Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers. 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 35

←

Archive 37

→

Category:Masonic composers

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

This category has just been created, but there are no citations in most of the articles included to warrant it. Moreover, is it even an appropriate topic for a category? Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations states:

Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable: Apart from a limited number of categories for standard biographical details (in particular year of birth, year of death and nationality) an article about a person should be categorized only by the reason(s) for the persons notability. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right.

--Smerus (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This category's composers were on the basis of List of Freemasons with reliable source.YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Category:Masonic composers, a wikipedia user said "There's plenty of categories for Jewish composers--even for those whose "Jewishness" is only nominal. So why not Masonic (which in musicology tends to have greater weight for some composers)."YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
You do not answer the rule set out by Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations .--Smerus (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this category meets our standard conventions, and I find it inappropriate. Looking at Irving Berlin, for example, we find a single sentence stating that he was a Mason, sourced to a now-deleted page on the NY Masons website. It offers no insight on the man or his works and frankly I find it just a piece of trivia, about on a par with the colour of his hair or the fact that he wore spectacles. It certainly has no bearing whatsoever on his notability. If this category exists, then we might as well have Category:Composers who wore spectacles. I'm tempted to send it off to WP:CfD, but I've got limited internet access for the next several days. Anybody else? --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Of cource YOKOTA Kuniteru still didn't talk about Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations. And you Smerus still didn't talk about List of Freemasons and a wikipedia user's talk: There's plenty of categories for Jewish composers--even for those whose "Jewishness" is only nominal. So why not Masonic (which in musicology tends to have greater weight for some composers).YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
However RexxS, it may be considered that the numbers of "those who want to know composers who were freemason" are very much more than "those who want to know composers who wore spectacles".YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Mozart was clearly a "Masonic composer" because he wrote music inspired by Masonic principles and intended for performance at meetings of Masons. But I'm not so sure about the other composers listed in this new category. If they were just incidentally Masons and their membership had nothing to do with their careers as composers, then they should not be included. Opus33 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@YOKOTA Kuniteru: I disagree. I say "those who want to know composers who wore spectacles" is more than "those who want to know composers who were freemasons". It's trivia and your guess is no better than mine. The criterion for creating a category is not "how many people want to know it"; it's Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable. Categories are meant to aid navigation between articles that share a notable characteristic; and while "People who were notable for being Freemasons" might be a possible category, "Composers who just happened to be Freemasons" is not. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've nominated the category for deletion. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 4 #Category:Masonic composers --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

RexxS, do you really think composer's spectacles (glasses) wearing is more important for people than composer's masonic activity? For example, List of Freemasons had already been created. On the other hand, List of spectacles wearers has not been created yet. But it's no problem if you think about the composer's spectacles. (Furthermore, List of bow tie wearers had already been created.) YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: the Smerus' quote about Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations is before the Revision as of 10:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC) YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's more important. Irving Berlin would have been the same composer had he not been a Mason, but he could not have composed at all without his spectacles. All of those lists are trivia, created by people with an obsession for the topic. Nobody actually uses them. And we're not discussing lists; we're discussing categories which are subject to the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality: "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic." If you have good sources that state the work of a particular composer was heavily influenced by their membership of the Masons, then you can justify their inclusion in this category. But a category with only a couple of members is useless, and acts as a magnet for editors to include composers for whom there is no reliable source for being a Mason, or whose membership had no bearing at all on their work, which is misleading. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

On the latest revision of Wikipedia:Categorization of people (22:27, 6 September 2015 UTC) – partly the same as the revision as of 10:12, 21 September 2014 UTC:

Categorize by defining characteristics

Further information: Wikipedia:Categorization § Defining

Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes:
standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality

the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for.

For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to his acting career.

– maybe so far in wikipedia (English), "composers who were heavily influenced by their membership of the Masons" are "Mozart and ... who?" YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Franz Abt, Thomas Arne, Jean Sibelius, and Samuel Wesley were categorized as freemason before YOKOTA Kuniteru's edition. YOKOTA Kuniteru (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

National composer

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I came across this by accident. This article has no citations, except one which claims that some composers were identified as 'national' by Nazism - but looking up this source, it does not in fact describe the composers concerned as 'national' but as supposedly representing 'good German music'. I suspect the article to be WP:OR - I can't find any appropriate sources or citations for the title as an article topic. Should it be flagged for deletion?--Smerus (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Having slept on it, have started AfD discussion.--Smerus (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

List of major opera composers

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is now being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major opera composers (2nd nomination).----Smerus (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced blp- Yáng Jìng

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If anyone cares to tackle this mess of a new article, please jump in. It was created by a newbie.4meter4 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Lord Berners

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Archive_37#Michael_Berkeley

Following the above discussion in 2014, Lord Berners and Michael Berkeley were moved to their common names. Berners has now been moved without discussion to Gerald Tyrwhitt, 14th Baron Berners. My feeling is still that he should be at Lord Berners; what does anyone else think? Do I need to create a formal WP:RM request? --Deskford (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It should at least be brought back for discussion. You could perhaps create the formal WP:RM request on that basis.--Smerus (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I discovered to my surprise that I was allowed to revert the move. I'll make a remark on Talk:Lord Berners so that any discussion is not lost in the archives of this project. --Deskford (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)