Template talk:Carl Michael Bellman

Purpose of template

For the avoidance of doubt, this template is to enable navigation of the articles about Sweden's national bard, Bellman, his works, the places and people associated with him in his lifetime and named in his works, and people and organisations significantly linked to him subsequently, including museums, musical interpreters of his work, and scholars of his work. The existence of a Bellman Museum and a Bellman Society should indicate something of his importance, and the need for a template to facilitate navigation of all of these aspects of his life, work, and legacy, all of which are amply documented in the articles. I suppose we could call the template 'Bellman, his works, places, people, influences, interpreters, and scholarship' but I think the current title is more digestible. If anyone has a better suggestion for naming it, then feel free to speak up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this navbox is an absolute catastrophe. Why are topics such as alcoholism included (to name one of many problematic entries)? This is not something that is specific to Bellman. Södermalm is an area of Stockholm and is not solely associated with Bellman. The Bible? Joakim Thåström? etc, etc. The connections here are tangential and unsuitable for inclusion here. Inclusion here is WP:UNDUE as is the transclusion of the navbox on a lot of the pages. Not to mention all the unlinked text which does not aid navigation in any way. What a mess! I think you're missing the point as to what a navbox is actually for. --woodensuperman 11:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that {{August Strindberg}} does not suffer from the inclusion of inappropriate extraneous and tangential links. --woodensuperman 11:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please maintain civility (WP:CIVIL) and excessively colourful language ("absolute catastrophe"), and avoid all kinds of personal attack (WP:NPA) with "you're missing the point" and such like talk.

There is, to repeat my edit comments, no requirement at all to make categories exclusive: Shakespeare, the English equivalent of Bellman, appears in many categories, and the main Template:William Shakespeare both has his name (as this template has Bellman's), and has sections for Life and works, Legacy, Institutions, and Family, pretty much analogous with what we have here. There is no requirement, either, for navboxes to be exclusive: many subjects have a large number of navbars at the end, and rightly so. I do not agree, either, with your assertion of UNDUE as we are dealing here with a national bard, a figure of major importance in Scandinavia. The presence of a link on the template indicates a substantial role in Bellman's life and work (as with the mention of the Bible, obviously not a bidirectional link!) or that Bellman's works played a substantial role in the subject's life and works, as with the scholars and musicians who have interpreted and analysed him. The Bellman Museum and the Bellman Society are not "tangential" (you removed them from the template also) as their very existence is predicated on Bellman's fame; the interpreters who made it their life's work to perform his songs, and the scholars who devoted years of their lives to study, translate, and explicate his work are similarly intimately connected to him. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The difference between this and the {{William Shakespeare}} navbox, is that, for the most part, the entries in the Shakespeare navbox directly relate to him, and not to tangential topics such as Alcoholism, Demimonde, Drinking, Drunkenness, Elegiac, Prostitution, Satire, The Bible, Jupiter, Classical mythology (twice! and various characters from), Stockholm (and various locations within), etc., etc. These all need to be excised from the navbox, as this is not what a navbox is for. Navboxes should tie together closely-related articles, and allow navigation between them, not to link away to these general topics. Navboxes should only include articles which are specific to the topic. Like I said, it's a mess. It really needs WP:TNT and starting again from the ground up. --woodensuperman 13:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Bellman Museum and the Bellman Society don't have articles, they're repeat links to the main Bellman article. We should only link to each article once per navbox. --woodensuperman 13:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

There is some sense in what you say, but many of the items (his songs, etc) are obviously required, and the Museum and Society are ripe candidates for articles, so I don't see any need to start over. I shall slim things down sensibly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks :) If you are going to leave in the museum and the society, then they should be redirects to sections rather than piped links (See WP:BRINT: "where a redirect represents a distinct sub-topic within a larger article and is not merely a variant name, it is preferable to leave the redirect in the template"). --woodensuperman 13:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes. I still think it could use a bit more trimming. I'm not seeing a particularly strong link for Orphei Drängar, Hootenanny Singers, Michael Roberts, Hendrik Willem van Loon or Charles Wharton Stork, and I think the other singers, particularly Sven-Bertil Taube, need further consideration, as there is an WP:UNDUE issue placing the navbox on their pages, as it overshadows their other work. --woodensuperman 07:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Some danger of over-zealousness here, I suspect. Van Loon and Wharton Stork both published books on Bellman; Orphei Drängar are named for a Bellman phrase; Roberts made a translation; Taube was a well-known interpreter of the songs. The fact that the article on Taube is not so well-developed in other dimensions is not the Bellman department's fault and should be no hindrance to adding a well-deserved reciprocal connection. Articles are built in stages by volunteers, and saying we shouldn't place a brick because other obvious bricks are absent would grossly impede construction of the 'pedia in all directions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I still don't see these as close enough connections. Just because someone wrote a book on someone, doesn't make them worthy of inclusion. The book itself would be, and Fred Åkerström's album is, but the individuals are not, as the Bellman aspect is just one facet of their greater bodies of work. Look at Stork or van Loon - a small part of their careers - and it's the same for most of the other individuals. Like I said, inclusion and transclusion for these places WP:UNDUE importance on this one aspect. --woodensuperman 09:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Both Vreeswijk and Åkerström made interpreting Bellman's songs in their performances and recordings their life's work: it is what both men were mainly known for. This is my final contribution to this discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That's all very well, but it's not actually true, is it? Vreeswijk had a very varied career. Åkerström also had entire albums dedicated to other writers, and although his other Bellman albums should probably be added, the man himself and the other individuals I've mentioned should be removed. --woodensuperman 09:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree. It is obviously sensible to use the names (even if they didn't have articles, actually) as subgroup headings rather than having a totally flat list of albums, which I see you agree are to be included. Åkerström and Vreeswijk are very well known interpreters, and I've never heard it suggested anywhere else in many years of editing that there had to be a 100% involvement in both directions: both men devoted significant effort to their Bellman work, indeed probably more than anyone else before or since, so it just seems entirely unreasonable and illogical not to include them. I suggest we await neutral people's input. Meanwhile I will revert the most recent change only so the template remains in a pre-input state for independent discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course there should be involvement in both directions. There is absolutely no justification for inclusion of Orphei Drängar, Hootenanny Singers, Charles Wharton Stork and Sven-Bertil Taube. The connection is a minor part of any of those careers. And including the navbox on the pages of the others causes serious WP:UNDUE issues, overshadowing other aspects of their careers. --woodensuperman 14:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You are tilting at straw men on windmills, to mix some metaphors which seem apposite; you are overstating your case, and eliding partial truths into 100% but false absolutes.

• Windmill #1: I had already removed OD, HS, and the Taubes as relatively minor interpreters; Stork is in there only as a translator, which he undeniably is, though not a good one; and the "absolutely no justification" is untrue even for those minor cases--- there is some small justification for them, actually, though I'm happy to let that drop, (unless and until anyone feels like making an article about Evert Taube's Bellman album (yes, 100%). I suppose we might manage a short section on that with its own redirect perhaps, in which case it seems we would agree it would have to be included; but the age of the recording and its lack of popularity nowadays will make sourcing it difficult; it was undoubtedly notable in its time.). I note in passing that Paul Britten Austin wrote in 1967 that Sven-Bertil Taube's two Bellman albums "have sold more copies than any other disc, popular or classical, ever released in Sweden". I'll see if I can work upI have written a section in the S-B T article so we can have a redirect at least for those once-famous recordings; the evidence actually shows that he too was a major Bellman interpreter, but I've just added the album for now. I've also added Martin Best's Bellman album; it's discussed and cited in his article.

• Windmill #2: "Of course there should be involvement in both directions": well yes, some substantial involvement, but that does not equate by elision to some notional requirement for 100% exclusive involvement. Consider the case of David Garrick, rightly celebrated and categorised among the great "English male Shakespearean actors". Garrick did not only play Shakespeare - he had all manner of other roles. But we do not doubt that the categorisation is correct, whatever else he did, and that the story of Shakespeare in England over the centuries can hardly be told without mentioning Garrick. Well, the same goes for both Åkerström and Vreeswijk for the interpretation of Bellman in Sweden. They are major interpreters, no getting away from it.

On the navbox-on-people's pages issue, I think that is frankly a smokescreen; indeed, with respect, procedural nonsense. It is entirely right and normal for navbars to be added one by one as different people add different aspects of famous people's lives; some editor are expert in folk music, some in classical music, a few, seemingly, know a bit about Bellman's special musical style, and we can expect people to create and add navbars when they're ready and willing to volunteer their time. We can choose to show navbars expanded or collapsed, so there is no reason to worry if a navbar looks big when open; and when a person is clearly a major Bellman exponent, he or she can and should be given a navbar: it is in no way WP:UNDUE for someone who has devoted the time to learn, give concerts, and record Bellman albums - in Åkerström's case, three such -- to be included in a navbar, or for that navbar to be included in their article: such is normal (and good) Wikipedia editing. Whether there are other navbars there is no concern here; of course, editors who feel that a musician deserves better coverage are encouraged to add what they can. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)