at home in 1901? It's not our place to do research, of course, but it offers the possibility that someone will have done that research and if so, that might shed more light on Albert's relationship with his father, or on the success of his career in his mid-twenties. The simpler issue is that we have his exact address for his early life, and I can see no reason why that should not be included in his biography. It is no less important than the maiden name of his mother or the number of siblings, neither of which are particularly relevant to an understanding of a subject's work, but nevertheless are routinely included in biographies when those facts are known. Now, you explain why you are opposed to including information that is commonly found in other biographies, including featured articles of composers. --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    There is nothing there that suggests anything remotely encyclopaedic if included. "Facts" without context anywhere else on the page are utterly pointless and helps no-one understand anything. – SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Both "Albert William Ketèlbey was born on 9 August 1875 at 41, Alma Street, in the Lozells district of Aston, Birmingham, England" and "The 1901 census shows him living with his parents and four siblings, at 168, Antrobus Road, Handsworth, Staffordshire (now Birmingham)" are perfectly encyclopedic statements. The fact that he was born at 41 Alma Street and his family was living at 168 Antrobus Road in 1901 are neither no more nor no less encyclopedic or lacking in context than the fact that he was born in Birmingham, or the fact that he was born in August, or the fact that his father's name was George Henry. But we still routinely include these facts because we are not arrogant enough to suggest that we know best what facts the readers should be able to see. Your argument that all facts have to meet your standard of helping understanding is clearly meritless. This is an encyclopedia and sometimes we just need to present facts. --RexxS (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is nothing "demonstrably false" about my opinion, which is about the census "information". Your arrogance in assuming you are right simply because you think so, really is quite obnoxious. Get a consensus from others to include dross, because at the moment there is none. I do not intend to continue with such a pointless discussion with such an inflexible mindset as yours. Time to do something constructive. – SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    It is clear that very similar information is included in other comparable articles, some of which are FAs. That makes it clear that your opinion is not conformant with regular practice on Wikipedia. That is my justification and your removal of sourced information along with this refusal to debate the issues is disruptive. Unless you can justify your opinion, which is the result of your own inflexible mindset, not mine, I will seek sanctions against you if you again choose to disrupt normal editing at this article. Believe me, I'd much rather not, but I will not allow you to dictate content purely on the basis of what you like or dislike. --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Disruptive? Utter balls. There is no consensus to include the census information so YOU need to seek and get the consensus to add dross to the article. There is none yet. Go ahead and try and get sanctions if you wish to: your passive-aggressive stance and threats here and on talk pages is rapidly approaching the level of trolling, and this will undoubtedly be seen as such by a wider audience. – SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    Neither I nor anyone else needs consensus (which you take to be your permission) to added properly sourced, relevant content to an article. What you call "dross" is the kind of encyclopedic information we find in other comparable articles and belongs in this article. You have far too often hidden behind claims of 'no consensus' to force your personal preferences onto articles against rational argument. Such is the case here. You don't own this article, much as you'd like to think otherwise, and your blustering and edit-warring needs to stop now. Review other composer articles that contain the same level of detail (such as the street address) and accept that you're wrong here. I'd rather move forward with some degree of concord, rather than having to see you sanctioned again because you can't accept that other editors' opinions are worth the same as yours. --RexxS (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    How tiresome. It's nothing to do with my "permission": I don't agree with it for the reasons I have outlined. Tim does not for the reason he has given and, on the PR page, @Dank: has also given his opinion to leave it out. Time to stop threatening me – you can't bluster, bully or bullshit me rex. Your attempts at ownership of this are not going to succeed. Time for you play nice and try to be constructive. – SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    Replying to the ping: I don't recall seeing "The census data show them at such-and-such an address" in a Featured Article (or even suggested at FAC) before, but I'll be happy to take another look (in the open Peer Review, not here) if someone wants to point me to relevant FAs. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

    Citation style[edit]

    I've reverted the removal of the Birmingham Post source. It was removed on the spurious grounds of WP:CITEVAR. CITEVAR advises us not to "attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved." The first inline citations were added in this edit on 6 June 2011 and they used the {{cite web}} template. There has been no discussion or consensus established to alter that style since then, so all inline citations should be consistent with the CS1 templates. --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

    Stop bloody edit warring rex. Potw added this this morning and it was reverted. Your on-going edit warring is neither helpful nor constructive. As to the citation, it's not good enough as it stands, and the information is pointless fluff. – SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    If Rex wants to change all the citations to a template style I should have no objections. I know my co-editor prefers templates, and used the non-template style out of kindness to me, as I am not very adept. But we really must be consistent throughout. I don't for a moment imagine that the one inconsistent citation was used maliciously, but inconsistent referencing will sink an article at FAC. I have witnessed it, and it is not nice to see. I'll remove the inconsistent citation and perhaps Rex will be so kind as to use the prevalent style, or alternatively to change all the others. Tim riley talk 18:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Tim: You might like to check the edit history; you have more than one co-editor on this article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    Come, come, Andy. You know perfectly well what I am talking about. SchroCat and I have worked together for some weeks on improving this article from its existing poor state, and the PR is jointly nominated by us. Do look in, if you would like to make some constructive contributions. Tim riley talk 19:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    You have indeed worked together; have a biscuit. However, you must work with more people than just each other. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    No need to be so grudging, Andy. Do try to be positive and look in at the PR. You can help us get the article to FAC, where you'll find we work with lots of other people. Tim riley talk 21:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's really not worth the hassle: there were more citation needed tags than sources used. I think the overly finicky idea of trying to cause problems just ce cause of a change to the style of TWO references is questionable, to be honest. It makes me wonder why we bother trying to improve things to be honest. – SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'd be more than happy to regularise the citations used into a consistent CS1 style using the CS1 templates. However, before I do, I should point out that to cite books that appear multiple times with different pages really requires the use of either {{harvnb}} or {{sfn}} within the text in conjunction with the CS1 {{cite book}} templates used in the Sources section. Do either of you have any preference between harvb and sfn - I personally prefer the latter as it automatically takes care of duplicates, but YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    All Greek to me. Happy to leave it to the experts. Tim riley talk 19:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    I've made a start on regularising the citations. I should be able to finish them by tomorrow, but please let me know if you want any tweaks to the detail (e.g. year in parentheses or no period at the end). --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


    Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Albert Ketèlbey --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

    Wireless Orchestra[edit]

    My addition, after the text:

    By the early 1930s over 1,500 broadcasts of his work were made on BBC Radio in a year


    (including many, starting in 1926, where he conducted the Wireless Orchestra<ref name="RT">{{cite web|url=|title=Search Results for "Albert Ketèlbey"|work=[[Radio Times]]|accessdate=5 July 2016}}</ref>),

    was reverted with the edit summary "WO work already mentioned". However, the only other mention of the WO in the article is:

    He undertook annual tours of Britain, conducting his music with municipal orchestras, and also worked with the BBC Wireless Orchestra.

    which neither mentions that he conducted the WO, nor that the performances were broadcast, nor the date of the first such broadcast. The revert also removed the useful source. It should of course, be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

    Superfluous fluff – nothing "of course" about it. – SchroCat (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    Quite so, and parenthetically I noticed "Wireless Orchestra" bolded by our excellent colleague Andy in the BBCSO article. Not really useful, I thought, though fairly innocuous. If Andy or anyone else likes to create an article on the Wireless Orchestra it would perhaps be another matter; I might have had a go myself, but the Wireless Orchestra isn't really a notable subject. I know from my reading for the BBCSO article that "Wireless Orchestra" was never an established ensemble and was just a label applied to a much deplored ad hoc assemblage, packed with substitute players under the deputy system then still prevailing in London. Tim riley talk 19:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

    Birth name[edit]

    There are numerous sources which say or discuss whether he was born "William Aston". Examples include:

    • Classic CD issues 69-74 page 16 "Further to last month's query on Ketelbey's name, the composer's birth certficate gives his parents as George Henry..."
    • The Encyclopedia of Popular Music page 806 "Ketelbey, Albert William b. William Aston"
    • The Gramophone volume 56/1 page 454 "Reviewing a record of Ketèlbey orchestral pieces (July, page 261), I commented on the sleeve-note's suggestion that the name Ketèlbey was a pseudonym of William Aston."
    • Greene's Biographical Encyclopedia of Composers page 1041 "There is a persistent legend that Ketèlbey's real name was William Aston..."
    • The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music page 2287 "Ketelbey, Albert William b. William Aston"
    • The Heritage Encyclopedia of Band Music page 25 "ASTON, WILLIAM (l875-l959) William Aston, who composed under the pseudonyms Albert W. Ketelbey ..."
    • Répertitres page 435 "Albert (William) Ketèlbey (orig William Aston..."

    Has anyone got to the bottom of this? The Classic CD item makes a reference to his birth certificate but I can only see a snippet. Andrew D. (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

    • Yes, Sant's biography is clear on this (after examining the birth certificate), and his name appears as Albert William Ketelbey. Greene's is right: the "Aston" name is little more than a legend. - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Sant says on page 11

      Indeed as recently as the early 1970s Aston was believed by many to be his real name, until in January 1976, Fred Norris of the Birmingham Evening Mail put this theory to flight, when during his own research work he un-earthed a copy of Albert William KETELBEY's original birth certificate. Remarkably there are still some writers who do not believe his name was Ketelbey...

    We have a brief mention of the "William Aston" name in a footnote. As this was a common misconception, perhaps we should say more? Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks Andrew - now added. - SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

    Part of the misunderstanding is that his surname is unusual/ rare and added to that his affectation in adding the inflection caused more confusion as to whether it was genuine. He did use pseudonyms as well. On this point I added to a footnote - not the main text - the fact that there is a small place name 'Kettelby/ Kettleby' a part of Bigby in Lincolnshire to show that his ancestors derived their name from an English place name. It is a minor point but an enlightening one. (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Tony S