Talk:Artie Matthews
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Weary Blues merge proposal[edit]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
See Talk:Alcide_Nunez#Merger_proposal for discussion of earlier merge proposal of Weary Blues into Alcide Nunez article. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. The song is notable - it has been subject to discussion in academic works on ragtime, e.g., [1] (discussing its influence on Langston Hughes) and [2] (a standard reference work on ragtime). Chubbles (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- You can still write about the song in the composer's article. You don't need to have a separate article. If it is it merged or if it stands alone, are you going to work on it? If not, who is?
Vmavanti (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)- It seems there is a lot to say about this song that goes beyond what would make sense to address in the composer's article - specifically, its recorded history. That justifies a separate article even if some of the content could be integrated with the composer biography. I do not share your sense of urgency that we must needs work on this soon; there is no deadline, and the aspects of the article that are objectionable are, in my view, rather minor issues. Chubbles (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree that trying to resolve an article that hasn't been touched in ten years qualifies as "urgent". That's an odd reading of the word "urgent". Second, something you always do Chubs, is you claim a subject is significant and therefore should be Saved. Let's dig into that. First, where is your proof? Do you have sources and information about the subject? Great! By all means, add it now. Do you know of other information? Good! Where is it? I want to learn, too.
- It seems there is a lot to say about this song that goes beyond what would make sense to address in the composer's article - specifically, its recorded history. That justifies a separate article even if some of the content could be integrated with the composer biography. I do not share your sense of urgency that we must needs work on this soon; there is no deadline, and the aspects of the article that are objectionable are, in my view, rather minor issues. Chubbles (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- You can still write about the song in the composer's article. You don't need to have a separate article. If it is it merged or if it stands alone, are you going to work on it? If not, who is?
- I'm not suggesting we kill baby seals. I'm proposing we move data from one place to another. Data isn't a living being and therefore has no feelings to hurt. I say this almost every day on WP: Our standard isn't importance or significance or "But I like this". It's notability. Notability necessarily means there have to be sources because that's where the information comes from. If no one had ever written about George Washington, there would be no article on George Washington. Every time I propose deletion, there is someone to say "But this is important". Well, that's an opinion, for one thing, and opinion isn't supposed to drive WP. Regardless of one's opinion, there have to be sources. If you have sources, provide the links or add information now. Otherwise, one could assume you are only speculating when you say "there is a lot to say about this song". Like what? I don't know that. You read it somewhere? Show me. Is it an opinion plucked from the clouds? A hunch, an instinct, a guess? That's not what we do here. To repeat my point, anyone who has information about Weary Blues can write about it in the article about the composer. I'm not forbidding anyone from contributing. So far, after ten years, no one has created anything beyond the current thin gruel, which isn't enough to sustain anyone.
15:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmavanti (talk • contribs)
- I'm not suggesting we kill baby seals. I'm proposing we move data from one place to another. Data isn't a living being and therefore has no feelings to hurt. I say this almost every day on WP: Our standard isn't importance or significance or "But I like this". It's notability. Notability necessarily means there have to be sources because that's where the information comes from. If no one had ever written about George Washington, there would be no article on George Washington. Every time I propose deletion, there is someone to say "But this is important". Well, that's an opinion, for one thing, and opinion isn't supposed to drive WP. Regardless of one's opinion, there have to be sources. If you have sources, provide the links or add information now. Otherwise, one could assume you are only speculating when you say "there is a lot to say about this song". Like what? I don't know that. You read it somewhere? Show me. Is it an opinion plucked from the clouds? A hunch, an instinct, a guess? That's not what we do here. To repeat my point, anyone who has information about Weary Blues can write about it in the article about the composer. I'm not forbidding anyone from contributing. So far, after ten years, no one has created anything beyond the current thin gruel, which isn't enough to sustain anyone.
- Comment. There's probably enough information to support an article. There's a bit at AllMusic (also a possible source for the Matthews article), and here, and some recording history in books I have access to (Jazz Standards on Record, 1900–1942; Jazz: Its Evolution and Essence; Popular Music and Jazz; DownBeat Yearbook 1939). But (major 'but') we're discussing merging two articles that are unsourced, one tagged for 6 years and the other for 11: something has to give. I'm still not doing much editing because this is unresolved; if no one's willing/able to improve the article, then I have no objection to the proposed merge. EddieHugh (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Vmavanti also pinged my Talk page about this discussion. As with EddieHugh, a consequence of recent behaviour associated with the WMF is that I too am hardly editing. Broadly though, my opinion is that merging articles on a song and its writer/performer is usually uncomfortable, giving strange article links, categorisation and data points. EddieHugh has provided a good assessment of where the respective articles should be improved - better that than merge, I think. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Uncomfortable? Like recurrent itching? There isn't much material to merge. I don't see why it would cause much discomfort. How many more years should we wait for it to be improved? Ten? A hundred? Who is going to come along and improve it? Santa Claus? The habit of volunteering others is one of the most unimpressive aspects of Wikipedia.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- Uncomfortable? Like recurrent itching? There isn't much material to merge. I don't see why it would cause much discomfort. How many more years should we wait for it to be improved? Ten? A hundred? Who is going to come along and improve it? Santa Claus? The habit of volunteering others is one of the most unimpressive aspects of Wikipedia.
- Oppose. The song is notable in and of itself, and has been covered by many artists, including the McGuire Sisters. Merging it would interfere with not only categories but also further development of the article. - JGabbard (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2019 (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.