Talk:John McCabe (composer)

Homage to Mussorgsky: Epithalamium

Am I the only Wikipedian who was at the première? If not, please share your thoughts. As it happens, my father is the pianist's agent, so that's why I was there: I wasn't sure what to think of the piece - I preferred the Lyapunov Transcendental Studies that Malcolm Binns also played that night.--Vox Humana 8' 17:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation for a reference?

I added this reference: Kennedy, Michael (2006). The Oxford Dictionary of Music. ISBN 0-19-861459-4

Jerome Kohl has added a citation tag and an inline message: "Edition number, place, publisher needed; also, there is a second editor/author, and there should be a specific article ref."

Hmm. The date, publisher and place are perfectly clear: 2006, Oxford and Oxford. It's the second revised edition but there is no necessity to add this. There is only one author (although Joyce Bourne is credited as 'Associate Editor'. Do references always have to cite 'associate editors'? I don't think so.

If Jerome Kohl wants to add this information - which is readily available on the internet — he can do so. --Kleinzach 23:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have found this information and have added it to some other articles. The citation as it stands does not say where the book was published (New York, actually, as well as Oxford), not does it state whether the publisher is Oxford University Press or Clarendon Press (often the UK publisher for books with the NY imprint of Oxford University Press). Indeed the date is clear, which is why I did not ask for it. However, an article title really is needed, I think, since dictionaries are usually referenced by article title, rather than page number. While I appreciate the work you have been doing by adding references to this book on many articles, I am getting a little tired of clearing up afterward. Please in future try to include a complete bibliographic entry (which, by the way, should not include a tally of the number of pages in the book).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought the ISBN would tell you everything you ever wanted to know! You could almost cite a book by that alone... BTW, "Language: English" and "Publisher: Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2006." That's according to WorldCat and the others seem to verify this. Hope that helps? --Jubilee♫clipman 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not very surprisingly, this is exactly the information I found (amongst other things) when I did an ISBN search myself in OCLC, in connection with several other articles with this book recently added by Kleinzach. I will repeat that I am grateful for Kleinzach's efforts to add these references, but do wish that missing bibliographical data could be included in any future such additions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC).

Also, I am not convinced that the specific article title needs to be cited, given that it is the exact same name as the WP article subject... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it? Why should I make that assumption? If the same book were cited in the article Twelve-tone technique, would I assume an article of the same title appears in the dictionary, or should I rather assume the reference is to the article on Arnold Schoenberg?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I see your point. To be fair to you even more, there might also be other refs to McCabe elsewhere in ODM which are pertinent (eg "Piano Music" or whatever), so there is a serious point here. Klein hasn't added masses of these so it should be easy to sort it out. See my list User:Jubileeclipman/List of problematic 21st-century composer articles for others. The additions are absolutely necessary in some cases, though, as they completely unref'ed... Klein should probably sort it, in actual fact, however (I suspect he's on it right now, indeed). --Jubilee♫clipman 00:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am working at some speed. A lot of material is currently being deleted and we need to check as many articles as possible. We all know that there is variation in the style of references and this needs to be addressed in the future. Jerome Kohl can improve the ODM refs if he likes, adding publisher and place etc, - that's fine. It's worth buying a copy of the book, assuming you don't have the 20 volumes of Grove. (I got mine from the USA for less than 20 dollars.) BTW I only cite the ODM if there is an actual entry on the subject of the article. I don't include anything indirect (for obvious practical reasons) — if I did I would indicate it — this is the first time in four years that anyone has raised this point. --Kleinzach 02:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've now removed the citation tag and also the incorrect credit to Joyce Bourne, who was not a co-editor and doesn't use her married name. --Kleinzach 02:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't know what name Joyce Bourne Kennedy may or may not use, but the Library of Congress lists the authors of the Oxford Dictionary of Music as "by Michael Kennedy; Joyce Bourne Kennedy", and library catalogs routinely list them together in this fashion (possibly mistakenly following the lead of those prize buffoons at the LOC). Perhaps you can enlighten me about the appearance of the half-title page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Better this way

Formatting better to have infobox to provide summary the way well over half of all wikipedia articles do. Montanabw^(talk) 04:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

In what way is this "better"? The infobox chosen is the "musical artist" one, designed for pop-music performers, not classical musicians. You can see already that it contradicts itself by describing his occupation as "composer" but his instrument as "piano". This infobox simply invites all kinds of confusion, and provides nothing at all that isn't already in the article lede. I say delete it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest to return to {{infobox person}}. For what an infobox adds, see Talk:Frédéric Chopin#Infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

An interesting read. Thanks, Gerda, this is one of the discussions I have missed. It seems to me not only to discuss what infoboxes add, but also what their failings are. Quite well-balanced, if long-winded. I also must say that I like the infobox currently on the Chopin article: just a photograph and the composer's signature. That says it all. This would be ideal for the present article. Now, where can we find a photo of John McCabe and a sample of his signature? BTW, once upon a time there was a specially designed infobox for classical composers. It does not seem to have been used very much. Why is "infobox person" any better?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"Person" is used a lot and maintained a lot. It works for the general things such as honorific prefix and suffix, data of birth and death, awards, and in a way that's all I would like to see, a feeling of time and locations. I use it for ballet dancers and opera singers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

One of the prime objections to using infoboxes for composers is how poorly they fit into "standard" categories, by the very nature of their occupation (the present case being a fairly good example—I have already intimated that a composer does not require an instrument to carry out his primary occupation). Does the "person" infobox address this issue better than the "musical artist" or "composer" infobox?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

John McCabe CBE
Born	(1939-04-21) 21 April 1939 Huyton, UK
Occupations	Composer Pianist
Website	www.johnmccabe.com

I am afraid that I don't understand the question, being a latecomer to the discussions. Not all parameters need to be filled, quite the opposite. The present: here's my version to be discussed ;) - I agree that the article should be better, for example say more precisely where he studied what. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the "don't fit the standard pattern" issue is documented in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Major_discussions. As for "not all parameters need to be filled", this has been (if I recall correctly) one of the other main objections to using infoboxes for composers. Because the parameters are there, they tend to attract data that my be misleading. For example, the "musical artists" infobox has got a parameter for "associated acts". Clearly this is meant for performers mainly known as soloists, but who also have appeared with other artists. It makes no sense at all for composers, but there is always going to be some fool who decides if there is an empty space it needs to be filled. This is what is called an "attractive nuisance".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Try AGF ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean one of these? Yes, that might be effective.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't use abbreviations ;) - "there is always going to be some fool who decides" didn't soud like the representation of assuming good faith to me. I have infoboxes in several composer articles, and nobody changed (other than what I might call the project police, see the most famous example), - that's "always"? Why "fool"? Why "decide"? - This is Wikipedia, yes, other people can also decide how articles look, if I don't accept that I should move elsewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not particularly care which infobox is used, simply that a nice one adds to the article. The issue is not if but how. I like the other edits to this article, it's getting better. Montanabw^(talk) 07:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda: I suppose that was a rather flippant way of putting it but, as you bring it up, in my experience fools are actually less likely to act in bad faith than the excessively bright are. My point was that leaving unused parameters lying about is an open invitation for their use by people who do not see any reason to refrain from doing so. There are plenty of people who, in perfectly good faith, believe that if something can be done, it should be done. More generally, I have seen nothing here yet to convince me that this article should not be returned to the status quo so far as infoboxes are concerned.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is not if an infobox should be added, it is which one and with what parameters. AGF is important and not saying inflammatory words like "fool" is best. An infobox generally is a positive addition to the article; and again WHICH one is added, I don't care. But one needs to be there. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be there - infoboxes are not mandatory. I would agree with Jerome Kohl's points bar one - this is not "attractive", but simply a nuisance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Nikkimaria. I couldn't have put it better myself. And @Montanabw: With respect, the discussion here is on the proposal: "Formatting better to have infobox to provide summary the way well over half of all wikipedia articles do," not a discussion of which of several infoboxes should be chosen, given that there is no opposition to including an infobox at all. There is opposition, and we are discussing it. You believe an infobox is a positive addition, and Nikkimaria and I do not. Convince us that we are wrong.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This is another round of the "Classical music people don't like infoboxes and will bully anyone who tries to insert one. I am not going to revisit the endless infobox wars. The point is simple: Another editor added an infobox, then when it was criticized by an editor who had never before (as far as I can tell) edited the article, added a different version that appears to be a good faith effort to address the issue. Again it was removed it with the usual arguments, at which point I became aware that there was an issue. Basically, an article is better with an infobox than without; one with few parameters looks a little plain at first, but it is the perfect way to provide overview, encyclopedic basic material such as a photo, birth and death dates, nationality, and so on. It is snobbish and stuck-up to remove the easiest method for casual readers to access basic information and I have yet to see one argument against infoboxes that makes any case other than "I don't like them 'cause I think they are dumb and ugly, plus I despise anyone who isn't as dedicated to the topic as myself." It does no harm to anyone and there is a good argument that it helps, as is clearly demonstrated by the millions of articles that have them (outside of classical music) so why get so stirred up about standard formatting? Montanabw^(talk) 19:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"AGF is important and not saying inflammatory words...is best"? If you are not interested in revisiting the "endless infobox wars", then why are you doing just that? There have been arguments on both sides, but the inclusion/exclusion of a box is decided on a case-by-case basis, and in this case it isn't warranted. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is warranted. It provides a quick overview of the subject in a predictable place for those visitors who just want to see a few key facts, as well as emitting useful metadata for re-users. I'm suggesting an infobox that does not contain unused parameters as I accept the argument about attracting editors who try to fill up the infobox with less pertinent items just because they can. If someone can find a free image (I can't so far), then I'd be more than happy to restore the image, alt and caption parameters. --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Your most recent edit summary made the extraordinary claim that "there is no status quo" and referred here, and yet your comment does not address that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not a "classical music person" and I think this box is pointless. Everything that can be found in the current box can be found by shifting the eyes to the left of the screen. Cassianto^talk 21:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As you know, Wikipedia has no status quo, so it cannot be used as a reason to revert. If you find it extraordinary, quote me the policy or guideline that explains what status quo on Wikipedia is. As far as I know WP:STATUS QUO has always been a redlink. So far, three editors, The Vintage Feminist, Montanabw and I have proposed three different infoboxes in the article and Gerda Arendt has suggested another variant here on the talk page. In each version subsequent to the first, the infobox has incorporated changes to meet the objections raised, which is seeking consensus. You, Nikki, kave simply reverted without addressing any reason other than you think the status quo should be retained. Well, articles don't improve by maintaining any form of status quo - which is why Wikipedia doesn't adopt that concept. If you have cogent reasons why a particular edit does not improve an article, spell them out. But it's not going to cut it, just telling us we can't edit articles to make changes that we think improve the article. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot in the infobox that cannot be found by visual inspection anywhere on the page. I believe that shows that the infobox is not pointless. --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Shortcuts don't generally include spaces: WP:STATUSQUO is no redlink. As you know, when an edit is reverted and restorations seem likely to meet the same fate, the appropriate response is to discuss first rather than edit-warring. I think the article would be improved by not having an infobox; as noted above, there is little point arguing about which version of an infobox to add when we don't agree on whether one should be there at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Infoboxes do not suit all articles RexxS, that's the problem. As you know, I claim complete ignorance around metadata and all the technical stuff that comes with them, but all I do know is that when the look as small as this they look ridiculous and don't achieve the job they set out to do. Perhaps if more information were added (pertinent to the article of course) then it may look, and do the job a bit better. However, I'm fearful that not a lot else can be added without straying into the absurd. Over the years, I have seen all manner of shite in them including parents names, siblings, children and non notable spouses. This kind of information is not the kind of stuff a reader should first see when clicking onto the page. Cassianto^talk 21:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that link, Nikki. I stand corrected on its existence. But did you read what that essay spells out? "If you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor." Look at that last bit about trying another way in order to reach consensus. That's exactly what has been happening: multiple different infoboxes have been suggested by multiple different editors (as I outlined on your talkpage). Even the essay that you helped write doesn't give you leave to use a status quo reason to revert multiple different attempts in finding a compromise. Nevertheless I guess if you trawl through enough essays you'll find something to back you up. It still seems, though, that we have no policy or guideline for you to rely on. It would help of course if you were to adduce some reasoning behind your "I think the article would be improved by not having an infobox" as it does have a feel of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, wouldn't you say?

@Cassianto: Thank you for your reasoning - I don't quite agree with it, but it makes sense and I can appreciate that as a reasonable position to hold. I'm grateful for that. --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

<A brief interlude>: Replying to Montanabw's remarks, made about an eon ago, "Another editor added an infobox, then when it was criticized by an editor who had never before (as far as I can tell) edited the article," let me set the record straight on this point: When that infobox was added, I was the editor who "criticized it"—by removing it, thus restoring the status quo. If you believe that I had never before edited this article, then I suggest you take another look at the edit history. <We now return to our regular programming>.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have reverted back to the non-infobox edition as per WP:BRD. The default position is without the box until consensus is gained to have one. Cassianto^talk 22:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Just for information purposes ....The Daily Telegraph print a "Birthday's Today" feature. I was going through the list of birthdays (21st April 2011) and adding them to Births on 21 April, the list, from the newspaper, for the 21st April reads as follows:

Maj Gen Sir John Swinton, Lord–Lieutenant for Berwickshire, 1989–2000, is 86; Sir Robin Ibbs, Chairman, Lloyds TSB Group, 1995–97, 85; Mrs Angela Barrett, Wimbledon Ladies' Singles Champion, 1961, 79; Sir Michael Oswald, National Hunt Adviser to the Queen, 77; Lord Glentoran 76; Mr John McCabe, composer and concert pianist, 72; Mr Robin Gourlay, Chairman, AWG plc (formerly Anglian Water Group), 1994–2003, 72; Prof Sir Alan Fersht, organic chemist, 68; Viscount De L'Isle 66; Prof Ian Bruce, Vice–President, RNIB, 66; Mr Srinivas Venkataraghavan, former India cricketer, 66; Adml Lord West of Spithead, Parliamentary Under–Secretary of State, Home Office, 2007–10; First Sea Lord and Chief of Naval Staff, 2002–06, 63; Ms Cheryl Gillan, MP, Secretary of State for Wales, 59; and Mr Mike Clasper, Chairman, HM Revenue and Customs, 58.

I worked my way through the list and - where they already had an article on wikipedia - just added the wikilink to the list for the 21st. Some names had articles for the people involved but the date of birth was missing (which I then added), and in some cases I created new stub articles. My reason for adding infoboxes, if there is none, is so the age of the person can be shown.

To be honest I found the opening line of the section on biographical infoboxes for composers to less than decisive, The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article ...so if this is where the consensus is being determined then put me down as a pro-infoboxer on the grounds of DOB/age combination that is otherwise missing from the article - no matter where you cast your eyes. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. And the advantage to displaying the subject's age is ... what , again?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Err, better than not having it. This is an online encyclopedia. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a clear statement of an inclusionist position. I did not ask whether you believe it is better or worse to include it. You had already answered that question. I asked what the advantage of including it might be.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Asked and answered ad infinitum, ad naauseum, Jerome. Above and on a zillion other articles. The Arbcom decision was based on disputes in the classical music projects and the decision is clear; infoboxes are to be discussed on a case by case basis and consensus sought. The arguments for (and against) infoboxes have been made, the consensus is leaning toward inclusion. Most of the comments against are more about content and format than raw inclusion/exclusion. Now let's move on here. Montanabw^(talk) 17:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Infobox consensus is to be sought first when adding, not the other way round when those of us wish to delete. Having an infobox in an article is not a default position to be in. Cassianto^talk 17:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, no Cassianto, the ArbCom decision was clearly either direction; the BRD and consensus model applies. Montanabw^(talk) 21:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a case of the chicken and the egg. Surely a box needs to be added first before it can be deleted, thus an initial conversation about its implementation should have been inevitable. That hasn't happened here, only when it has been removed. If your saying that ArbCom stipulates either way, then surely we should have been having a discussion to establish a consensus upon its implementation, not just on its deletion. Cassianto^talk 22:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. WP:BRD applies. There was no infobox discussion at all, so someone (and a noncombatant in the infobox wars, to boot) innocently but boldly added it, someone else who appears to have never edited the article complained about the style and layout, so a different version was added, then IDONTLIKEIT manifested its ugly head and now all of us who are the usual suspects in this ongoing drama have appeared and hence we are all on round 10,054,763 of the classical music infobox wars. (sigh...) Montanabw^(talk) 00:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

So, you are basically confirming my initial thoughts that some think that it's ok to go around and slap infoboxes everywhere where they see fit and the rest of us have to like it. It is then therefore up to those of us who don't want an infobox to justify its removal. That, I'm afraid is complete nonsense. IDONTLIKEIT has nothing to do with it; people should understand that not everybody likes to be given information in a repetetive and dumbed down way. Cassianto^talk 04:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, read by people with varying degrees of ability, intelligence, and interest. If you only want people of superior intellect to read your work and the great unwashed masses avoiding it, then you are working in the wrong place. So yes, the infobox is simple information at a glance; your erudite and highly intellectual analysis belongs a bit farther down the page where the other great ones hang out. You have to rub shoulders with the proletariat; deal with it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"If you only want people of superior intellect to read your work and the great unwashed masses avoiding it, then you are working in the wrong place." And its bullshit assumptive statements like that which loses the project editors. Cassianto^talk 21:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's all try to ratchet it back, please. I think, Cassianto, that with all due respect, it's not a matter of editors "go[ing] around and slapp[ing] infoboxes everywhere where they see fit and the rest of us have to like it." Editors have a right to make any edit that they feel improves an article - even adding an infobox. None of us are meant to be making judgements of "like" or "not like" - we need to be judging whether it improves the article. We're not meant to be making a judgement based on we "don't want an infobox", but on whether it improves the article. Once an editor makes a good-faith edit, yes, they deserve the courtesy of a proper explanation if their edit is reverted. Some people want or need information in a simplified (and repetitive) way. Those that don't could just ignore the infobox - or even add the line .infobox {display: none} to their common.css and they never need be bothered by infoboxes again. --RexxS (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If I can back up a little here, and ask User:Montanabw to give me a link to just one or two of these gadzillions of discussions that I have apparently managed to miss, where the advantage of including the subject's age in an article (never mind whether it is in an infobox, next to an infobox, or as far away from an infobox as possible) has been explained. This is relevant to the present discussion because The Vintage Feminist has brought it forward as a reason for adding an infobox to this article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Go find the arbcom infobox case. If you have any ability to search, you'll find it easily enough. Montanabw^(talk) 00:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't need links because to most folks it's obvious: a subject's age is a small but important piece of biographical information about them in their biography. The advantage of providing that information 'at-a-glance' is that people visit an encyclopedia to get information, and an article that provides information is better than one that doesn't. What more are you looking for? --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The age template automatically calculates age, the infobox is a good place to keep it. Montanabw^(talk) 21:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This still does not address my question: why is it better to include it than not? Anyone with the requisite math skills can see at a glance what the subject's age is from the date of birth in the first line of the article. Now, if the automatically calculated age were in the form "has just passed his 72nd birthday", or "will turn 72 in three weeks' time", I could see that this might be of some use to well-wishers who wished to send a card (or had intended to send one, and can see they have just missed their chance), but in the way you formulate it, this is no more essential than including his favorite colour, or preferred brand of toothpaste. It is surplus to requirement, and that is a good argument for not having an infobox, because it invites the addition of useless and distracting trivia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in arguing something this trivial with you, per WP:DFTT. Montanabw^(talk) 00:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. Then we can close this part of the discussion with agreement that no one can think of any advantage to including the subject's age, and therefore disregard this entire issue as trivial.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Do not put words in my mouth. I doubt you are so ill-informed as to think that a refusal to engage a troll constitutes agreement, but on the off chance you aren't a troll and you are of a reduced comprehension ability, a very brief explanation. Age calculation is quite handy, yes people can do math and also figure out month and day, but similarly, people can also do metric-to-imperial measurement conversions; creating a small template to calculate basic info is a time-saving courtesy to the reader. It's something called user-friendliness, which, of course, those who like to live in walled gardens want to avoid like the plague lest they be forced to rub shoulders with people thy consider inferior. But I suspect you actually do know this. Montanabw^(talk) 19:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggest a quick glance at WP:CIV might be in order here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It is simply disruptive to repeatedly ask an inane question such as whether adding current age to a biography has any value. It is obvious to even the meanest intelligence that age is a key fact in a biography while a favourite colour is not. --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)