Albert Ketèlbey is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 9, 2016. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 9, 2020, and August 9, 2022. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"His most famous compositions include . . . Phantasy for String Quartet Listed but never found (1915)" --- does this make sense to anyone else? It doesn't seem that a lost work could be one of his most famous. Jason Fruit ( talk) 17:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The original author of this article is a supporter of infoboxes and therefore this article should have one. The infobox makes the article look much better as it balances the lead section, and occupying the whitespace at the top right with both image and text creates a much more pleasant aesthetic effect. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
So because Pigsonthewing created a stub 11 years ago it's his call on the infobox?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
If you are going to claim you wrote the BCC page (believable, given the errors it contains), you need to note that somewhere on this talk page. You also need to provide a citation on the page. – SchroCat ( talk) 17:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
"It wouldn't need to be removed from a copyright standpoint, but attributed ... to the government source until he demonstrates authorship."I've added an attribution at the top of this page, for the moment, as an aid to our re-users. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
We are not in a position to dictate to readers how much detail they may wish to have about this subject. It is quite common for biographies to include detail such as the address where the subject lived, particularly when the address still exists. After all, if not for that curiosity, we would never have blue plaques on buildings where their notable subjects lived. I agree that there will always have to be a balance between the amount of detail and breadth of coverage, but I don't feel that:
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
is "crap", but rather a perfectly encyclopedic detail showing that Ketèlbey was registered as still resident with his parents in his mid-twenties, despite also living in a house in Bruton Street, London. That may, of course, have been symptomatic of how his father viewed his career at the time, and perhaps there is some published analysis that could expand on his relationships at that stage. In any case, I find such unexpected facts to be interesting and I suspect that I wouldn't be the only one. I'd like to see that paragraph and source returned to the article. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
"I've been filling in census forms on behalf of myself and the members of my household for longer than you've been alive."Thanks for the further ad hominem comment: you know nothing about me rex, so don't try to double guess me, or play silly buggers with me. The "fact" of where he was on one particular night in 1901 still means nothing (and I really don't know why you've quoted 1920 legislation for the 1901 census...) All Ive heard from you is obstreperous balls trying to try and force meaningless dross into the article without any context. Any coments on why it is important? Any comments on how it informs or educates us as to what sort of individual he was, or how it influenced his music? - SchroCat ( talk) 21:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Albert William Ketèlbey was born on 9 August 1875 at 41, Alma Street, in the Lozells district of Aston, Birmingham, England" and "
The 1901 census shows him living with his parents and four siblings, at 168, Antrobus Road, Handsworth, Staffordshire (now Birmingham)" are perfectly encyclopedic statements. The fact that he was born at 41 Alma Street and his family was living at 168 Antrobus Road in 1901 are neither no more nor no less encyclopedic or lacking in context than the fact that he was born in Birmingham, or the fact that he was born in August, or the fact that his father's name was George Henry. But we still routinely include these facts because we are not arrogant enough to suggest that we know best what facts the readers should be able to see. Your argument that all facts have to meet your standard of helping understanding is clearly meritless. This is an encyclopedia and sometimes we just need to present facts. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing "demonstrably false" about my opinion, which is about the census "information". Your arrogance in assuming you are right simply because you think so, really is quite obnoxious. Get a consensus from others to include dross, because at the moment there is none. I do not intend to continue with such a pointless discussion with such an inflexible mindset as yours. Time to do something constructive. – SchroCat ( talk) 17:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Replying to the ping: I don't recall seeing "The census data show them at such-and-such an address" in a Featured Article (or even suggested at FAC) before, but I'll be happy to take another look (in the open Peer Review, not here) if someone wants to point me to relevant FAs. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted the removal of the Birmingham Post source. It was removed on the spurious grounds of
WP:CITEVAR. CITEVAR advises us not to "attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved.
" The first inline citations were added in
this edit on 6 June 2011 and they used the {{
cite web}} template. There has been no discussion or consensus established to alter that style since then, so all inline citations should be consistent with the CS1 templates. --
RexxS (
talk) 18:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Albert Ketèlbey -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
My addition, after the text:
By the early 1930s over 1,500 broadcasts of his work were made on BBC Radio in a year
of:
(including many, starting in 1926, where he conducted the Wireless Orchestra<ref name="RT">{{cite web|url=http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/search/0/20?order=asc&q=Albert+Ket%C3%A8lbey#search|title=Search Results for "Albert Ketèlbey"|work=[[Radio Times]]|accessdate=5 July 2016}}</ref>),
was reverted with the edit summary "WO work already mentioned". However, the only other mention of the WO in the article is:
He undertook annual tours of Britain, conducting his music with municipal orchestras, and also worked with the BBC Wireless Orchestra.
which neither mentions that he conducted the WO, nor that the performances were broadcast, nor the date of the first such broadcast. The revert also removed the useful source. It should of course, be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There are numerous sources which say or discuss whether he was born "William Aston". Examples include:
Has anyone got to the bottom of this? The Classic CD item makes a reference to his birth certificate but I can only see a snippet. Andrew D. ( talk) 09:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed as recently as the early 1970s Aston was believed by many to be his real name, until in January 1976, Fred Norris of the Birmingham Evening Mail put this theory to flight, when during his own research work he un-earthed a copy of Albert William KETELBEY's original birth certificate. Remarkably there are still some writers who do not believe his name was Ketelbey...
Part of the misunderstanding is that his surname is unusual/ rare and added to that his affectation in adding the inflection caused more confusion as to whether it was genuine. He did use pseudonyms as well. On this point I added to a footnote - not the main text - the fact that there is a small place name 'Kettelby/ Kettleby' a part of Bigby in Lincolnshire to show that his ancestors derived their name from an English place name. It is a minor point but an enlightening one. 2.96.216.228 ( talk) 04:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Tony S
The article says: "In a Monastery Garden (1915), sold over a million copies..." I think I understand this correctly: it means that more than a million copies were printed and sold, in an era in which most homes had a piano, and this was a piece that any budding pianist could play quite easily. But I wonder how many readers will ask themselves: "a million CDs, that long ago?" Could/should this somehow be made clear? Imaginatorium ( talk) 06:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect 'Appy 'Ampstead' has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 29 § 'Appy 'Ampstead' until a consensus is reached. Nickps ( talk) 23:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Albert Ketèlbey is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 9, 2016. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on August 9, 2020, and August 9, 2022. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"His most famous compositions include . . . Phantasy for String Quartet Listed but never found (1915)" --- does this make sense to anyone else? It doesn't seem that a lost work could be one of his most famous. Jason Fruit ( talk) 17:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The original author of this article is a supporter of infoboxes and therefore this article should have one. The infobox makes the article look much better as it balances the lead section, and occupying the whitespace at the top right with both image and text creates a much more pleasant aesthetic effect. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
So because Pigsonthewing created a stub 11 years ago it's his call on the infobox?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
If you are going to claim you wrote the BCC page (believable, given the errors it contains), you need to note that somewhere on this talk page. You also need to provide a citation on the page. – SchroCat ( talk) 17:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
"It wouldn't need to be removed from a copyright standpoint, but attributed ... to the government source until he demonstrates authorship."I've added an attribution at the top of this page, for the moment, as an aid to our re-users. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
We are not in a position to dictate to readers how much detail they may wish to have about this subject. It is quite common for biographies to include detail such as the address where the subject lived, particularly when the address still exists. After all, if not for that curiosity, we would never have blue plaques on buildings where their notable subjects lived. I agree that there will always have to be a balance between the amount of detail and breadth of coverage, but I don't feel that:
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
is "crap", but rather a perfectly encyclopedic detail showing that Ketèlbey was registered as still resident with his parents in his mid-twenties, despite also living in a house in Bruton Street, London. That may, of course, have been symptomatic of how his father viewed his career at the time, and perhaps there is some published analysis that could expand on his relationships at that stage. In any case, I find such unexpected facts to be interesting and I suspect that I wouldn't be the only one. I'd like to see that paragraph and source returned to the article. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
"I've been filling in census forms on behalf of myself and the members of my household for longer than you've been alive."Thanks for the further ad hominem comment: you know nothing about me rex, so don't try to double guess me, or play silly buggers with me. The "fact" of where he was on one particular night in 1901 still means nothing (and I really don't know why you've quoted 1920 legislation for the 1901 census...) All Ive heard from you is obstreperous balls trying to try and force meaningless dross into the article without any context. Any coments on why it is important? Any comments on how it informs or educates us as to what sort of individual he was, or how it influenced his music? - SchroCat ( talk) 21:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Albert William Ketèlbey was born on 9 August 1875 at 41, Alma Street, in the Lozells district of Aston, Birmingham, England" and "
The 1901 census shows him living with his parents and four siblings, at 168, Antrobus Road, Handsworth, Staffordshire (now Birmingham)" are perfectly encyclopedic statements. The fact that he was born at 41 Alma Street and his family was living at 168 Antrobus Road in 1901 are neither no more nor no less encyclopedic or lacking in context than the fact that he was born in Birmingham, or the fact that he was born in August, or the fact that his father's name was George Henry. But we still routinely include these facts because we are not arrogant enough to suggest that we know best what facts the readers should be able to see. Your argument that all facts have to meet your standard of helping understanding is clearly meritless. This is an encyclopedia and sometimes we just need to present facts. -- RexxS ( talk) 17:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing "demonstrably false" about my opinion, which is about the census "information". Your arrogance in assuming you are right simply because you think so, really is quite obnoxious. Get a consensus from others to include dross, because at the moment there is none. I do not intend to continue with such a pointless discussion with such an inflexible mindset as yours. Time to do something constructive. – SchroCat ( talk) 17:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Replying to the ping: I don't recall seeing "The census data show them at such-and-such an address" in a Featured Article (or even suggested at FAC) before, but I'll be happy to take another look (in the open Peer Review, not here) if someone wants to point me to relevant FAs. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted the removal of the Birmingham Post source. It was removed on the spurious grounds of
WP:CITEVAR. CITEVAR advises us not to "attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved.
" The first inline citations were added in
this edit on 6 June 2011 and they used the {{
cite web}} template. There has been no discussion or consensus established to alter that style since then, so all inline citations should be consistent with the CS1 templates. --
RexxS (
talk) 18:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Albert Ketèlbey -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
My addition, after the text:
By the early 1930s over 1,500 broadcasts of his work were made on BBC Radio in a year
of:
(including many, starting in 1926, where he conducted the Wireless Orchestra<ref name="RT">{{cite web|url=http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/search/0/20?order=asc&q=Albert+Ket%C3%A8lbey#search|title=Search Results for "Albert Ketèlbey"|work=[[Radio Times]]|accessdate=5 July 2016}}</ref>),
was reverted with the edit summary "WO work already mentioned". However, the only other mention of the WO in the article is:
He undertook annual tours of Britain, conducting his music with municipal orchestras, and also worked with the BBC Wireless Orchestra.
which neither mentions that he conducted the WO, nor that the performances were broadcast, nor the date of the first such broadcast. The revert also removed the useful source. It should of course, be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
There are numerous sources which say or discuss whether he was born "William Aston". Examples include:
Has anyone got to the bottom of this? The Classic CD item makes a reference to his birth certificate but I can only see a snippet. Andrew D. ( talk) 09:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed as recently as the early 1970s Aston was believed by many to be his real name, until in January 1976, Fred Norris of the Birmingham Evening Mail put this theory to flight, when during his own research work he un-earthed a copy of Albert William KETELBEY's original birth certificate. Remarkably there are still some writers who do not believe his name was Ketelbey...
Part of the misunderstanding is that his surname is unusual/ rare and added to that his affectation in adding the inflection caused more confusion as to whether it was genuine. He did use pseudonyms as well. On this point I added to a footnote - not the main text - the fact that there is a small place name 'Kettelby/ Kettleby' a part of Bigby in Lincolnshire to show that his ancestors derived their name from an English place name. It is a minor point but an enlightening one. 2.96.216.228 ( talk) 04:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Tony S
The article says: "In a Monastery Garden (1915), sold over a million copies..." I think I understand this correctly: it means that more than a million copies were printed and sold, in an era in which most homes had a piano, and this was a piece that any budding pianist could play quite easily. But I wonder how many readers will ask themselves: "a million CDs, that long ago?" Could/should this somehow be made clear? Imaginatorium ( talk) 06:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The redirect 'Appy 'Ampstead' has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 29 § 'Appy 'Ampstead' until a consensus is reached. Nickps ( talk) 23:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)