Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Contemporary music task force/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Bannering composer BLPs not already bannered by this project

I have just realised how we can easily banner the unbannered BLPs belonging to this project. We can get a bot to check for those bannered by WP:Composers but not bannered by us. Presumeably a BLP on a composer is about a contemporary composer given both that they are still alive and have probably written music "in the last 50 years or so". Would that work? How do I set it up? Which Bot? --Jubilee♫clipman 06:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that idea would certainly work. As for which bot: that's a bit difficult. We had three reliable and cooperative bot owners: SatyrBot, ShepBot and Bot0612 – all of which seem to be currently inactive. Some bot owners have the attitude that they are in charge. They can make quite a mess, through not understanding the particular circumstances of the individual project. It only takes one mistake, one omission, or in some cases one comma, to create errors spread over hundreds of article. --Kleinzach 07:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Good. We'll have to think how to handle it but in theory we have a working solution to a nagging problem. Conductors, intrumentalists, theorists, etc, could be handled a similar way (using, say, the Classical Music project as a base). Not sure how to get rid of those we shouldn't have yet, though. Nor have I found a way to handle the dead people that should be but aren't in our project... First things first though: this is just thoughts for the future. --Jubilee♫clipman 08:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Zegers in Huddersfield

Elsjansen (talk · contribs) and an IP editor with a suspiciously similar style are currently engaged in a publicity drive for a minor composer Kristoffer Zegers, both here and on the Dutch Wikipedia. This has included adding him to the list of featured participants at the 2009 Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival. I removed him once, but he's back again. Huddersfield hosts dozens of composers each year, and Zegers only had one piece played in a community event, whereas the others listed (Jonathan Harvey, Louis Andriessen, Arditti Quartet, Nieuw Ensemble and musikFabrik) were in residence and involved in multiple events. I'm tempted to let it be for now — the whole Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival article could do with an overhaul, but I haven't time to deal with it now. If anyone has a spare eye not already fully occupied on the u-BLP cleanup, they might wish to watch out for what's going on here. --Deskford (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do with this type of possible selfpromo (we still have Concas and Carnevale etc to deal with, too) is to make a note somewhere and watchlist. Deskford: I suspect you are doing that already, so just continue to keep us informed now and then and let us know about "new" offenders. Everone else: when we have finished the more pressing stuff, we can have a good hard considered look at them all as a project. Thanks, Deskford! --Jubilee♫clipman 17:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Finished checking Unreferenced BLPs bannered by this project

There are a few outstanding questions and several Prods etc see the subpage; we are essentially done though. Great collaborative teamwork all round! --Jubilee♫clipman 05:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello dear Jubileeclipman, you are going to LOVE the below bot ;) Nice to see you again. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Okip! I'll check it out, thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bot which automatically updates unreferenced biography of living persons daily

RE: Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 34#Unreferenced biography of living persons bot to get projects involved in referencing.

Hello wikiproject, I requested a bot which will update unreferenced living people (BLPs) daily. User talk:Betacommand is willing to create this bot. Since you already have a /Unreferenced BLPs page, this shows your project really cares about this issue.

I just need a list of projects who would like to test this bot. Please let me know here if your project would like to do this. Thank you Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 19:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

jubliee, is this something your project would be interested in doing? A daily update on BLP articles? Okip (formerly Ikip) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I imagine it would be but we would have to discuss it thoroughly between us all first. I think the others are taking a deserved miniwikibreak at the moment going by the contrib histories, though. WP:composers might also be interested so we can ask them too. Thanks Okip! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Projectification"

Further to Okip's comments immeadiately above, I would like to alert the project to the proposals he has been coordinating. The main result is that we have a new process called Projectification, very similar to WP:Userfication but operatated by admins. A new unreferenced BLP will be moved to a subpage of the brand new project called Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons by an admin using Twinkle for Admins 6 hours after creation and the redirect speedy deleted. The article will sit there for 7 days and will then be deleted if no sources are added. The idea is still in development and yet to be proposed to the wider community. However, the project is up and running, processing several uBLPs by hand. The full discussion is in Okip's user space but participation is by invitation only: User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs#Projectification. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, participation in Okip's proposal discussions is open to all. Comments/ideas/proposals etc welcome! (Link immeadiately above.) Don't forget the RfC, too, which is now in its second stage: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people/Phase_II. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_33#Bot_to_move articles from main_space_to_Wikipedia:Article_Incubator
User:Tim1357 said he is willing to move articles to a project, but there must be consensus first. If this project would like to do this, and their is consensus, please let me know. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 07:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. We'll discuss it when the others get back from wikibreak. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

PROD of non-composers

The second was challenged and sourcing was found. I am still not convinced but also vote that we should just let it pass. The composer prods are over at WPcomposers. --Jubilee♫clipman 14:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  • First also now deprodded and sourced. No further issues to deal with beyond verification. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Composers highlighted in Talk:List of 21st-century classical composers

FWIW, I have been working on some composers on this list. So far I have completed a (start on) István Láng, and will shortly have ready an article on Rob du Bois. It may be self-evident, but in case it is not, editors should be aware that many of the other-language Wikipedia articles on these composers are completely unreferenced, and in some cases veer perilously close to copyvio, which makes a translation of the existing articles at least a dubious undertaking, if not an entirely unacceptable one. (This applies also to the two Ensemble articles listed, on nl:Ives Ensemble and nl:Klangforum Wien.) Of the articles referred to the Dutch Wikipedia, only one (nl:Otto Ketting) is properly referenced, and the only other one that is referenced at all is the one on du Bois, and the label "Externe link en bron" (External link and source) makes it fairly plain that the entire content is lifted bodily from that source: the Donemus webpage biography. I was surprised to discover that in fact there is a plenitude of readily available sources on this composer, as there must surely be also for such well-known figures as nl:Reinbert de Leeuw and nl:Jan van Vlijmen.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JK. I am getting back to that list after the weekend. There are a few loose ends to tidy up like the Van Dillen AfD and the misbannered composers etc. There a quite a few people to add actually, if truth be told. I'm working on one now: Mark Engebretson which was deleted in 2006 for copyvio. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
In case you forgot or didn't know, I am creating a huge list out of that list-article: User:Jubileeclipman/List of problematic 21st-century composer articles. I was taken off it to help ref the uBLPs. It is the verification and, especially, the listing work that I am restarting after the weekend. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I was aware that you have been doing yeoman's work on these matters, but somehow had overlooked the List of problematic articles. I just dipped into it and immediately noticed the article on Roberto García Morillo had been tagged for total lack of references since November 2007! I took care of that, but I despair at how many dozens of other composers there are in the list who probably also, like García Morillo, have entries in the New Grove or other obvious sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed... The list (hopefully) should now contain fewer uBLPs... OTOH, I had better check every article is properly catted and bannered: some of these people won't have turned up in any of our CatScans simply because they are not catted/bannered for anyone/thing... Just as well we have a list, too. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Oscar van Dillen withdrawn

--Jubilee♫clipman 22:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Various issues needing clearer guidelines and fuller discussion to achieve consensus

Note Following on from all the activity over the last two or three months (including both the review of the List of 21st-century classical composers and the uBLP drama as well as other issues we have discussed), I have started to review our project's guidelines and activity. Do we cover non-composers, for example? How can we realistically source less-well-known notable people (living or not)? Should we deal exclusively with composer BLPs? There are several other issues, too.

User:Jubileeclipman/CTM contains my thoughts on these issues so far. I will add to it as I go along. My checking of the Big List will resume shortly, too, in tandem with that page. Indeed, the checks I make to those articles will help to highlight and clarify the precise problems we face. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I've started to make some comments. Just to state the (perhaps) obvious: I think we should be covering contemporary music works as well as people. --Kleinzach 00:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes: indeed. These preliminary doodles are based on our recent experience. You are right, though: often works are even harder to source... even Adams' operas are not easy to source through the web (and are too recent for serious overviews and older dictionaries etc). --Jubilee♫clipman 00:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
To everyone else: BTW, comment on the subpage or on its talk page. More obvious place, for now. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Early archiving

(Note: split from above --Jubilee♫clipman 00:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

  • (PS are we done with most of the posts on this page? They mainly relate to the mass-sourcing attempt and have almost all been dealt with. They could be archived so we can move forward now.)
Yes, early archiving is a good idea. --Kleinzach 00:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Will do. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Done: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary music/Archive 13. It was selective: I left things that are still essentially live alone. Anything that should be restored immeadiately? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Dutton

The AfD needs further comments: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Dutton. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 21:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn after finds by gidonb and due to the fact that Kentucky Opera is rated No. 16 in the US. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles lacking reliable references: Yet another batch

I've just been checking The cleanup listing: Articles lacking reliable references assuming that all the articles have now been processed. Unfortunately they aren't. Whether that means the catscan wasn't working I don't know . . . The following all have referencing problems. They all have the CTM banner:

--Kleinzach 08:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, no: the scans worked fine. The parameters we plugged into it were selective and the scanner followed them faithfully. We only asked for those categorised as "unreferenced". The above (at a quick glance) are otherwise catted (more refs needed, third party required etc.) but are clearly actually unreferenced (aside from official sites, in most cases). It gets worse (and I hate to point this out): if an article has not at all yet been tagged (or at least catted by bot) as unrefed etc we will have a hard time finding it until someone/thing actually so tags/cats it... or until someone spots it in a list somewhere... which reminds me... I'll resume that tommorow. One or two messy bits to clean up my end first—both here and in RL. Any thoughts on my review yet (see note above)? (BTW, there will be untagged/uncatted unref'ed articles under our banner; how many, remains to be seen.) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Did the catscan only look at {{Unreferenced}}? The articles above have {{primarysources}}, {{BLP sources}}, as well as {{nofootnotes}}, {{Onesource}}, {{citations missing}}, {{refimproveBLP}}, and {{citation style}}.
With all due respect, I think this underlines the need for a stable set of maintained articles under a category system. Until we have that I think we will just be 'chasing ambulances'. --Kleinzach 00:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think I see how this scan functions, and clearly some of those tags need removing, if they are giving the impression that some of these article lack citation completely. William Duckworth (composer), for example, cites his New Grove article, amongst other things, and Karl Gottfried Brunotte lists no fewer than 16 references.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I've been trying to remove redundant tags. Your help will be appreciated. (It's also unfortunate that the cleanup bot doesn't seem to be working.) --Kleinzach 00:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Test... (something weird is happening to my edits...) --Jubilee♫clipman 00:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that!

Just to explain. Deskford and I tweeked the scanner parameters to find articles catted as All unreferenced BLPs and as composers and then tweeked them further to ask for those bannered for either CTM or Composers. (We also asked the scanner to dig down 5 levels below the 2 top level cats to maximise our chances of finding as many as possible.) The main issue here is the the first cat: Category:All unreferenced BLPs. Not {{primarysources}}, {{BLP sources}},or {{nofootnotes}}. Your are absolutely correct Kleinzach, we need to logically and methodically define how to categorise all the CTM-related articles. That's my job, IIRC, with help from the members here. Correct? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally! I think I need sleep... Hope that explanation helps and see you all tomorrow. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The obvious problem with this scan technique is that it finds articles tagged as unsourced (or several alternative things), as opposed to articles that actually are unsourced. Yesterday, more or less at random, I discovered that the article on Peter Schat had never had any references at all. Yet, because no one had ever tagged it, the scan missed it completely. (I have now fixed that one.) Today, I just noticed Ben Johnston (composer) is on the list, which I thought must be a mistake, since I have edited that article off-and-on over the past couple of years. Sure enough, it had about ten sources listed (it has fifteen now!), but was flagged as "unreferenced" by someone who probably meant to ask for "more inline references" (it needs at least one more than it already has). I don't wish to suggest that this method is worthless—far from it. We need to find articles that have been inappropriately tagged, as well as articles genuinely lacking sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've found many, many articles mistagged/untagged. (The taggers also routinely ignore external links even when they are obvious sources.) I think the only way to address this problem is to fix the category tree and establish a stable set of 'project articles' for us to watch over. This should be possible, even with only four or five regular editors. We've achieved this with the Composers' project, also for a while with Opera. The task here will be easier if we define the scope of the project strictly. Perhaps we should limit ourselves to living composers? --Kleinzach 00:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Resuming list (finally)

I have started this task again and am at present using FastestFox (I think - I have so many Wiki and Firefox addons that I forget which is which!) to quickly scan leads by hovering over the links. There are a few oddities out there at a first glance... I've scanned from John Mayer to Joseph Schwantner, so far.

To remove (Probably not classical. Verify please.)

  • Misha Mengelberg - Jazz?
  • Kenneth G. Mills - is he really notable enough as a composer? His article is overbalanced towards that music actually. I always though of him as a poet and metaphysical philosopher. I never even knew he composed! I'm mainly confused by the article itself, BTW.
  • Meredith Monk - Film? (Self correcting: obviously classical! I never noticed the name as I placed it here!)
  • Ennio Morricone - Film? (Almost certainly, in fact.)
  • Armen Nalbandian - Jazz?
  • Michael Nyman - Film? (Tough one this: all of the music I have heard by Nyman is film music or is either classical pastiche, or at best, historicist. Even the several minimalist works I have heard are backward-looking. I have not heard his operas, though.)
  • Vangelis - Film? (Almost without a doubt unless anyone has good reason to object. Why is he sorted uner his surname Papathanasiou even though he never bothers using it? If we do keep him this needs to be resolved.)
  • Gustavo Santaolalla - Film?
  • Gunther Schuller - Jazz?

To remove (No article on composer. Any reason not to remove? Are there any namesake classical composers we need write articles on?):

Question:

Redirect sorted but questioned

  • Fazil Say → Fazıl Say (but is the article title correct? Is the weird i-without-a-dot correct?)

Unsourced and suspicious

Strange inclusions

  • John Peel - almost surreal, this one! He was not even a songwriter.... (Note that John Peel (disambiguation) doesn't link to anyone obviously a composer, so the DJ is almost certainly the intended target.)

I'll start my listing of problem articles after the "quick scan" is complete. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[Following consolidated from several further comments made by me following the above post.]

Actually, there appear to be a huge number of film composers on this list now I look again. Patrick Doyle, Ilaiyaraaja, Howard Shore (though he did write at least one opera acording to his article) and John Williams, for starters. Joe Hisaishi was added recently by an IP... God knows how many Jazz composers there are! I have a horrible feeling that at least 1/3 of the names on this list should be removed... Also, is Roberto García Morillo correctly sorted under "G"?

Indeed, I have just realised something. This list is almost a long as the List of 20th-century classical composers by name (which still needs to be merged with the other two, BTW). That fact is somewhat disturbing given the simple fact that we are only 10 years into this century... I propose a brutal cull but I think WPComposers should be consulted even though we are responsible for most of these names. If we have consensus on this, I will cull the clear non-classicals and stub articles without further discussion as I go along. Questionable cases will be placed in User:Jubileeclipman/List of problematic 21st-century composer articles for further review by the community. (Personally, I would also drop all those tagged with {{notability}} and similar as well.) Agreed? Partially agreed?

More names to throw out there... Yanni, John Zorn ("avant-garde composer", indeed, but of Jazz, IIRC), Ron Goodwin... Also questionable: Howard Goodall (cross-genre perhaps, but mainly TV and film) and Maurice Jarre (ditto but article fails to mention his classical music at all). Paul Glass's article is terrible, BTW. Despite the huge list of classical works, his lead states he is "an American composer for movies" and the rest of the article is about this fact. Which is he? Both? Where is his filmography? Also, is Henry Flynt actually a composer? He appears to have been everything else! David Flynn is on the cusp, too...

Note that Jonny Greenwood is correct. Paul McCartney and Jon Lord should also be here, in fact, as both wrote notable classical works. There are several other crossover musicians missing too.

BTW, is Simeon ten Holt correctly formatted? I am not sure how all of these little foreign words are meant to appear: initial capital or all lower case? --Jubilee♫clipman 20:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments on above

Quick response to some of the names above. Misha Mengelberg, Meredith Monk, Michael Nyman, Gunther Schuller and John Zorn have all probably done enough "classical" work to be worthy of our banner. I am doubtful about most of the others. There is a composer called Sergei Pavlenko, but clearly not the one who has an article here! At a quick glance he seems to have decent coverage elsewhere on the web, so would be worthy of an article. I think I've questioned the presence of Mr Peel before...! And the i-without-a-dot is common in Turkish, I believe: see Dotted and dotless I. Everyone seems to be doing fantastic work cleaning up the coverage of composers, and I must apologise that I haven't been able to get more involved. For the rest of this month I will still only be able to make brief passing visits to the world of WP. --Deskford (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Deskford. That has helped focus this tremendously! Obviously the article on Zorn needs to be furiously edited to include those classical works you refer to. That's probably true of the others you named. (Or the leads need to be clearer: I lifted Monk's name from a very quick scan of her lead: it really needs to be rewritten.) Next: Peel obviously goes. Finally: do I cull as proposed? Names can always be reintroduced, of course. After all it isn't a category, it is an article in list form (though the format is a little forbiding now that the table and hidden sort are there). Don't worry, BTW, Deskford: WP:There is no deadline despite what the deletionists might try to force on us. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it should also be pointed out that since Deskford alone has questioned the removal of half the names I suggesting above that this really does need full consensus. Perhaps I should just add all the articles that I feel don't belong on the List of 21st-century classical composers to my list and let others dip into that every now and then to verify/question/discuss/etc? That makes more sense, I think. No deadlines, as I said... This discussion also links in with my review (above) of the whole CTM project, as it affects the inclusion criteria: User:Jubileeclipman/CTM --Jubilee♫clipman 22:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll add my two-penneth worth. I think Deskford is wrong with respect to Mengelberg, Monk, Nyman, Schuller, and Zorn only in one respect: he qualifies them as only "probably" having done enough "classical" work. They certainly have done so, if by "classical" is meant "non-jazz", "non-pop". If their articles do not already make this clear, then they need to be amended.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict - cancelled edit and dropped it in later verbatim) OK, Mengelberg et al stay but their articles get reviewed. I just dropped the biggest names I spotted along with those from the section I reviewed, BTW, that seemed to have nothing or little to do with our project on the strength of the lead alone. In fact, the articles aren't much better, IMO. Monk is perhaps fine but the others don't seem to discuss the subject's classical music in great detail if, indeed, at all. I'll just add names to the list I am creating then as I go along and remove only those that are undabbed but have no corresponding article on the composer: we can review the whole list later for less obvious misfits etc. I still think the list will be pruned back enormously, however, when we get around to doing that. Between you, that was more like $100-worth of comments! Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 00:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
One general problem we have on WP is that the lead will often randomly note the subject's accomplishments in a misleading way. I think we need to make sure the text is corrected to emphasize the main field of activity. --Kleinzach 00:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes: Mengelberg is apparently some jazzman who occasionally uses stuff from else where... BTW: "Among his students is Oscar van Dillen". Oh, the ironies of fate...! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, I don't get the joke about Oscar van Dillen (whose work I don't know), but I just looked at the article on Misha Mengelberg, and it certainly needs a great deal of work, by someone not solely focused on jazz. There is mention of his winning the Gaudeamus Prize in 1961, and one is left supposing it must have been for a club gig or something. The 1969 opera Reconstructie is not even mentioned (a collaborative project, to be sure, but a rather important one).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Van Dillen was sent to AfD by me and returned undeleted (again): I got a bit of a beating over noming it... --Jubilee♫clipman 03:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A systematic approach?

We should avoid getting bogged down in detail. If we are discussing who is in and who is out, may I suggest starting a subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject_Contemporary_music/Scope, perhaps with some itemized general rules and a list of test cases which we can all annotate?

Maybe List of problematic 21st-century composer articles should also become an official project subpage? I'm assuming that this list is for articles within the project that need attention. Does this make sense? If not please say so. --Kleinzach 00:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes to both subpage proposals. There is already a subpge at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Articles with issues, don't forget: my list can be sent over there. And yes that list I am compling is essentially a giant "list of articles with problems". The scope subpage is a great idea: we do need to properly focus the scope and the best way to do that is to get consensus on certain less obvious pages. Thanks Kleinzach! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Of course my other subpage, User:Jubileeclipman/CTM, could just be page moved to your proposed CTM subpage for now? It essntially covers the basics plus other major scope issues already. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Jubileeclipman/CTM is more of a speculative, brain-storming kind of incubator thing, so I think it's fine as it is, but User:Jubileeclipman/CTM#Non-composers_inclusion_criteria could obviously go in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Contemporary_music/Scope, which could be linked here on the project page.
That's true. It is not focussed enough for what we need. You are right about that particular section though: I'll copy that over so we have the beginnings of the subpage we need. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done --Jubilee♫clipman 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Articles with issues, can we keep this up to date, removing lists we have finished working on? Maybe we could also link this to the project page ('Work in Progress'?) ? --Kleinzach 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I left the articles that still have issues beyond lack of sourcing. There are a few question marks at the top that need reviewing too. I'll have a look at all that. I thought I had linked it there: If not, I will. I think we might be getting somewhere useful at last... Great work, all, both here and now and over the past several months generally! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 Done link on project page  Not done review of remaining articles on list. Shouldn't take long though. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most of the section Work in progress could be moved to various approriate subpages with simple links left behind. The Articles being considered for deletion could stay for quick access but all the other list etc could certainly be moved off the main project page. I seem to remember WPOpera takes this approach? Alerts, for example contains Prods, AfDs, major discussions affecting the project and its articles etc. Anything that isn't in need of immeadiate attention (as well as anything is already being dealt with project-wide, like the BLP sourcing) is subpaged out. They also have useful tips placed at the top of each specific subpage to aid people in dealing with any issues the page highlights. Eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Unreferenced BLPs. That seems like a very sensible approach to follow. Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 03:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree with moving Work in progress to subpages, though the link paths need to be absolutely clear, otherwise no one will look at the pages. --Kleinzach 03:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A proposal...

...following on from the above, to refine (or possibly redefine) our project's scope: Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Scope. This page will eventually contain a clear statement of our precise scope as defined per consensus. The discussion will then be moved to a subpage and clearly linked from that page for future reference. Please participate. Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 04:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. Shall we have a pause to allow the others to catch up with this? --Kleinzach 06:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Deskford might be unavailable, of course, at the moment; but there is no rush, no actual timetable, so he can easily catch up. We should fully discuss each section before making formal proposals, IMO, anyway. I have made the noncomposers Proposal formal since it appears entirely clear cut. The others can be bashed out: indeed I have thought of several objections/refinements already but I'll stand back for now. --Jubilee♫clipman 06:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

List generation on hold

I feel the generation of yet more lists at this stage could be counter-productive. We need to focus the project's scope first and then review the notability guidelines as they affect the BLP articles under our banner (quite a number are still highly questionable). After that, we can review the actual articles. Obviously pressing issues such as lack of sourcing, copyvio, PROD/AfD/CSD etc need to be brought to the project's attention as usual. The various lists under our banner (there are at least 12) do need to be properly maintained but this cannot be done efficiently if our precise scope remains unfocussed. The above scope review (Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Scope) and general review (User:Jubileeclipman/CTM) need to be fully discussed, therefore. I have thus notified all the editors classed as active in our project (including those that have never reconfirmed). --Jubilee♫clipman 15:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also this RfC which needs to be resolved... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Musical Artists (bio) Infobox

Unfortunately a Musical Artists Infobox has been put on Juan Carlos Tolosa, and possibly other CTM articles.

Template:Infobox musical artist explains: "Infobox musical artist is the standard infobox for non-classical musician articles". This was confirmed by a discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist.

Can we agree that this box should never be used for this project - unless of course an article is bannered by a popular music project. Thank you. --Kleinzach 00:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Our argument against that box is simple: the lead says it is for non-classical acts. Full stop. We don't need to make that explicit here anywhere, we just point to that lead when removing it. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Signing off from the project

I've now signed off the project. Originally I was thinking of 'retiring' after the election of the new coordinator, but stayed on because of the BLP business. While this work was never finished, most of the worthwhile articles have been removed from the threat of deletion and that's good.

I deplore what has been going on at the Composers Project and I'm concerned about the possible impact elsewhere. It has little to do with inboxes. It's about the underlying, ongoing conflict between the contributors and 'community' bureaucrats (the so-called Metapedians). Will Wikipedia will continue to grow and improve – or be drowned in alphabet soup? We don't know.

Goodbye to the project and good luck. --Kleinzach 23:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work, Kleinzach. It has been very much appreciated by this project and we will be sorry to see you go I think the BLP issue will never go away: articles will be tagged that never have been previousy; new articles will be added (both to WP and to CTM); old articles will be declared copyvio and stubbed, the sources being removed in the process; etc etc...
Anyway, good luck for your future and no doubt we will each individually see you around WP if not here. Good bye and good luck, Kleinzach (and no hard feelings I hope?) --Jubilee♫clipman 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
(BTW, the RfC needs full resolution: that's why I am pushing it. Editors here need to get involved post-haste... Click here now please every one that reads this and comment now. Thanks.)
Many thanks indeed for all your valuable contributions to the project, Kleinzach. I trust we'll still see you around the other projects.
I have been steering well clear of the goings on at WP:Composers. Occasionally I have felt myself reaching for the edit button, but I have so far managed to restrain myself.
Best wishes! --Deskford (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I would like to hear what you think, Deskford, even if you only say it here. Each person has a different perspective. That's the point of the discussion, really. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, here goes then....
First of all I am somewhat mystified that people seem to have repeatedly got so worked up over what seems to me a fairly trivial matter. There are clearly undercurrents that have been bubbling for longer than I've been around WP.
As for the infoboxes themselves, I honestly don't have strong feelings one way or the other. I can see that a well-designed and appropriately populated infobox could improve an article. I can also see that a badly implemented or inappropriate infobox can be detrimental. I don't see these two statements as contradictory.
I think a part of the problem may arise from the fact that the clause Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes that has often been used to justify removal of infoboxes merely states that infoboxes should not be used. If there was a brief summary of why they were felt to be a problem, the rule might appear less dogmatic to the disgruntled newcomer who's just had his work removed. I know there's a link to the discussions, but you wouldn't really expect people to wade through all of that.
In the long run, designing a new infobox more appropriate to "classical" musicians may offer a way forward — I see that several editors have been working on this. An alternative might be to expand the existing Template:Infobox musical artist with fields that are more appropriate to classical musicians. This would have the advantage that there would be no conflict over which template to use for musicians who straddle the classical/non-classical divide, and for each musician any inappropriate fields can be omitted.
I see the argument that an infobox is not a great help if it only duplicates information in the lead. An effective infobox would include more information than would normally be included in a lead, though quite what that information would be for a composer would have to be discussed. I also see the potential problem of an inexperienced editor feeling that they must fill every field with some kind of data even if they don't have good data. References should be encouraged, perhaps by including specific fields for source citations in the template design.
I strongly support your efforts to find a resolution to this issue, and I hope this can be achieved without too much upset and frustration. Your summary at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#A new perspective is one of the most constructive things I've seen so far. All too often these discussions ramble on and on without anyone ever stopping to summarise. I also appreciate the fact that you are trying to see both sides of the argument, which not all editors have done. Good luck, and keep calm!
--Deskford (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Deskford. If you have not done so already, I would strongly encourage you to copy/paste that entire statement into the RfC: that must be the most balanced and constructive statement I have yet seen from any other editor out there. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I officially came off wikibreak to answer that. I am gone again for a few days now: I need to regroup my thoughts as my head is spinning...! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that comes across as genuine WP:Canvassing now I look again. Hopefully since it is only one single editor I have said this to (others approached me first: see my talk page) this isn't hangable... Do as you see it best to do Deskford: that's all I can ask. I'll shut up now. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects

User:Okip has a useful tool (linked above) for us that might be able help find the elusive uBLPs. Anyone able to check it out for us while I am otherwise engaged? Chat with Okip if so. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 03:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

CTM's advice to editors regarding Infoboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

We haven't yet made any stand as a project either way on this issue, as far as I can recall. Do we agree that we actually take no stand beyond requesting that editors use common sense and stay within WP policies and guidelines? Basically:

CTM takes no stand on whether an infobox is included in or excluded from any biographical article. All we ask is that an appropriate box is chosen and that no Wikipedia Policies are violated. On rare occasions it my be necessary to remove a biographical infobox: if our members do this they will explain why on the article's talk page, full discussion on individual articles being key.

Any refinements? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the person who would be most likely to take a stand has just left.
I would suggest a mention that several projects with which we overlap do take a stand. I would also like something along the lines of When infoboxes are included in articles, the information in the boxes and in the body of the articles can sometimes drift apart. We therefore ask people who update articles to be aware of this issue and to rememeber to update both places as appropriate, and we ask those who add infoboxes into articles to keep these articles on their watchlists and periodically check that the contents of the boxes and the rest of the articles remain synchronised.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Your first point (in the second paragraph) is actually quite important: our present guidelines actually state that we follow the guidelines of other projects, including those of Composers. If we were to decide on independence on one issue, we would have to make that fact quite clear so as not to confuse a curious editor checking out all the guidelines we follow. As for the rest, how about: Note that the information in infoboxes and that in the text body can often differ. Care should be taken when synchronising the information that reliable sources are consulted to confirm the facts in each case. Not sure we can really expect drive-by editors to watchlist articles about obscure 21st-century composers! I also suspect that the members at CTM regularly check these, anyway, so the final part of you statement is probably redundant. Thank you, Peter (I changed your wikilink subtly to point to the correct place, BTW. Hope that was OK?) --Jubilee♫clipman 18:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless there's some reason why the accomplishments and styles of contemporary composers are more easily summarized in infoboxes than those of earlier classical composers, I'd recommend sticking with the strong consensus of the Composers groups and leaving the boxes out. Many of us who have been there for a long time have grown tired of the discussion, and I'd really rather not have it here also. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, that consensus is still being re-evaluated. Futhermore, the editors that work on contemporary composer/performer/academic/etc articles are not necessarily the same editors as those that work on articles covering people from earlier time periods. We also cover compositions, genres, instruments, etc which articles could also potentially include infoboxes if someone chooses to add one. However, we do need to be aware that we risk treading on the toes of other wikiprojects, notably Composers (oppose infoboxes) and Biography (support infoboxes), so dialogue and collaboration would be needed at all times. IMO, infoboxes are a trivial matter that people take far too seriously and can be safely ignored if the information is accurate. Each wikiproject is indepentent, BTW, whatever the heirarchy: they each need to decide for themselves how to deal with the articles under their banner. We have never actually done that as far as I am aware; indeed, we haven't even sorted out the cat tree, the inclusion criteria, or a host of other things. We need to start somewhere. --Jubilee♫clipman 09:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

When I made these proposals, I felt the discussion at Composers was winding to a close and that we could, therefore, discuss our own guidelines thoroughly and indepentently with out prejudicing that discussion. This was premature, as the RfC closure proposal was rejected, and I apologise. Thank you everyone for your insights above. I have archived the discussion to avoid the distraction of two concurrent debates on the same topic. Better to focus on one at a time... Thank you --Jubilee♫clipman 19:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Contemporary_music_task_force/Archive_14&oldid=1136053398"