Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16

The Composers talk page banner is the simplest of the classical music project banners. Unlike the other ones it does not produce a talk page category which can be used to produce a project article count, let alone be used for assessments. Is it time to update it - at least by adding the category function? Best. --Kleinzach 03:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we also now eliminate the Composers1 alternative banner (see project page) by making it into a redirect? --Kleinzach 02:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
As there have ben no objections I've removed Composers1. All articles that had this banner have been converted over to the standard version. --Kleinzach 06:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I've now updated the Composers banner (based on Template:Wagner). This has created a new Category:WikiProject Composers articles. As of today we have 805 articles. (This tech stuff is not my forte so if anyone sees any problems please tell me!) --Kleinzach 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind my stepping in. But it would be really easy to get this project WP:1 compliant. I've done the same thing for WikiProject Ohio and could do it for you guys as well. Even if you decide not to go 1.0 you may be interested in {{WPBannerMeta}} which is very easy to setup. §hep¡Talk to me! 20:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
We've had problems with {{WPBannerMeta}} on another project hence I've avoided it here. As for WP:1 compliance. perhaps we can go into that later after the basic bot run? --Kleinzach 08:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Whenever you feel like it. §hep¡Talk to me! 14:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot run to banner articles

At a very rough estimate, less than 20 percent of the articles on composers are now bannered. I propose we do a bot run to banner all articles, starting with Category:Classical composers and its subcats (Category:Ancient music composers, Category:Medieval composers etc.) which contain 4,000+ articles. --Kleinzach 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The bot run has been completed. Many thanks to Stepshep and ShepBot. Nearly 4,000 articles now have Composers Project banners on their talk pages. About 930 of these are automatically noted as stubs because they have stub templates on their article pages. --Kleinzach 03:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal for a little-known composer

Hello, I was wondering if someone would be interested to help by expressing their opinion on a merge. Because its about some really obscure composers (I deal with obscure composers, mostly), here's the full story. I've been working on an article about Vasily Polikarpovich Titov, a little-known Russian composer of the late 17th century. Titov was from a group of even less known composers, most of them followers of Nikolay Diletsky, yet another little-known composer, who was actually very important as a music theorist in Russia and Ukraine. I thought I could make an article on him as well. I searched Wikipedia for "Diletsky", found no results, checked New Grove to see whether the spelling was correct, and it was. So I created the article Nikolay Diletsky. Prior to working on the content, I wanted to set up some redirects, because apparently Nikolay's name can be spelled in a multitude of ways. And it was then that I found out that someone had already created an article on him: Mykola Dyletsky, a stub. I tried talking with the person who originally suggested that (very uncommon, it seems) spelling, but they told me I should set up a merge proposal first.

Now, normally I wouldn't ask for help in a case like this and just wait for the merge proposal to be resolved. But Diletsky and his contemporaries are so little known, and almost no articles link to theirs, I'm afraid that the merge proposal will remain without opinions from the community for very, very long. And no work on either article can be done while the the issue is unresolved. So if anyone feels like helping out (i.e. by voicing their opinion on the merge), it would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is at [[1]] (it includes links to relevant Google searches).

Thanks for your attention. --Jashiin (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ranking/assessment project subpage

Now the bot run is complete and about 4,000 pages have the Composers Project banners, I suggest we start a standard assessments or ranking project subpage similar to that at the Opera Project. Is this OK with everybody? --Kleinzach 04:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now created the page here. Please note this refers to a potential assessment scheme in the future. There is no assumption that this will necessarily take place. --Kleinzach 07:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Defaultsort on Talk pages?

the talkpages listed at w:Category:Stub-Class Composers articles are almost all by surname (even most of the Hungarians!). Is there a way to make them take the DEFAULTSORT from the article page, or does it need to be added to the talk pages as well? I tried adding "|listas=Leeuw, Ton de" to talk:Ton de Leeuw, but it dosnt seem to have had the hoped for effect. Sparafucil (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

?Did you mean that? Don't you mean by first word? --Kleinzach 05:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I meant first name (there is a Sir... under S, which I guess is a first word). I hope you now understand the question! Sparafucil (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this is common throughout WP. Perhaps you need to ask on a technical page? --Kleinzach 07:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
WPBIO's banner has a listas parameter. Do you want that to be added? §hep¡Talk to me! 11:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
How would that work? Is it practical? Is there an example to see? --Kleinzach 13:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It works similar to {{DEFAULTSORT:Leeuw, Ton de}} but within a template. WPBIO uses it on almost all of there articles so I would say it's practical.

It is also a good example of how "listas" on Talk pages can create confusion: currently the entry below Talk:Ton de Leeuw in Category:Stub-Class biography (musicians) articles is the wrongly sorted Talk:Leevi Madetoja — that Talk page does not use the "listas" parameter. If categories on Talk pages have any function at all (of which I'm not certain), it would be better served with an unambigous sorting method. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that this could be confusing. --Kleinzach 03:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I have it working if you'd like to to implement it. §hep¡Talk to me! 16:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles would have to be individually listed, so I wonder whether this would ever be used except for a handful of articles. . . . Does anybody else need this facility? --Kleinzach 22:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It automatically sorts the page into one category or the other if it has listas on it.
But I'm impartial either way. §hep¡Talk to me! 02:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0

With the new banner you were set up for WP:1. You worklist is at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Composers articles by quality statistics. (It's not really a list of work per se, but just a chart to show all articles tagged by your project.) §hep¡Talk to me! 03:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for that. --Kleinzach 05:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lior Navok

This article is currently at Articles for deletion for those who wish to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 565 of the articles assigned to this project, or 14.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to recommend B. Wolterding's cleaning listing. It's now being used by the Opera Project. It prioritizes articles needing cleanup very clearly. --Kleinzach 04:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Classical music banner bot run

The Classical Music Project bot run has finished: there are now 9,258 articles. (It's the largest of all the mainstream music projects. By comparison, the Music Project itself only has 3,742 and this project has 3,980.)

Articles with Composers banners have been excluded from the Classical Music project, as that project covers "all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects" . --Kleinzach 03:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

New music theory wikiproject

I just started a new project dedicated to editing articles related to music theory. The scope of the project includes articles on the following:

  • The mechanics of music and how music works.
  • Elements of music such as melody, harmony, rhythm, pitch, texture, etc.
  • Compositional form and structure.
  • Theories of harmonization.
  • Music notation.
  • Music and mathematics.
  • Musical analysis.
  • Sight singing and ear training.
  • Music theorists

All are welcome to join and participate.Nrswanson (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck to you. You might want also to include music cognition, which is a pretty big field and quite closely related. Opus33 (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

James Lentini

I've tagged the article "James Lentini" for proposed deletion. I didn't want to contact User:Lentinijp because I think this is a vanity bio. But I thought I should notify someone. Horn of Plenty (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should always contact the creator - which I've now done. This one is likely to be controversial so it will probably go to afd. --Kleinzach 00:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the Template:Dated prod from that article. a) Which parts of the article read like a vanity bio? b) WP:COI says: Conflict of interest [alone] is not a reason to delete an article… . I don't deny that there are problems with this article —like providing verifiable sources— but not to the extent of warranting a Proposed Deletion. Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music

Although most of us are probably watching the page already, I have initiated a discussion on the subcategorical naming conventions in symophonic articles at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Establishing_Heading_Formats_for_Symphonies. Input would be warmly appreciated. Eusebeus (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Music Project proposals

I've posted about the future direction of our Music Project 'parent' here. It's relevant to this project because it involves a decision about whether or not a Music Project banner goes on all music article talk pages (and other things). I'd be grateful for opinions/comments. Thanks and regards. --Kleinzach 09:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Musical artist infobox

Is it now part of the MOS in articles concernign composers to not use the Template:Infobox musical artist? --Mrlopez2681 (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WHOOPS! I didnt see the link to the infobox debate at the top of the page. Thanks anyway! --Mrlopez2681 (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see this section on the project page: Lead section. In any case, Template:Infobox musical artist is used for non-classical musicians, as explained at the beginning of the page. Thanks. --Kleinzach 08:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

To do list (above)

The 'To do' list above is not being used. Would anyone object to its removal? --Kleinzach 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are things on the to do list, I can't find them (I may just be an idiot like that), if we had one that listed the things that need to be done I would love to see it stay. Aside from that... I won't miss it. Sonuvafitch (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
OK. I've removed it. --Kleinzach 10:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bots on the loose/'rewriting' references

Several bots are being used to automatically rewrite references with sometimes unpredictable results. I and some other editors have already complained about Polbot, see here, but there seem to be others (e.g. DumZiBoT). It seems approval has been given prematurely to bot operations which should really have been tested first. Problems can be reported to the Bot owners' noticeboard. --Kleinzach 02:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at JSB

Hi Folks: an unlikely edit war has erupted at the JSB article]] after an editor slapped up a NPOV tag, confusing it seems peacockery for neutrality. Some acrimony has ensued. Tony and Antandrus have already weighed in, but additional commentary would be salutary. Thanks. Eusebeus (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Nyman navbox

I wonder if someone can have a look at Template:Michael Nyman? This is a huge navbox full of red links which is being added to some short articles. As noted on the talkpage, the norm in Wikipedia:Navigation templates is that "Red links should be avoided unless they have a chance of being developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encourage to write the article first." I've drawn this to the attention of the editor but he's reluctant to move the red links to his userspace. --Kleinzach 02:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting navbox. An eclectic mix of classical compositions, operas, soundtracks, commercial "albums" and commercial compilations discs... all mixed together. I've authored some giant templates in my day, but this one seems too difficult to navigate and would best be split up into smaller categories. My two cents on that.
As for the presence of red links. I've never had a problem with them for "list of works" templates. When red links are removed from "list of works" templates, they fool the reader into thinking they are looking at a complete list when works have been omitted. I've certainly been fooled by this with operas-by-composers navboxes where this rule is strictly enforced. I'm willing to overlook the red links in these cases. If red links must be removed, I'd prefer the work remain in the navbox as a non-link (black text). Two more cents. DavidRF (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sound clips now appearing on music articles

Sound clips have recently being added to a number of music articles, see the discussion on the Classical Music Project. Thanks. --Kleinzach 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)