Jump to content

Talk:Charles Mackerras

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Postnominal "AC"

[edit]

The "AC" postnominal in this person's full name links to the disambiguation page AC. Could you please refer to this page, the postnominals section, and indicate what the meaning of this is? In my opinion, the link should go to the society/organization of which he is a member for which the letters stand for. Thanks. Courtland 22:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Authenticity

[edit]

He has often been careful to give historically authentic performances of these works: in a 1965 performance of The Marriage of Figaro he ensured that ornamentation was added in a way that Mozart would have recognised. This puzzles me. the second part of the sentence seems to imply that he wasn't always as authentic as the first part makes out. HenryFlower 08:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I rather think the confusion over the three refs to the Gramophone article were caused by the conflation of Notes and References. Date and page ref now added, but it looks a bit odd to my eye. Tim Riley 09:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre!

[edit]

This article is in severe need of reorganisation - just about all that stuff in the footnotes should be in the article. Can anyone remember who he succeeded at ENO and/or WNO? I'm just populating Category:Music directors (opera) and a couple of succession boxes here would be handy. --GuillaumeTell 16:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point, it was a previous editor's slip of the fingers that accidentally banished half the text to the footnotes - now fixed. On the others, I'll have a rummage and report back. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useful source for biographical information

[edit]

[1]. I've assigned it <ref name="tele"/>. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I assigned it <ref name="Telegraph"/> earlier. ;) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 20:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image: File:Sir Charles.jpg

[edit]

i think the very (very, very, very) long discussion to follow misses the point: it is important (for reasons that are unfathomable to me) for a wikipedia biographical article to choose an image of the subject that is (1) outdated, (2) unflattering, (3) unrecognizable. whether that photo is "free" or "PD" or whatever is really a trivial issue. i won't judge whether the photo currently on offer for mackerras is outdated -- because, alas, he is deceased -- but it passes with flying colors on points (2) and (3). normally, for rock stars, movie stars and other glitterati the standard wiki practice is to choose a photo with a microphone occluding the face, especially when it covers the nose or mouth and is a photo from ComicCon, SWSW, Toronto film festival or some other glitterati hive. (check out the current photo of fiona apple, for example.) however, i commend the current photo -- where almost the entire face is in shadow -- because this use of shadow is a new and creative interpretation of the wikipedia photo style guidelines, and i want to commend the person who chose and inserted this photo for their fine sense of wiki style. (perhaps s/he was only imitating the current photo for john coltrane.) Drollere (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before resorting to the use of a non-free image, please at least try and request a free one. There are plenty of him on Flickr- sadly, none are (legitimately) freely released. Yet. J Milburn (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until a free image is obtained, there is no reason to remove the fair use image. The biggest problem most casual readers of the encyclopedia have with Wikipedia is the lack of images in most articles! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Way, way, way wrong. We use a non-free image as a last restort, not "until something better comes along". Have you tried requesting an image? J Milburn (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image that was up there was removed because it was in fact an image of Roman Polanski - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 12:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was an image placed there because (AGF) someone misunderstood the layout on the mainpage and thought it was Mackerras, it's not related to the image being discussed here. David Underdown (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the image in question, which is, indeed, an image of Mackerras: File:Sir Charles.jpg . J. Milburn: You know very well that by deleting the image from the article, you doom it to the "orphaned image" pile where it will be deleted, and thus you destroy something good and useful. Now there is no image on this article. This makes me very sad! Why can't we use a fair use image until a free image is made available? I think it is absolutely wrong to remove an image from an article simply because you think there must be a free one somewhere in the world. If you are willing to request permission, that's great, but you should not try to force other editors to do it by removing and thus destroying perfectly good fair use images. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use non-free images until a free image is found, we use non-free images if and only if a non-free image is not possible. J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the non-free image policy says. Your interpretation of the policy just means that this article is not illustrated at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been more than two days now, that this article has had no image of its subject. Therefore, I have now replaced the fair use image of Mackerras. If anyone can find a free image, of course it will replace the fair-use one. Here is why it passes the criteria: 1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.

No free equivalent is available, and the subject is deceased.

2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

The image is of far lower resolution than the original and is unsuitable for commercial use.

3. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.

The article has no other image.

4. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.

The image is of low resolution.

5. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.

The image is from a publicity poster and so it has been published and publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.

6. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.

The image is encyclopedic as it is an image of the subject of the article.

7. Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.

The image meets the policy in all respects

8. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.

The image is used in one article.

9. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Without the image, there would be no visual representation of the subject of the article, so its presence significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic.

10. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)

The image is only in an article in the article namespace.

11. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following: Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#When uploading an image.

The image description page identifies the source of the material as a scan of a publicity poster.

12. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.

The article has an appropriate licensing tag.

13. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

A fair use rationale is given.
Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

==Fair u Pefectly valid use of a non-free image, properly tagged and with a non-free use rationale - one of the most detailed I've ever seen on Wiki. Jack1956 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to convince a Flickr user to release an image - I've had previous success with Paul Keating, Gary Bettman, Neil Young, Ian Hislop, etc. Connormahtalk 18:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

[edit]

Apropos of the above, I have tried for a free image via three sometimes fruitful sources: two London libraries and one university library. No luck. I am pretty sure that fair use - non-free is wholly applicable here. Tim riley (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try requesting one from Flickr, there are a few possibilities there. Alternatively, this article is receiving a lot of attention, and he has only just died- there would be every possibility of a free image coming up soon. Ssilvers, you're being downright disruptive now. If you honestly don't understand why you're wrong, that's fine, just avoid NFC altogether. However, use of this image now is not acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try Flickr now. Like I've said, I've have previous successes there, I may come by one. Connormahtalk 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sent in a message regarding [2]. I'll keep you guys updated. Connormahtalk 19:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Musicmum's willing to share, this one is great. This is another nice one. J Milburn (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for a response to my first message - double messages are always a bit awkward to send. Like I said, I'll keep you updated. Connormahtalk 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's wise, we want something from him, we should not pester. If this does not pan out, why not restore the image and have a deletion debate? Speaking as an admin, I generally will delete an image on my own only if it is noncontroversial or a clear copyvio. It looks to me like, as Jack1956 notes, the fair use rationale seems valid, though I have not had time to study it in detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it because it was repeatedly added to the article when it was not required. If all reasonable efforts to obtain a free image come to nothing, and if we leave the article (which is currently receiving a lot of attention) for a couple of weeks with "replace this image", I would have no objection to an image (preferably a non-commercial one, or one with a free-ish license if possible) being used under the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say in NFCC that there is a need to wait while someone on flikr decides whether to grant us a free licence? And obviously your comment about the free ish image is good practice, but I am not certain it is policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#1- if a non-free image is replaceable, it may not be used. Until we have determined that it is not replaceable (as in, waited to see if a free image is possible) we cannot use it. Simple. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article still has no image of the subject. User:J Milburn removed the image File:Sir Charles.jpg from the article on 15 July, and I disagreed with him about this, attempting twice to replace it. J Milburn reverted this, removing the image, and has used his administrator tools to delete it, even though he is involved in a content dispute about it. All of the editors above agree that it is a valid fair use image and should be used in this article under the NFCC guidelines. There is no free image of this subject. Please reinstate this image, J. Milburn. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait; there is no deadline. As I say, if reasonable efforts have ben made and there is still nothing in two weeks, we can reinstate the non-free image. If you're eager for there to be an illustration, put some effort into aquiring a free one. That would be a much better way to spend your time than complaining here. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the original image should be restored to the article until such time as a free image is available. I felt that the image was properly, comprehensively and legitimately tagged and should have remained in the article until such time as a free image was found. I also was rather surprised at how quickly the image disappeared without time to discuss the matter properly. It was not nominated for deletion - it just went. Jack1956 (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said more than enough times, we do not use non-free images until free images turn up; we use non-free images if and only if there is no reasonable possibility of a free image being acquired. So no, the old image should not be restored "until such time as a free image is available". Please take a look at our non-free content criteria, and, as above, if you are keen to see an image, put some effort into getting hold of a free one. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously done so, as described above. I am bound to say that J Milburn's personal interpretation of the WP guidelines seems to me sui generis. He/she is an administrator, and has powers accordingly, but I cannot feel that he/she has used them wisely or logically in this case. - Tim riley (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the policy. That's what it says; there's no interpretation in place here. Until we are sure that there is no possibility of a free image, we can't use a non-free image. There really is no need for this "debate". J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you were a regular editor of this article while the subject was still alive, yet were still all too happy to leave a non-free image in place in the article lead, really reveals a lot about your understanding of our NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, I am afraid that it is you who do not understand the Wikipedia image policies or the copyright laws underlying them. Your arrogance and misuse of the admin tools here are really very disturbing. The policy says: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Here, no free equivalent is available, and the subject is deceased. Your actions have deprived the public of seeing an image of the subject of this article during nearly the entire period that the article was mentioned on the Main Page. That is very sad. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...And, with severe danger of repeating myself, do we know that a free image is not available? Not until we have given it some time, and made some effort to acquire one. (This is nothing to do with copyright law, don't complicate things.) There has been no arrogance and no misuse of admin tools; it is regrettable that we did not have an image of the subject, but if we don't have a free one, so be it. Equally, we have had unillustrated featured articles that have appeared on the main page. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot possibly understand the NFCC guidelines unless you have bothered to educate yourself about U.S. copyright law and the fair use doctrine, since the NFCC is a guideline intended to protect the encyclopedia under the copyright laws. That is the definition of arrogance. You are saying: "I am ignorant, and you must do what I say" -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, I'm not even from the US. I don't pretend to know anything about US copyright law. I do not need to know anything about it to understand and enforce our non-free content criteria; equally, I can know everything about our BLP policy without knowing the first thing about libel. I've no interest in arguing about legalities, and I really don't see what you hope to achieve by calling me what you are doing. Can we stick to the issue, please? J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've reached an agreement with the Flickr user - hopefully I can get it uploaded in the next couple days. Connormahtalk 03:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There we go, thank you. Clear evidence that the image was replaceable all along. Great work Connormah. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totality

[edit]

Early life and background "He was the eldest of seven children, including five brothers (names of four brothers) and two sisters (names of two sisters)." Seven does not equal four + two. Perhaps it should read, "He was the eldest of seven children, including (names of four brothers and two sisters)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.215.133 (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postnominals and obituaries

[edit]

This edit, with which I entirely agree, made me remember Mackerras's obituary by Michael Shmith in The Age (16 July), which started out very badly. It had the following postnominals: AC, CH, KBE, CBE. Now, he wasn't a KBE at all; but even if he had been, his KBE would have subsumed his CBE, so it would have been just AC, CH, KBE. Then it said he died on 15 July; it may have been 15 July in Oz, but he died in London, where it was the 14th. The article proper seemed to be OK otherwise. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to forget that most Commonwealth citizens outside the armed forces will be made Knight Bachelor, not KBE, and so as soon as they see Sir ... they assume that OBE CBE or MBE following the name must be wrong. I must admit I was initially quite surprised to see AC before CH, but I actually went and chekced the order of wear before donig anything else. Apropos my correction of the "correction", see User talk:Accurate11#Charles Mackerras... David Underdown (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charles Mackerras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Charles Mackerras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New legacy section

[edit]

Hello Fellow Editors,

I have added a legacy section and am certain there will be plenty more that belongs in it, but for now I wanted to be sure the reading room note was there, as it's been 5 years now. I hope people will soon add to the section! Thanks. gobears87 (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Mackerras&oldid=1212754365"