![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 May 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. ( non-admin closure) ——Serial Number 54129 11:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC). |
|
|
1) I reeeeeeeally think the librettist workshop should either not be mentioned, or at the very least have a small heading. It is a totally separate part of the BMI Workshop. Normally when people speak about the workshop, they mean the composer/lyricist program that results either getting into advanced or not, they do not mean the librettist workshop. I tried to compromise from a == heading to a === heading. But you reverted that as well.
The Librettist workshop is a completely separate section of the workshop with different teachers and a different curriculum. I think it's potentially worthwhile to mention, but I think for clarity's sake, it should be separated in some manner as it is a completely separate thing.
2) I'm not nearly as passionate about this, so I'll drop it after this, but I really don't think there's any harm in mentioning Adam Mathias. If we say who runs the main workshop (Patrick Cook) and he doesn't have a wikipedia page, I don't see the harm in saying who runs the librettist workshop. Adam has been on the steering committee since 2016 and is a Drama Desk winner and he also is a Richard Rodgers Award winner and a Jerry Bock Award winner for Excellence in Musical Theatre. I've got no skin in the game on if he's mentioned or not, but just because he doesn't have a wikipedia page, I don't think it means he's not notable at *all* or that he's not worth mentioning (but I care much more about the first one, so if it's important to you to not mention him, fine; I just wanted to at least put my argument for his potential inclusion on record.
3) Speaking of "notable," I saw you get rid of some "non-notable" people. But Masi Asare is a tony nominated songwriter. I'm pretty sure she's notable. If the issue is that she doesn't have a wikipedia page, I'd suggest we build her one, rather than get rid of her name, as she is a Broadway writer. You didn't get rid of Dan Elish for some reason, and he doesn't have a wikipedia page either.
You also got rid of Dan Mertzlufft, but I additionally think he is notable. I have a draft of a wikipedia article going for him Draft:Dan Mertzlufft But I don't know if it's good enough/if it will get approved. Wikipedian339 ( talk) 03:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Chennedy Carter's article is not a high quality article, so it is not a model of what you want to achieve. To see some very good Wikipedia articles, look for WP:Featured Articles. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
(p.s. for the record, you can say I "don't understand" or act like I'm an idiot all you want, but I *do* understand, I just disagree. As I've stated many times, I don't see anything anywhere that says "notable" alums (notable as a *front-facing* word to a *reader* of wikipedia who would understand it in its normal colloquial sense) on a page MUST *all* have working wiki links. (And I've seen a number of 'notable' alum lists for universities etc that do have red links.) In earlier discussions, I already linked to a wiki page saying red links can be good an helpful. I already linked to the notability page that talks about notability being a discussion point as to whether someone gets a page, not something that says if someone doesn't have a page they are absolutely not notable. (If that were the case, no one new who doesn't already have a page could ever be notable). So, it's not that I don't understand. It's that you just continuously talk over anything I ever have to say and argue for the fun of it, but you don't ever even *try* to hear a point of mine, you just want to prove me wrong (fine, whatever, I went through the appropriate channels and got her a page, so it doesn't really matter how you interact with me or what you think of me). You and I *disagree*. I'm not a stupid person who doesn't understand things; we just disagree. Forever, I will continue to think she deserved at least a red link and that it was wrong to remove her from the initial list. But again, moot arguments, moot points, because she got her page. Her "notability" has been proved sufficiently to other wikipedia editors who helped. She's back on the list, so reason triumphed and it seems this one issue is closed and we technically don't even have to talk about it anymore, I just gave a long response because you really do get my blood pressure up haha... I have a busy few weeks, so hopefully I'll be able to tear myself away for a while. I can't live feeling this way all the time Wikipedian339 ( talk) 04:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
"Notability" on Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether something is important. It has to do with whether they have a Wikipedia article about them. If someone is important enough, we are confident that, eventually, someone will write a Wikipedia article about them. Then they will be "notable". One place to try to find people who might be interested in reviewing new articles you write is at the WP:MUSICALS project. You can go on the Talk page there and ask if anyone might like to help out with the article. But you should fill out your citations with Author names and dates of publication where they are missing. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
For anyone who's interested/has the bandwidth, here's a list from BMI that highlights their alums: https://www.bmi.com/theatre_workshop/entry/notable_shows_by_bmi_workshop_members
[I know we probably can't use that as a source, but we could use it as a jumping off point to find sources to back the rest of them up]; there are definitely some people on BMIs list that aren't on this wikipedia one. (Some may already have wikipedia entries, some may not.) [Not that they *have* to match completely, I just think ours could potentially be expanded, again, if anyone has the bandwidth/desire]
- Dan Elish I think also is a Broadway writer without a page
I don't know how redirects work (and I hope I'm even using the right word/language here) and how many are normal. But I'm wondering if it's possible/advised to land on this page when people search "The BMI Workshop" or "The BMI Musical Theatre Workshop" as both of those names are often used colloquially (certainly might be someone's initial search as definitely not everyone looking it up would know the full name of it), and I think the easier someone's search can be the better. (But feel free to ignore if not relevant) Wikipedian339 ( talk) 21:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree it's not perfect, but is it not better than 'operation'? To me, operation isn't the most appropriate word for that section. It explains how the program works - like most of the section is how people apply and how they progress... which is what the old heading evoked. So what's the issue? Wikipedian339 ( talk) 20:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I understand maybe paraphrasing or trimming, but you don't think there's any value in what was there before? Just as people are interested in average SAT scores etc for Harvard etc, if a school specifically states 'we don't look for craft, but we look for potential' (which is very similar to what one of the steering committee members said), I don't think that's an advertisement, that's an interesting piece of what they're looking for/how they choose their initial class, no?
Same with *what* they teach. Again, I understand paraphrasing or trimming some, but there's no encyclopedic value to understanding that they value traditional musicals etc? Just as people would want to know Juilliard values traditional music and Berklee values contemporary pop music, BMI valuing traditional musicals and their opinion on how music functions in a show has some relevance, does it not? Wikipedian339 ( talk) 20:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 May 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. ( non-admin closure) ——Serial Number 54129 11:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC). |
|
|
1) I reeeeeeeally think the librettist workshop should either not be mentioned, or at the very least have a small heading. It is a totally separate part of the BMI Workshop. Normally when people speak about the workshop, they mean the composer/lyricist program that results either getting into advanced or not, they do not mean the librettist workshop. I tried to compromise from a == heading to a === heading. But you reverted that as well.
The Librettist workshop is a completely separate section of the workshop with different teachers and a different curriculum. I think it's potentially worthwhile to mention, but I think for clarity's sake, it should be separated in some manner as it is a completely separate thing.
2) I'm not nearly as passionate about this, so I'll drop it after this, but I really don't think there's any harm in mentioning Adam Mathias. If we say who runs the main workshop (Patrick Cook) and he doesn't have a wikipedia page, I don't see the harm in saying who runs the librettist workshop. Adam has been on the steering committee since 2016 and is a Drama Desk winner and he also is a Richard Rodgers Award winner and a Jerry Bock Award winner for Excellence in Musical Theatre. I've got no skin in the game on if he's mentioned or not, but just because he doesn't have a wikipedia page, I don't think it means he's not notable at *all* or that he's not worth mentioning (but I care much more about the first one, so if it's important to you to not mention him, fine; I just wanted to at least put my argument for his potential inclusion on record.
3) Speaking of "notable," I saw you get rid of some "non-notable" people. But Masi Asare is a tony nominated songwriter. I'm pretty sure she's notable. If the issue is that she doesn't have a wikipedia page, I'd suggest we build her one, rather than get rid of her name, as she is a Broadway writer. You didn't get rid of Dan Elish for some reason, and he doesn't have a wikipedia page either.
You also got rid of Dan Mertzlufft, but I additionally think he is notable. I have a draft of a wikipedia article going for him Draft:Dan Mertzlufft But I don't know if it's good enough/if it will get approved. Wikipedian339 ( talk) 03:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Chennedy Carter's article is not a high quality article, so it is not a model of what you want to achieve. To see some very good Wikipedia articles, look for WP:Featured Articles. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
(p.s. for the record, you can say I "don't understand" or act like I'm an idiot all you want, but I *do* understand, I just disagree. As I've stated many times, I don't see anything anywhere that says "notable" alums (notable as a *front-facing* word to a *reader* of wikipedia who would understand it in its normal colloquial sense) on a page MUST *all* have working wiki links. (And I've seen a number of 'notable' alum lists for universities etc that do have red links.) In earlier discussions, I already linked to a wiki page saying red links can be good an helpful. I already linked to the notability page that talks about notability being a discussion point as to whether someone gets a page, not something that says if someone doesn't have a page they are absolutely not notable. (If that were the case, no one new who doesn't already have a page could ever be notable). So, it's not that I don't understand. It's that you just continuously talk over anything I ever have to say and argue for the fun of it, but you don't ever even *try* to hear a point of mine, you just want to prove me wrong (fine, whatever, I went through the appropriate channels and got her a page, so it doesn't really matter how you interact with me or what you think of me). You and I *disagree*. I'm not a stupid person who doesn't understand things; we just disagree. Forever, I will continue to think she deserved at least a red link and that it was wrong to remove her from the initial list. But again, moot arguments, moot points, because she got her page. Her "notability" has been proved sufficiently to other wikipedia editors who helped. She's back on the list, so reason triumphed and it seems this one issue is closed and we technically don't even have to talk about it anymore, I just gave a long response because you really do get my blood pressure up haha... I have a busy few weeks, so hopefully I'll be able to tear myself away for a while. I can't live feeling this way all the time Wikipedian339 ( talk) 04:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
"Notability" on Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether something is important. It has to do with whether they have a Wikipedia article about them. If someone is important enough, we are confident that, eventually, someone will write a Wikipedia article about them. Then they will be "notable". One place to try to find people who might be interested in reviewing new articles you write is at the WP:MUSICALS project. You can go on the Talk page there and ask if anyone might like to help out with the article. But you should fill out your citations with Author names and dates of publication where they are missing. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
For anyone who's interested/has the bandwidth, here's a list from BMI that highlights their alums: https://www.bmi.com/theatre_workshop/entry/notable_shows_by_bmi_workshop_members
[I know we probably can't use that as a source, but we could use it as a jumping off point to find sources to back the rest of them up]; there are definitely some people on BMIs list that aren't on this wikipedia one. (Some may already have wikipedia entries, some may not.) [Not that they *have* to match completely, I just think ours could potentially be expanded, again, if anyone has the bandwidth/desire]
- Dan Elish I think also is a Broadway writer without a page
I don't know how redirects work (and I hope I'm even using the right word/language here) and how many are normal. But I'm wondering if it's possible/advised to land on this page when people search "The BMI Workshop" or "The BMI Musical Theatre Workshop" as both of those names are often used colloquially (certainly might be someone's initial search as definitely not everyone looking it up would know the full name of it), and I think the easier someone's search can be the better. (But feel free to ignore if not relevant) Wikipedian339 ( talk) 21:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree it's not perfect, but is it not better than 'operation'? To me, operation isn't the most appropriate word for that section. It explains how the program works - like most of the section is how people apply and how they progress... which is what the old heading evoked. So what's the issue? Wikipedian339 ( talk) 20:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I understand maybe paraphrasing or trimming, but you don't think there's any value in what was there before? Just as people are interested in average SAT scores etc for Harvard etc, if a school specifically states 'we don't look for craft, but we look for potential' (which is very similar to what one of the steering committee members said), I don't think that's an advertisement, that's an interesting piece of what they're looking for/how they choose their initial class, no?
Same with *what* they teach. Again, I understand paraphrasing or trimming some, but there's no encyclopedic value to understanding that they value traditional musicals etc? Just as people would want to know Juilliard values traditional music and Berklee values contemporary pop music, BMI valuing traditional musicals and their opinion on how music functions in a show has some relevance, does it not? Wikipedian339 ( talk) 20:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)