Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Sudden deletion of fair-use sound images without discussion: major implications for music-related articles

Dear fellow contributors

User:Gmaxwell, a player at Wikipedia talk:Fair use, conducted a rampage two days ago through Johann Sebastian Bach that has led to the destruction of all of the fair-use audio excerpts. These excerpts were prepared in accordance with the WP policy on the fair use of commercial recordings (< 30 secs, educational value, no impingement on commercial market, etc) and include two whole-track excerpts for which written permission was given by the copyright owner to include in the article.

The action, by Maxwell and someone else who, strangely, doesn't appear in the edit history pages of the files in question, has been sudden, unilateral, and without so much as a mention on the talk page of the article. This has started a controversy at Wikipedia:Fair use#taking things way too far.

Our ability to illustrate music-related articles with the short, justified, fair use of excerpts from commercial recordings is now seriously threatened. I believe that these people are acting on their own particular interpreation of WP's fair-use policy. I urge you to voice your opinion in this debate.

Tony 02:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Your characterization of this as a "rampage" is unproductive and unhelpful. The use was not in accordance with policy; please see Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach to see what I have said in the specific case that has prompted this discussion. I do support using fair use where the use is truly fair—for example, for modern composers where there can be no free recording—but fair use is more limited under our policies than has often been observed. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 03:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Odd, User:Danny says that he's the one who did it. Interesting. Kim Bruning 20:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell originally placed tags on the sound files. Danny then deleted them. Then Gmaxwell removed the redlinks from the article. Tony's conclusion does not fit the facts as given in the deletion log. See first, second, third, fourth, fifth, all deleted by Danny. Mak (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I was unable to recover that information at the time from the info pages; I have no idea why. Spillage, I'd rather have no recordings at all than poor ones. Show me a good one and we're flying, but I see none on the Commons. Quite the reverse: they're generally appallingly bad. I don't agree that the usage was not in accordance with policy. The deletion was clearly a breach of policy, and prevented debate on the former issue. Modern composers where there can be no free recordings? Hello? Tony 12:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As stated earlier: Danny is policy, he cannot breach it. (This would be a bad time to explain how this also applies to other people, due the mechanics of how wikipedia policy really works. Just keep in mind that there's more to it, and that it can be fun and useful to know:-)

What you *can* do is try to explain why it's a bad idea to delete these recordings. Maybe people will simply agree. One admin offered you the opportunity to undelete the files, should you have provided a good rationale. It's unfortunate that you didn't take that opportunity at the time, but I think the offer still stands. At worst, he would give you several new ideas as to how to approach the problem.

Alternately, you could try to get the recordings under GFDL or CC(-BY)(-SA).

As yet another means, there are several musicians and technicians on wikipedia who might even be able to help record very specific parts for us (yet another solution). Unfortunately, you've already done your best to alienate at least one such person, but much can still be recovered even there.

Commons has already been mentioned. I hear that they didn't have anything yet? Mores the pity. Maybe we can remedy that situation somehow.

In short, there are many ways to go about getting a decent recording for the article. The trick is not to stand on policy, but rather to just ask for help. You will get it. :-)

Kim Bruning 19:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A Composer's works

Is there a policy or guide line concerning how a composer's works should be listed in an article? For instance on the John Coolidge Adams page the works are listed by form and then by date of composition with the date first. However on the Steve Reich page they are listed only by date but with the date at the end of the entry. If there is no guide line about this could one be made to help standardize things? S.dedalus 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ups, just noticed this was already discussed above, sorry about that. S.dedalus 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dominick Argento on peer review

I have submitted numerous articles for peer review and never get more than a bot's suggestions. I am determined to get an actual peer review for this article, so I figured I would post it here. If anyone wants to contribute, feel free! --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A picture of the guy would be nice. Also a more complete works listing. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 05:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Igor Stravinsky

This article has been selected for Feature Article Review. Please see the talk page and discussion at FAR for improvements you can make to retain its FA status. Jeffpw 10:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tenacious D

Would Tenacious D come under the umbrella of this WikiProject. I know they compose their own stuff but I am not sure if they should be here.

Tenacious D Fans (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest: backup requested

I could use some help, potentially, here: User_talk:Antandrus#Unwarranted_deletions. Composer Lera Auerbach's husband has written her article (probably) and is inserting her name into many, many articles, in an aggressively promotional manner. Any help/suggestions appreciated. I think she's notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, but should she be in short lists with Bach and Britten? She's neither in the New Grove nor in the New Grove Dictionary of Women Composers, which is quite exhaustive. If anyone's watching this, feel free to drop me a line. Antandrus (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

External Links to Sheet Music

It has just occured to me that linking to sheetmusicarchive as an external link is inappropriate since only two downloads per day are allowed, when the alternative IMSLP [1] is available giving unlimited public domain files. It is much more comprehensive and the content from SMA seems to be entirely available there. I'm not saying we should replace every link to SMA in every composer's article, but I think we should bear it in mind when working on the pages. Any thoughts? M A Mason 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially as the IMSLP seems to be similar in spirit to WP. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already replaced SMA links with IMSLP links on some occasions, when all content of SMA was available on IMSLP, too. For the links, one can use the template {{IMSLP}}. --Leonard Vertighel 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes for composers

Infobox,Episode 1 (Apr 11-12)

I am seeking a consensus for [classical] composer articles about Infoboxes. I had hoped that the soft consensus of those who edit the articles about classical composers would be respected, but apparently you must have a WikiProject behind you now in order to make suggestions on articles. I would put forward that Infoboxes are a net negative for Classical composers. They are redundant to a good lede paragraph, and they lead to stating things about composers in very black and white terms. In addition, they tend to take up the first editing screen and confuse new editors who might want to edit the beginning of articles, and might be scared off by the template format. In addition, they are difficult for the inexperienced to modify to special circumstances, and are easily broken.

I think infoboxes can be good for things for which taxonomy is important, such as plants and animals. I don't think they're good for things which require more subtlety, like people. Some specific examples of why infoboxes are, in practicality, bad, although I wouldn't be surprised if the technically savvy could fix some of them: In Ludwig van Beethoven the infobox says "born blah blah blah" when dozens of contributors have worked constantly to clarify that his birth date is not known, only his Baptismal date. Apparently, for some reason, the instruments he owned are particularly important. Wait, that doesn't make any sense. Moving on to Frederic Chopin, or whatever his name is, the last infobox included in the article gave his birth name as Frederic Chopin, the least likely of his name to be given as a birth name. Add to that the national flags added to all of them, even when at the time cities may have been parts of different countries, the mistakes which are introduced when people do mass-additions of infoboxes, and their lack of flexibility, I think in the long run it's much better not to have infoboxes on composer articles. Thanks, Mak (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I think it is possible to do a decent composer infobox, I pretty much agree with this. I've never really liked infoboxes for people because of the reasons Mak points out. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I have to agree, and I think that the key point is that we are dealing with human beings. There are far too many subtleties for the infobox, definitely. The national flag has become an issue on the Liszt page, where we currently have the Austro-Hungarian flag, when it really isn't necessary to have a flag at all. I think if anything we should encourage users not to place infoboxes necessarilly, and to include them only if they're deemed necessary for a specific article. Not because of wikiproject beaurocracy, but because it's almost as if there is a certain pressure to conform and thus include an infobox, where in many cases they're neither necessary nor desirable. M A Mason 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah, it's awful on Beethoven. In general, generic infoboxes are not good on people. People don't fit into nice little boxes. ;) I suppose it would be okay to code a fully custom infobox on each composer, but that would dramatically reduce the small value that infoboxes provide. I'm glad to see people trying to build consistency standards on Wikipedia, but it would be nice if they were working on ones like sourcing ... rather than on one likes this which are sometimes harmful (as demonstrated in your example). --Gmaxwell 22:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully diagree. I think the infoboxes on all people are highly valuable and informative and gives a certain overall respectable appearance to the articles. Cricket02 22:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

But to the extent they are informative, they are redundant to the lede. I don't see how they add to the respectability of articles when they are sometimes blatantly wrong, or not nuanced enough to really be called right. Do we really need more pastel boxes? (Plus, sometimes the colors are really ugly). Just because textbooks tend to have lots of ugly reductionist pastel boxes doesn't mean we need them. Mak (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Mak, though I have long suspected I had a minority view. Infoboxes on composers, especially as you get to times before the modern age, are misleading at best. The most basic of facts need a nuanced view which is impossible in a box, but which is already available in the lead paragraph. Frankly I think we risk looking like amateurs when we have a box for a composer that baldly gives a birthdate (ambiguous), nationality (meaningless without an explanation), and genre (the worst of all--I've seen the word "classical" used in the sense it is in record stores, i.e. to differentiate the music of that composer from hip-hop, country, et al.) No, I cannot support adding infoboxes to composer articles. Antandrus (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that infoboxes are often badly implemented, I am in favour of using them when they make navigation between articles easier. We have a number of infoboxes for opera composers that list their works and I think these are useful. Infoboxes also serve the purpose of breaking up text and making articles more accessible. - Kleinzach 23:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kleinzach, I'm not opposed to all "boxes with information" in articles, I think those used for navigation and listing all of a composers operas, etc., can be very useful. I am talking specifically about {{Infobox Biography}} and related infoboxes, which are used to give basic information such as birthday, birthplace, cup size, instrument, etc. For examples see Ludwig van Beethoven and Franz Liszt, it's the big box on the right. Mak (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are talking about potted biography infoboxes then I agree with you entirely. The Ludwig van Beethoven and Franz Liszt boxes (listing their occupations!) are grotesque. - Kleinzach 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, those are what I'm talking about. Mak (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You know that Beethoven box is awful! Same as the Liszt one, that flag was NOT the Austrian flag in 1827. It's shocking and simplistic. They really should go. M A Mason 23:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the one on Josquin des Prez, which just appeared this morning. It even has a flag of France and one of (!) Austria. At the risk of being repetitive, I really think the composer infoboxes need to go. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I support removal of infoboxes, using Beethoven as a case study (some points were already covered by Mak):

Please consider the reason why an infobox is presented on a page like this. An infobox puts vital information in a concise, easy table for cursory readers to glean. In this case, an infobox is not ideal because the birth date, first of all, is contested, and it does not provide sufficient information about the peculiarities of his actual birth. Moreover, the rest of the information is misleading and confusing to those who are not musicians — Beethoven uniquely straddles both Classical and Romantic eras in music, and putting both there means nothing to those who don't understand his chronological ambiguity. The "Occupations" row is misleading, apparently stating Beethoven's work was part of some job or career. The "Notable Instruments" section still confuses me; is it a list of instruments he owned? Why is that info pertinent in summarizing his life into a small box?

(above is my comment) ALTON .ıl 05:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the damn things. What's the point of having an "infobox" when the box itself is distorting the accuracy of the info it contains? The flags are being used in a hopelessly anachronistic way and complicated matters such as ambiguous birth dates and nationalities are being misleadingly simplified by this Procrustean monstrosity. It makes us look as if we're playing Top Trumps with composers. --Folantin 07:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I too oppose the biographical infoboxes, for the same reasons that keep recurring above. logologist|Talk 07:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<rant, you might want to look away>One thing that perpetually gets my back up is that every time I write an article for flaming DYK, along comes someone from the Biography Project, adding a whole series of annoying templates to the talk: one of these, is invariably, "This article needs an infobox"! Well, no, this article doesn't need an infobox. For starters such articles are pretty short and an infobox would take up as much space as the actual content, and secondly the birth dates of fairly obscure 18th-century singers are invariably never known: usually we don't even know their birthplace, all that's survived is the date of their first musical appearance - and their last, because usually we don't know when they died, viz Anna Maria Strada: no birthdate or death-date. These ones for composers are particularly monstrous. Whack'em.</rant over> Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)