Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Contemporary music task force/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Twice Through the Heart at GAN
I don't know whether anyone here is a regular GA reviewer, but Twice Through the Heart has been sat there a while. It's listed under music. I dont know what the typical rock fan will make of it.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- And it has now passed. Thanks everyone who helped me decode the instrumentation.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Also, do we actually cover Indian film composers? (There are quite a few "non-western classical" composers and quite a few film-only composers in the list, BTW. The lead does not technically exclude either potential subcategory. Perhaps it should?) --Jubilee♫clipman 21:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do we cover western film composers, for that matter, if they only compose for film? Looking through the other end of the telescope (with a different set of eyes closed), I have generally assumed that we do not cover Indian classical music (Hindustani or Carnatic), so would not argue for the addition of L. Subramaniam, N. Ramani or N. Ravikiran to the list, for example, though these and others have made innovations and been open to western influences. There is a List of Carnatic composers, which covers these and many others. Hindustani music places less emphasis on the composer that Carnatic does, so a List of Hindustani composers would probably be unpopulated. There is, however, a List of Indian composers, which seems to have a random selection of film, classical and western-influenced figures, including such diverse names as Ravi Shankar, Freddie Mercury, Param Vir and Rahul Dev Burman, who would seem to have little in common beyond their country of origin. --Deskford (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hm, we have a slight issue here. Which ever set of eyes you look through, the title of our present list is inclusive of any and all people defined as "21st-century classical composers" whatever their country of origin and whatever genre/style/medium/etc they work in. Now, the various projects have defined their spheres of work, regardless of the precise title they use. Articles, on the other hand must conform to certain standards. Classical always excludes rock/pop/soul/rap/etc, usually excludes jazz/blues/bebop/etc, most often excludes military music and brass band music, typically excludes musical theatre, and occasionally even excludes opera. Film music is 50-50. Allowing opera back in (obviously), we have more or less defined what classical music is not but still have not excluded film scores. The major problem, however, arises not so much from the well trodden problem outlined above, but from the lack of a geographical determiner. Even if we include the words western, do we thereby exclude Tōru Takemitsu? Where does the West start? At the Bosphorus? (I assume it ends over on the Western seabord of US/Canada/Mexico?) Or are we defining composers by the Western-style of composition (thereby allowing Takemitsu back in)? This could get ugly, however a good start would be to define the scope in the lead and worry about the precise title later. Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 22:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Takemitsu is fine (or would have been if he had lived into the 21st century), as he worked in what we would broadly call the "western" tradition, as have many other composers from Japan, South Korea and, more recently, China and other East Asian countries.
- It's true though that the title of our list implies an inclusivity of any classical tradition where composers are named and recognised as distinct from performers, of which the Carnatic tradition is the most obvious "non-western" example (or perhaps I mean the one I am most familiar with). We could be in danger of letting an already very long list become much longer still! --Deskford (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Edit conflict, written before your last comment... I've added Param Vir to the List of 21st-century classical composers. Naresh Sohal was already there. These are perhaps the most prominent Indian composers of what we might call "contemporary classical music". I've added John Mayer too, as he was active into the 21st century. I notice that Ravi Shankar is also on our list. I suppose his sitar concertos and the pieces he wrote for Menuhin and Rampal qualify him. --Deskford (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hm, we have a slight issue here. Which ever set of eyes you look through, the title of our present list is inclusive of any and all people defined as "21st-century classical composers" whatever their country of origin and whatever genre/style/medium/etc they work in. Now, the various projects have defined their spheres of work, regardless of the precise title they use. Articles, on the other hand must conform to certain standards. Classical always excludes rock/pop/soul/rap/etc, usually excludes jazz/blues/bebop/etc, most often excludes military music and brass band music, typically excludes musical theatre, and occasionally even excludes opera. Film music is 50-50. Allowing opera back in (obviously), we have more or less defined what classical music is not but still have not excluded film scores. The major problem, however, arises not so much from the well trodden problem outlined above, but from the lack of a geographical determiner. Even if we include the words western, do we thereby exclude Tōru Takemitsu? Where does the West start? At the Bosphorus? (I assume it ends over on the Western seabord of US/Canada/Mexico?) Or are we defining composers by the Western-style of composition (thereby allowing Takemitsu back in)? This could get ugly, however a good start would be to define the scope in the lead and worry about the precise title later. Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 22:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
The issue could probably be resolved more or less by tidying up the parent article (21st-century classical music, my offering, if you remember) by linking it more obviously (and inline) to the Classical music article. The article needs a huge amount of work anyway, given its Anglo-centric nature amoung other things. Perhaps it might be one of Klein's suggested article of the month collaborations? As regards the list, how about adding this to the lead: These composers work in the Western tradition of art music as definded in the article on Classical music? Any refinements? The Classical music article does excluded music in non-western traditions and most of the stuff I excluded, though it does shilly-shally when it comes to film composers. Perhaps they could be left in? Jonny Greenwood would probably go, though. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, adding that sentence to the lead would help clarify things. Film composers may have to be assessed on an individual basis because they range across genres, but I'm not sure how we could do this without committing the sin of original research. Jonny Greenwood, on the other hand, has written some significant orchestral pieces, so I think I would keep him in the list. One has been issued on a London Sinfonietta Label recording, and another won some kind of Radio 3 listeners' award as far as I remember. --Deskford (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just had a closer look at Classical music. The lead is good for defining what we mean, but after the lead that article goes all waffly and weasel-wordy. It's poorly referenced too. You would think such a fundamental article would be in decent shape by now! --Deskford (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I forgot JG was composer in res for the BBC for a while. His article makes that quite clear now I look again. OK I'll add the sentence and avoid the film composer issue for now. I have removed a few other names, however (see the next section). And yeah... the major CM articles are pretty dreadful especially that one... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've just noticed: if (as he should) Greenwood stays then Paul McCartney and Jon Lord should be added. There are others, too, I suspect. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I forgot JG was composer in res for the BBC for a while. His article makes that quite clear now I look again. OK I'll add the sentence and avoid the film composer issue for now. I have removed a few other names, however (see the next section). And yeah... the major CM articles are pretty dreadful especially that one... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just had a closer look at Classical music. The lead is good for defining what we mean, but after the lead that article goes all waffly and weasel-wordy. It's poorly referenced too. You would think such a fundamental article would be in decent shape by now! --Deskford (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Some thoughts after a quick read of the above: 21st century contemporary (classical) music is obviously international. In Japan, China, India etc. people are usually clear about which tradition a given composer relates to so there isn't much ambiguity. This hasn't been a problem in the past. Nor is it a problem if a serious composer works on film scores from time to time.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Film Music used to include film composers (so the Composers Project etc didn't handle them). Unfortunately this project is now inactive, but my understanding is that WP:FILM is responsible for them rather than the Classical music projects. In any case we don't have the expertise to handle these articles. Many of them are about Bollywood composers. --Kleinzach 01:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I take it you would suggest unbannering Film composers if they are already bannered by the Film project or Film music project? Including John Williams? If so, fair enough. The question remains, though: do they remain in the list? As far as the "tradition" question is concerned, I confess I was perhaps a little overly-knitpicking! For the most part, we shouldn't find any composers of Gats or Kacapi sulings and if they are present then they should be removed from the list—and unbannered and uncatted if necessary—obviously. I hope all that makes sense? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed non-classicals from list
Please check the articles to make sure that I have made the correct decision:
- According to List of compositions for viola he has written Två norrlandslåtar (Two Norrland Songs) for viola and chamber orchestra. I don't know if that's enough to qualify him. Didn't he also do some Third stream stuff in the 1970s? His stub article doesn't give much of a clue. --Deskford (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe he should be returned if these facts can be established and verified. See what you can do. Thanks for the info. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not finding much. A couple of light pieces for brass ensemble here and here, and some stuff for children's choir here. Not really enough to qualify as a "classical composer" perhaps. Wait a minute... here's a brief review of his Concerto for Piano and Mixed Chorus. And here's his String Trio. How about an arrangement of Chopin for choir with piano and bass guitar here...? I'm not sure these would all stand up to scrutiny as reliable sources though. --Deskford (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Naxos is a well enough establish label but the other are perhaps less useful. My own attempt at Yuri Kasparov has need several less-than-RSs, too, unfortunately, but hey ho... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not finding much. A couple of light pieces for brass ensemble here and here, and some stuff for children's choir here. Not really enough to qualify as a "classical composer" perhaps. Wait a minute... here's a brief review of his Concerto for Piano and Mixed Chorus. And here's his String Trio. How about an arrangement of Chopin for choir with piano and bass guitar here...? I'm not sure these would all stand up to scrutiny as reliable sources though. --Deskford (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe he should be returned if these facts can be established and verified. See what you can do. Thanks for the info. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 00:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yury Kasparov
I put this entry in my list (and expanded it as I researched him):
- Yury Kasparov - BLP possibly lifted from Living composers project, though concentrating mainly on the several versions of his name (!); poorly sourced, too; possibly non-notable since of the various people listed in the discography, only Valery Popov (musician) has a WP article and even that is an ref'ed BLP, and the works list does not give details of premiers - I will see if this is worth sorting out my self as it has me intregued
and the name is vaguely familiar(I was thinking of Garry Kasparov obviously!) There are useful sources at classical archives and the Moscow conservatory website but lastfm appears to be copied from WP as does metaboles despite the latter claiming copyright in 2009 (the lines in question were present in the first edit of the WP article in 2006, though they may yet have been lifted from elsewhere).
I felt it might be better to place the entry here, however and have now reduced the entry in line with the others (though pointing over here). Thoughts? I assume he is notable given his connection with the Moscow conservatory (see this also), but he is hard to source. Note also: "All material on these webpages, not encompassing external links, may be used, in part or in full, for legitimate purposes without the permission of Dan Albertson, Ron Hannah or the composers, but the source must be acknowledged as the Living Composers Project." The other possible copied sources are also either user-edited or free-content etc. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The list of works and discography look like a copy-and-paste job from the Living Composers Project (the upper case headings are a bit of a giveaway) so they probably need to be removed as a copyvio. And I don't think it's particularly useful just to list every possible way of transliterating his name — you could do that for any Russian name. Remove all of that and we're left with just a couple of lines of biography. There's much more information, with sources, on ru:Каспаров, Юрий Сергеевич, so it may in fact be more worthwhile to translate that and start from scratch. There may be people out there whose Russian is better than mine and could take it on. But yes, I think he is notable — in the 1980s he was a major advocate for contemporary music in Moscow, promoting the work of other composers through the Moscow Contemporary Music Ensemble, of which he was I think the founder and director. --Deskford (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just the list of works: "Kasparov graduated from the Moscow Power Institute in 1978 and the Moscow Conservatory in 1984, where he had post-graduate studies in composition with Edison Denisov from 1984-91." That line appears in the LCP entry and in the Metaboles. We have to start from scratch completely! However, as I understand it copyvio requires breach on copyright but the LCP gives explicit permission to copy (as long as they are acknowledged), and the Metaboles appears to have been written only last year, hence my confusion. I'll have a go tonight and draw what I can from all the sources I found, starting again. --Jubilee♫clipman 14:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have started this: User:Jubileeclipman/(mirror) Yury Kasparov. There are more sources than I though, in fact, and it shouldn't be hard to create a half decent article properly sourced and cited. I suspect the article should actually be at Yuri Kasparov because that seems to be the more favoured spelling. Pretty minor detail though and easily sorted after I dump my text over. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Babelfish version is almost comprehensible if you read it aloud in a strong Russian accent. I have certainly always seen him referred to in English as Yuri Kasparov; I would put the article under this spelling with a redirect from Yury Kasparov. I don't think I'd bother with redirects from every possible spelling though. The lead of the article has always called him "Yuri", despite the article title. --Deskford (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I noticed that. I'll dump and then move so that we retain the history (I'll also link to my mirror in the edit sumaary so that that history can be reviewed as well). This method will also automatically create a redirect. Anyway, the Russian is a good place to start and I can add bits from Metaboles etc and cite quite easily from RSs such as mMoscow Coservatory and MCME websites among other places. Quite easy so far... --Jubilee♫clipman 19:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, Edison Denisov has him redlinked from our preferred spelling: there may well be several other articles doing this. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Association for Contemporary Music also redlinks to the -i spelling. The List of 21st-century classical composers used to as well, but I changed it at some stage. --Deskford (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Babelfish version is almost comprehensible if you read it aloud in a strong Russian accent. I have certainly always seen him referred to in English as Yuri Kasparov; I would put the article under this spelling with a redirect from Yury Kasparov. I don't think I'd bother with redirects from every possible spelling though. The lead of the article has always called him "Yuri", despite the article title. --Deskford (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have started this: User:Jubileeclipman/(mirror) Yury Kasparov. There are more sources than I though, in fact, and it shouldn't be hard to create a half decent article properly sourced and cited. I suspect the article should actually be at Yuri Kasparov because that seems to be the more favoured spelling. Pretty minor detail though and easily sorted after I dump my text over. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just the list of works: "Kasparov graduated from the Moscow Power Institute in 1978 and the Moscow Conservatory in 1984, where he had post-graduate studies in composition with Edison Denisov from 1984-91." That line appears in the LCP entry and in the Metaboles. We have to start from scratch completely! However, as I understand it copyvio requires breach on copyright but the LCP gives explicit permission to copy (as long as they are acknowledged), and the Metaboles appears to have been written only last year, hence my confusion. I'll have a go tonight and draw what I can from all the sources I found, starting again. --Jubilee♫clipman 14:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yuri Kasparov now rewritten. Note spelling. More to do yet, but it is at least a half decent article now. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fantasy for 4 buckets, 12 strings, organ and small mechanical monkey — really?
- A good piece of work. That looks a respectable article now. I haven't checked through all the references, but first impressions are good. If it was based on the Russian article, I think for copyright reasons we have to put the following on the talk page: {{Translated page|ru|Каспаров, Юрий Сергеевич|Translated from Russian Wikipedia as of 25 January 2010}}
- --Deskford (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, only the list was translated from the Russian WP but I used [this] to verify and often just lifted their descriptions and names verbatim in a great many cases—sort of a double-lifting as it were... The rest is my own work, however. Perhaps we still need that notice anyway? There is a certain amount to do, yet, anyway: stray []'s from the Russian-Babelfish translation and minor copyedits. And yes: Fantasy for 4 buckets, 12 strings, organ and small mechanical monkey!!! It took me a while to be sure, but the linked list also refers to that work. The Babelled text reads Con of moto of morto (2000) fantasy for the 4th buckets, 12 stringed, organ and small mechanical small monkey. I'm still unsure why 4th buckets (the Double bass quartet Chorale also has a similar 4th as opposed to 4) and considered at first that it might mean quarter of a bucket or (more seriously) that bucket is a translation only according to one sense (like tube = tuba, pipe = trumpet and impact = percussion), but I could not for the life of me figure it out and now assume that it really means bucket. The monkey suggests a non-serious piece anyway: something akin to PDQ Bach's Pervertimento for Bagpipes, Bicycle and Balloons would be my guess. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Google Translate gives "Fantasy for 4 buckets, 12 string, organ and a small clockwork monkey". Bing Translator gives "Fantasia for 4-x vëder, 12 stringed, body and a small lively obez′ânki", so that's not much help. The word in question, "ведро" ("вёдер" as it appears in the article is the genitive plural), does indeed mean "bucket", and I can't find any alternative meaning as any kind of musical instrument, so perhaps they really are buckets. --Deskford (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know Russian at all, which is why I had to resort to Babel, so I bow to your judgement! Some of the other titles could mean quite different things apparently, too: I assumed the page I have linked uses the typical translation but maybe they just made it up? Perhaps I should put the original titles in next to the translation and leave it up to the readers to decide. Problem is, I wouldn't know which words actually comprise the title in many cases... Any thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you used the titles from Onno van Rijen's list, I think he's usually pretty reliable. For the Kasparov works I know (admittedly not many) you seem to have reasonable titles. Not sure about some of the cities quoted for the first performances though. "Cardiff (England)"? Was "Norcheping (Sweden)" supposed to be Norrköping? And as for "Hay-Pierre-de- crusts (France)", I'm not sure where that could be! The Russian transliterates as "San-Pyer-de-Kor", so perhaps that's Saint-Pierre-des-Corps. --Deskford (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know Russian at all, which is why I had to resort to Babel, so I bow to your judgement! Some of the other titles could mean quite different things apparently, too: I assumed the page I have linked uses the typical translation but maybe they just made it up? Perhaps I should put the original titles in next to the translation and leave it up to the readers to decide. Problem is, I wouldn't know which words actually comprise the title in many cases... Any thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Google Translate gives "Fantasy for 4 buckets, 12 string, organ and a small clockwork monkey". Bing Translator gives "Fantasia for 4-x vëder, 12 stringed, body and a small lively obez′ânki", so that's not much help. The word in question, "ведро" ("вёдер" as it appears in the article is the genitive plural), does indeed mean "bucket", and I can't find any alternative meaning as any kind of musical instrument, so perhaps they really are buckets. --Deskford (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, only the list was translated from the Russian WP but I used [this] to verify and often just lifted their descriptions and names verbatim in a great many cases—sort of a double-lifting as it were... The rest is my own work, however. Perhaps we still need that notice anyway? There is a certain amount to do, yet, anyway: stray []'s from the Russian-Babelfish translation and minor copyedits. And yes: Fantasy for 4 buckets, 12 strings, organ and small mechanical monkey!!! It took me a while to be sure, but the linked list also refers to that work. The Babelled text reads Con of moto of morto (2000) fantasy for the 4th buckets, 12 stringed, organ and small mechanical small monkey. I'm still unsure why 4th buckets (the Double bass quartet Chorale also has a similar 4th as opposed to 4) and considered at first that it might mean quarter of a bucket or (more seriously) that bucket is a translation only according to one sense (like tube = tuba, pipe = trumpet and impact = percussion), but I could not for the life of me figure it out and now assume that it really means bucket. The monkey suggests a non-serious piece anyway: something akin to PDQ Bach's Pervertimento for Bagpipes, Bicycle and Balloons would be my guess. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Bannering
Can we remember to put the banner on bona fide CTM articles? I've just bannered Yuri Kasparov. Also put composers in Category:21st-century classical composers as appropriate? Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, Klein! I forgot about those. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Conversely, we also need to remember to remove the banner from non-bona-fide CTM articles and remove non-classical/non-21st-century composers (and any non-composers) from Category:21st-century classical composers. Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 10:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Mass deletion of unreferenced BLPs
Editors might want to review Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Mass_deletion_of_unreferenced_BLPs. The discussion concerns a global purge of unref'ed BLPs that might just stop by our way soon—ironically. --Jubilee♫clipman 11:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Whilst it is still important to be working through articles as Jc has started, could I also point people towards Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people? It's important that ordinary editors get to have their say there. Some of the initial contributions were by the dedicated followers of wikidrama and, judging by the proportions of support and oppose views on different statements yesterday compared with those in the first 24 hourse, the followers of wikidrama are not fully representative of Wiki editors as a whole. So could people please go and support or oppose some of the statements? And if you want to actually write down you own thoughts, I'm not going to stop you. If it all looks too complicated for some people, I could identify those statements that have garnered the most comments to help people zoom in on the key ones. I won't, of course, tell you which way to vote.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
ALERT Everyone here should review the discussions linked above: it seems WP policy might be changed to allow automatic deletion of unref'ed BLPs without warning. Read the disscussion immeadiately following the linked Opera project discussion and participate in the RfC. In a way, and perversely, mass deletion will deal with our immeadiate problem for us given the huge number of unref'ed BLPs under our banner. However, we will lose a large number of important articles and still be left with the ref'ed rubbish, NN, and hoaxes etc. On balance, the proposal is not a good one, IMO. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- For people who are overwhelmed by the size of the rfc, then User:Peter cohen/BLP RFC stats tabulates the eight statements that had generated 50 or more !votes (both for and against) by this lunchtime. I think it is best if you indicate support, oppose or neutral on all 8. If you don't feel you have time to comment on all 8, then I would suggest that the ones with the biggest difference in percentage of supporting votes in the first 24 hour of the statements being up and the most recent 24 hours are where the initial voters are least representative of Wikipedia as a whole and therefore need your attention most. Those with little change in the pattern of recent and earlier votes are, I suspect, most likely to remain stable.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Anyway, I think the whole thing is fixed: Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs is almost indentical with Jehochman's proposal, except his proposal leaves out such things as "[a]ny article deleted via this process and then recreated is subject to speedy deletion under criterion G4". I wonder if we are being sold a red herring with the RfC? --Jubilee♫clipman 23:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- If indeed it is a done deal, we would be best concentrating our efforts on the list of problem articles Jubileeclipman has been building, and making sure we rescue those that really need to be saved. I presume (hope!) that if an article is bannered by WP:CTM then the project would be notified in some way if an article is tagged for WP:DUB. According to the proposal, unreferenced BLPs are only eligible for DUB if they have been tagged as u-BLP for three months, so that gives a certain grace period for newly tagged articles. Perhaps we as a project should maintain our own list of known u-BLPs somewhere as a safeguard. I'm not as militantly opposed to the idea of radically culling u-BLPs as some seem to be. Realistically, there are many more composer u-BLPs needing attention than the small team of active WP:CTM editors will ever be able to deal with, and so far we have spent a disproportionate amount of effort debating borderline cases, when there are major composers with articles lacking sources. And if in the process we lose some notables, then by definition they will be easy to re-create because reliable sources will be readily available. That criterion G4, by the way, only applies to deleted articles that are re-created without improvement. If they are re-created with adequate references there will be no problem.
- If the above seems controversial or defeatist, then let me say I am trying to take a pragmatic swim-with-the-tide approach. Personally I would like to see WP:Incubation considered as an additional tool in the process, with expired DUBs incubated rather than deleted, and incubation as a valid outcome of AfD too, but it would seem that is not the way the tide is flowing. --Deskford (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- My own list could easily be pruned to uBLPs only and made a subpage of this project. Not a bad idea actually. We could also have a major composer articles needing work (but note the possible POV...), stub articles, sourced articles needing immeadiate attention etc. Obviously, the latter two expand the boundaries but then we aren't the composers project anyway (but we do need to work with them on these articles, of course). The advantages of listing are that we will notice redlinks immeadiately and that we can each see at a glance who we personally feel are the most notable composers and other subjects. I agree that we are getting somewhat sidetracked by boardline cases: see my comment below. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Archived
I just moved the first few sections over to /Archive 9 if anyoe needs to review those discussions. Some were not due to be moved till Wednesday, but the page was becoming huge and the discussions are centered around the ongoing cleanup we are engaged in anyway: it seemed better to archive than let the page become unmanagable. --Jubilee♫clipman 11:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I was asked personally to help with this. It was PRODed as a NN unsourced BLP but someone subsequently added a few sources and removed the prod. It has also been a CSD due to copyvio concerns. Frankly, I am failing to establish any notability at all and wonder if it should be AfDed? --Jubilee♫clipman 16:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Article on Tadd Russo, written by Russoerica. Are they related? Looks like WP:COI to me. --Deskford (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- That has been noted... Anyway: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tadd Russo. I gave up... --Jubilee♫clipman 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is instructive to learn from one of the references that Tadd eats a balanced diet from all six food groups and sleeps in a hollowed out tree trunk, though I don't see anything that indicates notability. Indeed the references are all attached to the same paragraph on his musical training, with nothing to back up his subsequent career. I suspect he's going to get a "delete" vote from me, but I'll have a look around for any other potential sources first. --Deskford (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have to point out that the first part of Deskford's references is no longer true: Tadd really only eats from about four food groups on any given day. (Russoerica (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
- So he still sleep in the tree then? Or is that only as an alternative to the doghouse...? :P --Jubilee♫clipman 02:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- He's a composer...most nights he doesn't sleep at all! (Russoerica (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
Sidetracked...
As mentioned above by Deskford, we are getting a little sidetracked by near-non-notables and other near-trivia. Obviously, direct requests for help are quite different: they need to be honoured. However, I propose to singlemindedly resume checking the list and if any more requests come my way I will simply inform you lot and hope you have time to help whomever it is out. In particular, we need to have a list of all the unref'ed BLPs... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Good. I think it's always better to do one thing at a time (narrowly defined when there are a lot of article involved) and finish it, rather than attempt lots of things at the same time. --Kleinzach 01:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- BTW we do have a list of unref'ed BLPs, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Contemporary_music/Cleanup_listing#BLP_articles_lacking_sources. It seems to be dated November 2009. Have a stiff drink before you look at it! --Kleinzach 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mind you hand checking is important, too: given the fact that that list is generated by WolterBot (talk · contribs), it is probably based on user tags. Does WolterBot remove deleted articles, too? If so, we will have no record of those without my manual list. The list is actually the entire cleanup listing, so it contains all problem articles, in fact. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- It is (or was) all based on tags. The list doesn't seem to have been updated since November. I am simply removing the names of articles I've checked and if necessary fixed. In some cases the tags are redundant because the articles have been fixed long ago. BTW I'm noticing some erratic attacks on perfectly bona fide articles (The Immortal Hour, Jörg Dürmüller) possibly inspired by the deletionist mania. --Kleinzach 02:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- We obviously need to be vigilant; however, with the huge and growing number of articles under our banner, we cannot possibly monitor any but those we are working on and—it is hoped—the most obviously significant. These clearly include Contemporary classical music, 21st-century classical music and the big names such as John Adams (composer) etc. Perhaps we ought to create a list of these important articles by consensus so we can watch them as a project? Could you make a start? Or perhaps Deskford could have a look? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I meant just create a list manually in project space so we are all aware of which the most important articles are. BTW, I can see what 207.69.139.145 (talk · contribs) and 207.69.137.29 (talk · contribs) (same user probably just different IP) were trying to do to The Immortal Hour: they just went overboard on removing entire paragraphs rather then tidying peacocks and OR etc... Anyway, I digress (again). --Jubilee♫clipman 02:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mind you, the conversation you had was like a weirder episode from the twilight zone... The cheek of an IP to banner a reg! Bizarre. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- And s/he has been an IP since 2004... You would have thought they could get an account by now? Curiouser and curiouser... --Jubilee♫clipman 03:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfinished business
I have just glanced over this rather huge talk page before retiring for the night and note a few unresolved issues. In particular, this (are they still considered dodgy?) and this (is he now ready to go back on the list?) as well as the question about film-only composers being in/excluded from the list. Any further thoughts on these? --Jubilee♫clipman 03:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we still need to find out what's been going on with Mr Carnevale. No big problem with Neopoeisis (talk · contribs) making hundreds of edits to Roberto Carnevale (except perhaps the copyright issue over the score extracts), but I think there is a problem to be resolved with all these IP editors sneaking inappropriate links into other articles. Consider this — the article on Accademia Musicale Chigiana reads: The list of distinguished pupils includes Daniel Barenboim, Carlo Maria Giulini, Roberto Carnevale, Zubin Mehta and Claudio Abbado. Do you really think he belongs in such company...?
- As for Gerald Garcia, I struggled to find reliable references. There is a Naxos CD of his music, and he has also made a number of recordings for Naxos as a soloist playing other people's music, so I guess he's probably notable.
- I notice amongst your recent taggings has been John Kenny (trombonist). I guess I should try to add some references to this one (there seem to be plenty around) but I should probably declare an interest in that I know John. He plays the reconstructed Deskford Carnyx, after all!
- --Deskford (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Barenboim, Guilini, Mehta, Abbado, and... who he? [ed.] seems an appropriate comment to add to that list! I really haven't a clue what to do about him (and the lady for that matter) but I take it you are still watching it all? If so I'll leave it in your capable hands but please do update us occasionally. Adding refs to your acquaintence/friend's bio is hardly COI, unless they are from your own websites and basically say either Kenny is the best!!! or %^$@*#@& Kenny! and little else! You could even cite that instrument without much comeback, I suspect, despite the similarity in your names. And yes, Naxos recordings probably qualify Garcia, though he is still very marginal given that they do record/produce/reproduce all sorts of rubbish... Any more thoughts on the film composers? I vote we just leave them for now and worry about the uBLPs and various bits of trash on our list. BTW, we have only touched the surface: what about the uBLPs on List of contemporary classical violinists, etc... BTW, is there a List of conductors? It is presumeably hidden under some other name but I tried adding also sorts to this simplest set of words (including "orchestral", "classical", "contemporary", "notable" etc, both singly and in combination) and got nothing back... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I note conducting links to the cat for its list of conductors, so I guess "no"? How very odd... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, I suspect Antony le Fleming will vanish soon unless the reviewing admin thinks my sourcing is good enough (which I doubt). --Jubilee♫clipman 01:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Re Carnevale, I have been searching the WP guidelines for anything relevant, but I can't actually find anything that says Thou shalt not add minor figures into lists of examples in articles where they are of limited relevance just for the sake of making those minor figures seem more significant. When Kobi Arad was doing this kind of thing, a few of us would revert the changes with something like Not notable enough for a general article in the edit summary, but this got tedious after a while, as I'm sure we all remember! I'm going to hold fire for the moment, because for the next couple of weeks I'm not going to have much time for more than the odd glance to see what's going on in the world of WP.
- Re Garcia, by bizarre coincidence I was tonight at a meeting with someone who had just been sent Mr Garcia's promotional CD from his agent, wondering if we could set up some gigs for him in North-East Scotland.
- Re film composers, I'm unsure because it's an area of which I have little experience. Likewise composers for TV. I know more about composers for live theatre, but they tend to be unsung heroes with much less prominence than writers and directors, and usually unknown outside their local area. Most of them would struggle to survive the WP notability test.
- Re conductors, violinists, bassoon players, small mechanical monkeys... perhaps we should deal with the composers first. Once we've dealt with the List of 21st-century classical composers we still have Category:21st-century classical composers to deal with. The list and the category each contain a little over a thousand names, but I bet they're not the same thousand. A useful task for a bot (or a bored human with a lot of time to spare) might be to draw up a correlation list between the two, identifying those on the list but missing from the category and vice versa. And then there are all the more specific lists and categories. My current favourite obscure pointless categories include Category:Composers for concertina (just one entry) and Category:Composers for torban (two entries, both also in Category:Musical hoaxes).
- As I say, I won't be editing much for a while, but if I get the odd free moment I'll have a look at referencing John Kenny (trombonist) and translating Pelle Gudmundsen-Holmgreen and Hugues Dufourt from the Danish and French WPs respectively. --Deskford (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
- supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
- opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.
Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
- List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
- Moving unreferenced blp articles to special "incubation pages"
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
- Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Ikip 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Our picture
The Solitude score has been added to Wikimedia Commons. However, the notice says this:
This file is now available on Wikimedia Commons as File:Solitude.png.
Files that have been tagged with this template may be deleted after satisfying conditions of CSD F8. Administrators: delete this file.
Be careful. This file is tagged by a bot (BotMultichill (talk)). Be sure to check the file at Commons before deleting this file.
Does that mean it might be deleted sometime soon and we will need to update out picture yet again to point to commons? Or what? --Jubilee♫clipman 15:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think this just means that because the file is now available on Commons, the copy on en:Wikipedia may be deleted as it is now surplus to requirements. --Deskford (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- That was as I thought, but will the admins move all the links over when they delete the original upload or do we actually have to relink our banner and userbox? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this, but I think as long as the file has the same name on Commons, the articles will pick it up automatically if no such file exists on en:Wikipedia. Take this example: I uploaded an image to en:Wikipedia for use in the article Ythanwells. Some time later, someone copied the image to Commons and deleted the copy on en:Wikipedia, but now the article picks this up, without having been modified itself to do so. In another case, however, the image for New Leeds was given a different name when it was moved to Commons, and the admin concerned also updated the article to use the new name. --Deskford (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- That was as I thought, but will the admins move all the links over when they delete the original upload or do we actually have to relink our banner and userbox? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Reference books: The Oxford Dictionary of Music (2006)
I've just bought the 2006 edition of Michael Kennedy's The Oxford Dictionary of Music (985 pages) and I'm finding it excellent for quick (verification) references for composers etc. (I would guess it's the next best thing after Grove.) What books are other people using? --Kleinzach 00:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I find Alex Ross's The Rest is Noise invaluable for C20th stuff, but he ends in about 2000 (obviously) so not much good for my own particular interest in 21st-century composers and instrumentalists... As for tertiary sources, I like the Harvard but most of my books (including that) are elsewhere at present so I am reduced to using the net. Perhaps this isn't a bad thing given that we are web based and that readers might like to check sources immeadiately rather than having to go to a library to find a copy of Tom Smith's A Compendium of Indigenous Panpipe Music from Latin America (and finding out it doesn't actually exist) or having to translate an important Chinese text only found in the Smithsonian. We still get people adding links to other language sites of course but at least we can use one of the translation tools to get the gist of these. I'll get around to rescuing my books and getting others soon. The ODM is pretty good, IIRC. I think I have an older edition somewhere. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have Michael Kennedy's Oxford Dictionary of Music in the 1994 edition, plus the two-volume New Oxford Companion to Music from the 1980s, which both contain a lot of the same material. They were good when new, but hopelessly out of date now for looking up composers. I got into the habit of using an online encyclopedia called Wikipedia instead. I found it contained a lot of rubbish, but occasionally gave me references to other websites that I could trust. Then last year I discovered I could actually do something about all the rubbish, starting making changes here and there, and somehow got involved in a thing called the Wikipedia Contemporary Music Project. The rest, as they say, is history...! --Deskford (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK. If either of you want to know if someone is in the 2006 ODM I'm happy to do a quick check for you. --Kleinzach 02:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC) BTW My 'damaged' copy cost US 19.31 on Abe Books.--Kleinzach 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- We could be coming to you with some very long lists! I would be curious to know how much it says about Roberto Carnevale, my current bugbear because of the way he seems to keep infiltrating so many other articles beyond his merit (see my rants elsewhere on this talk page). --Deskford (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Carnevale is not in the ODM. --Kleinzach 04:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's pretty conclusive, IMO. He's a nobody. What about the woman? --Jubilee♫clipman 19:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- The woman . . . of course . . . in the words of Dumas (père): Cherchez la femme, pardieu ! cherchez la femme !. --Kleinzach 06:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's pretty conclusive, IMO. He's a nobody. What about the woman? --Jubilee♫clipman 19:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Carnevale is not in the ODM. --Kleinzach 04:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- User:Jubileeclipman/List of problematic 21st-century composer articles, if Klein wants to make a start...? :P More seriously, thanks for the offer and I suspect we will knock on your door quite often, given the clientèle of the group of articles we work with! (I mean the subjects rather than the editors, though the statement could actually be applied either way...) --Jubilee♫clipman 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- We could be coming to you with some very long lists! I would be curious to know how much it says about Roberto Carnevale, my current bugbear because of the way he seems to keep infiltrating so many other articles beyond his merit (see my rants elsewhere on this talk page). --Deskford (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK. If either of you want to know if someone is in the 2006 ODM I'm happy to do a quick check for you. --Kleinzach 02:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC) BTW My 'damaged' copy cost US 19.31 on Abe Books.--Kleinzach 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have Michael Kennedy's Oxford Dictionary of Music in the 1994 edition, plus the two-volume New Oxford Companion to Music from the 1980s, which both contain a lot of the same material. They were good when new, but hopelessly out of date now for looking up composers. I got into the habit of using an online encyclopedia called Wikipedia instead. I found it contained a lot of rubbish, but occasionally gave me references to other websites that I could trust. Then last year I discovered I could actually do something about all the rubbish, starting making changes here and there, and somehow got involved in a thing called the Wikipedia Contemporary Music Project. The rest, as they say, is history...! --Deskford (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, good point! I'll review the list and probably just remove the fixed ones (and the ones I got wrong for that matter) rather than using the green tick job. I can't really see any point of retaining them considering I'm only at K and have a pretty large list already... Unless anyone sees a good reason to retain the full list with comments and tags that is? Navgitaion seems more important then historical record or whatever.
Out of curiosity, how often do people here use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia as opposed to a personal/communal project? In particular, how often do you read complete articles other than reviewing for copyedit/sourcing/GAN etc? I have to confess that I rarely use it as an encyclopedia except very occasionally and even then only when I come accross some obcure term in an article I'm reviewing and click the link to find out what it refers to. Perhaps that is still part of my editing work and as such doesn't count? Obviously, I am also clicking to find out if the link is genuinely relevent to the article and, indeed, not a hoax or mistake etc. I often wonder, actually, how often any regular editor uses WP as an encyclopia: perhaps not many, once they find out how the whole thing actually works? --Jubilee♫clipman 16:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW, that's great work Klein, thanks! I might just leave the list as is for the moment (despite my earlier comment) because the commentry is useful. I've been a bit slow toniught becaue of real world distrations and computer issues but I guss people will be playing catch for a quite while, anyway, so no rush really. (I don't think any new policy will come that soon and anyway, I suspect there will be so much opposition to mass-block "DUBbing" that the policy will need to be thrashed out. Anyway, the timelines are being forced ever wider, it appears, so I think even if it was all in place next week we'd have plenty time.) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Rhythmology
I would be grateful if people could have a quick look over this one. Rhythmology appears to be the performing/recording name of a composer called Malcolm Rycraft. The article was created by Mrycraft (talk · contribs). Initially I gave it a WP:PROD as he seemed a clear non-notable. The PROD has been contested... by Mrycraft (talk · contribs). --Deskford (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- What on earth did the editor mean by "RM PROD notice after restoration"? Restoration of what? The only thing that happened between your tag and his removal was the SmackBot cleaning the dates etc on tags! I haven't actually looked at the article yet BTW, I just wondered what you had said in the PROD then found his weird remark in contesting it! --Jubilee♫clipman 16:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- The PROD was contested 18 days after it had been deleted, by Mrycraft (talk · contribs) getting admin JohnCD (talk · contribs) to restore the article. I had, however, been guilty of failing to notify the creator of my PROD nomination, on the wrong assumption that an editor who had been inactive for over two years wouldn't be around any more. In future I'll
nominateinform all article creators of any proposed deletions, however long they seem to have been inactive. --Deskford (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)- Nominate or inform? LOL! Anyway, that makes sense now: you can't PROD an article recreated after deletion, IIRC.
- I've looked at the article, now, but not attempted to source yet. "Performances - 20/02/1990 Malcolm Rycraft (piano) Concert Hall, Royal College of Music, London, UK" might be something, though the halls are used by many people for all sorts of rubbish. It doesn't say "as part of a recital set up by the RCM to promoite a important modern composer and pianist" or whatever so I suspect it isn't much at all. Any idea who The Sorabji Archive are anyway? Indeed, "the world premiere of a work by Sorabji" might be something if Sorabji were anyone. The other two "sources" are (1) his official site and (2) the site of the company weirdly dabbed at the bottom of the article. Anyway, most "music is full of rhythms which are combined, contrasted and generally used as building blocks" in one way or another! Most rock music uses rhythmic riffs that are combined and most C19th and C20th symphonies are based on rhythmic motifs that are "combined, contrasted [etc]"... Anyway, I feel like I am teaching you all to suck eggs now! I have more if you want? ("strong element of... harmony" ie it isn't all pure monody or simple two part inventions...) To be honest he just sounds like an upmarket synth pop act like Kraftwerk or Ultravox, just 35 years too late... I'll have a hunt around for sources before I resume the list, but I pertty much expect not to find any given the delete votes at the AfD already. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- The association with Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji — a very odd composer — seems about the only thing interesting about him, but it only seems to be a minor association. --Deskford (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh him! I forgot about those horrendous pieces. Probably have a few lying around somewhere. Mind you, he might achieve notability as a pianist since the premier seems to check out here. We need non-primaries of course, but maybe this isn't quite cut-and-dried. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Googling "Désir éperdu" premiere and "Désir Eperdu" premiere and both with "first performance" rather than premiere just give either lists of works by Sorabji or in-context French usage or other non-relevent items. Indeed "E/éperdu" is often replaced with "Perdu" anyway, which isn't much help. David Pitmann ferforms it here if you are curious about the piece (no Rhythmology/Malcolm Rycraft performance, though). Its a bit too short and easy for my liking! ;) --Jubilee♫clipman 18:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)Rhythmology] also happens to be a dance studio. And and a SNS... among other things. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- The association with Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji — a very odd composer — seems about the only thing interesting about him, but it only seems to be a minor association. --Deskford (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- The PROD was contested 18 days after it had been deleted, by Mrycraft (talk · contribs) getting admin JohnCD (talk · contribs) to restore the article. I had, however, been guilty of failing to notify the creator of my PROD nomination, on the wrong assumption that an editor who had been inactive for over two years wouldn't be around any more. In future I'll
Would the review found here by one "Malcolm Rycraft, New Media Editor, Royal Festival Hall" be any use? --Jubilee♫clipman 18:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji isn't a bad article quite balanced and informative. It needs a lot more inlines, though. There are only two in the man bio, the rest being in the list of works. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I note Klavierbooster (talk · contribs) has added an info box to this article despite our clear opposition to them. The box also happens to contain an image which, despite the claim at the image's page, may not be in the public domain (anyone can tick the "it's mine" box, after all). This editor has been warned before for copyvio of images of this composer. However, I aldo note that Klein has failed to source Don Freund's article from the ODM and that Voceditenore reduced it to a stub for—wait for it—copyvio... Should we AfD the article without bothering about removing the box and reporting the image? It would solve all the problems in one fell swoop. Unless he is truly notable? I have had never heard the name before working on this list—but then I am not known for remembering names: I had to click Luigi Cherubini once because I forgot who he was! (I got confused with a character in an opera by Mozart too, mind, but then I did just have to click that link to remind myself of his precise name...) Any thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 20:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think he may be notable, so perhaps we need to do more work before an afd? I've added some stuff and removed the infobox. What we need are some non-Indiana refs. --Kleinzach 23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Juan Sebastian Lach hoax?
Not quite got to L yet, but this stuck out like a sore thumb! It appears to be this person (though note the Lau at the end of the name). Quite a few sites have merely copied our article, inevitably, but I am begining to think it is indeed a clever hoax. OTOH, there are a few vague refs, and one discussion site refs him. There is even a sample of his music here and there, but I can't quite seem to establish that he really exists (or that all those people are the same for that matter). Any help? The band certainly seem to exist (assuming they are the same band, indeed), but their official site seems to be down and (again) attempts to search for the two names together tend to throw up regurgitated Wiki articles... (Sorry for all remarked links, BTW, I just wanted to make this as short and to the point as possible.) --Jubilee♫clipman 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh. I just tried this instead and got an MTV Unplugged session naming him. Perhaps this is real? Maybe a pseudonym or a bad joke by his parents? --Jubilee♫clipman 23:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I forgot to check the history and now notice that it was created by an IP and extensively edited by Jslach (talk · contribs), a near single-use account. Self promo? Strange hoax perpetuated by a brazen editor? He edited Bhagawan Nityananda too for some reason: may be he consulted this guru at some stage? This gets weirer and weirder... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Could be a stage name, or as you say strange parents. The Orpheus Instituut mentions him (as Juan Sebastian Lach Lau) in an apparently serious academic context, which makes me think he's probably real, but there doesn't seem to be enough reliable sourcing to vouch for his notability. --Deskford (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Categories for 'creative works' - music, visual arts, literature etc.
Please see this discussion at the Arts Project about reorganizing high-level categories for 'art works', including compositions, songs and albums. The intention is to make it easier for projects to look after large sets of articles. Thank you. --Kleinzach 23:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's one pretty huge task you've set them, far bigger than mine! It is pretty critical, though, that "artist" is made to mean one thing viz "visual art". Madonna may be an "artist" in the broader sense but we'd hardly dab her as Madonna (artist) would we? (Addendum: Oh...) How about Charles Rennie Mackintosh (artist) or William Shakespeare (artist)? Probably not... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please join in - maybe after the discussion takes some form? This is something that has caused a lot of problems (I won't go into details!) We are trying to get some general principles sorted out (i.e in top level cats), hopefully without lots of people focusing on anomalies (as the first respondent has!) deeper in the structure. --Kleinzach 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hee-hee! First you say "stay focussed on one thing" and now you say "oh perhaps you could get involved in something else, too..."! Actually, I am intending to say something over there, but I won't allow my self to get drawn in (I suspect that's what you meant, of course...) The task here is too important to lose sight of, even if I do (anyway) get sidetracked occassionally. And yes, I noticed the overly-detailed-and-not-yet-relevent problem-spotting. Focus is indeed the key at every stage! I think you've nailed the main problem though: "Artist" ≠ anyone that dabbles in "high culture" to create unique and critically acclaimed works of...um.. "art"... "Artist" = anyone who creates visual art work. I acknowlegde the redundancy in that definition... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please join in - maybe after the discussion takes some form? This is something that has caused a lot of problems (I won't go into details!) We are trying to get some general principles sorted out (i.e in top level cats), hopefully without lots of people focusing on anomalies (as the first respondent has!) deeper in the structure. --Kleinzach 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Please see specific proposals — and join in the iVote! --Kleinzach 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Aldo Clementi
I've added a few references to Aldo Clementi so that he's no longer an unreferenced BLP, but the article probably needs more work if anyone would care to look over it. --Deskford (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's not a little understated... You also doubled the length of the article! Great work, Deskford! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- So many composers, so little time! (Sigh.) I have also added a few items, in a "Further reading section", since I don't have the time at the moment to read through any of them in order to add material to the article itself. I hope this will serve as a repository of items on which other editors may draw.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Resuming (with a vengeance)
OK, I have spent a considerable amount of time commenting on various issues elsewhere and helping other editors—all of which was quite necessary—but I am going to get on with the task at hand now. If any really pressing issues arise I will take a look but I really think that sorting out the list is top priority at the moment. Thanks to everyone that has worked on the articles already flagged up in my list. Could you add comments over there (if you haven't already)? Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 23:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)