This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I took the liberty of adding a "New articles" section to your main page, in line with other Wikiprojects that I've seen, so that these articles can be highlighted for others to review. I've kicked off with Guto Puw: seeing as he is to feature in the 2007 Proms, I thought there should be an article about him. Bencherlite 10:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have run into some resistance in using the online New Grove as a reference, since it's subscription-only (for example, here). As far as I know, using this encyclopedia in its online version is a long-accepted practice here; we do it since it's more convenient than going to the library to use the 29-volume hard copy, or purchasing one (or in my case, because the online version has an excellent search feature). Haven't we had this discussion somewhere before? Frankly I don't care if the article I'm referencing is "downgraded" to a "B" for whatever reason (I probably shouldn't have given it an "A" rating myself), but if people are not going to let us use the New Grove as a reference this could be a major problem for anyone who contributes content to the project--especially on composers--and in my opinion contributing well-referenced and cited content should always be our first priority. Opinions? Has this been discussed on a policy page which I have missed? Antandrus (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have to call attention to the dead horse yet again, but editors are insisting that the consensus not to use a biographical infobox at Edvard Grieg be reinstantiated at that article's talk page. Fireplace 18:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a list of missing topics related to music, including many composers. I wonder if any of you could have a good look at it? - Skysmith 10:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The Chopin Project has been inactive for some time now. I propose that this project merge whatever content from that page relevant into this project, given that it is the most directly similar active project. John Carter 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
WPComposers or WP:CM? In either case, I think WP:Chopin should be closed. Of the two listed participants, one hasn't contributed to Wiki[edia this year, and the other has on ly contributed to say that they are now an ex-wikipedian. -- Peter cohen 18:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be good if someone who knows more about Albéniz than I do could have a look at the article, which seems bizarrely unbalanced to me. Most of it is devoted to one work of his ("Chants d'Espagne", not Iberia), it is very confusingly arranged, there is no list of works, or even a partial list, and so on. -- GuillaumeTell 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I placed your project tag on this article. Rlevse 13:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
People here may be interested in the AfD on Grieg's music in popular culture [1], and a a number of similar ... In popular culture AfDs. DGG ( talk) 06:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay - so I can see why Compositional style of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky might be its own article - it's really long, so should be separated from Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. But my question is - does the new article get the same cats as the old one? I mean "Compositional style..." isn't a Category:Russian composer, right? Or how does that work? -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions for improvement on whether I've followed guidelines/policy for fair use of composer sound excerpts at this Fair use Review. Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 23:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The rejection of the infobox concept has a serious downside to the extended use of Wikipedia knowledge by outside computer-based entities. The microformats project relies mostly on information derived from the standardised markup that infoboxes were designed for. Among the subjective participants of the artistic community, do not people still want to be able to search for things in more extensive ways, however not perfect they may be? Its a shame that a group of people can get together and tamper with the resource that wikipedia could be. The semantic web may be a foreign concept to some, but it is being helped in part by Wikipedia contributing concise pieces of structured information to it.
Neither of the major argument on the talk page are convincing to me. 1. Infoboxes don't look crappy, if you think they do then style them, or take them out with your Monobook.css, don't impose your artistic tastes on the wider community. 2. That they are technically incorrect, leading to misassertions, which are somehow better described in free flowing text. A scan of major composers (and in other related projects) which are apparently hard to describe concisely are actually extremely minor issues. Not knowing someone's birth date or place should not be reason for destroying every infobox. Likewise, it is not the wikipedia, or consensus way, to lay down and die lest there is something incorrect such as the musical period or genre, they are specific issues, not general ones. If the community outside of wikipedia refers to someone as being in a particular genre, style or period, then it is not the place of wikipedia editors to put their Original Research thoughts in. On the other hand, if it truly if so debatable in a particular situation, then put both in the infobox, and describe the truth in text. No harm done.
Articles aren't precious resources to handle carefully. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Ansell 10:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We've been over this quite a lot. Wikipedia is about accuracy. If we cannot be accurate, we're finished. Infoboxes applied to complex matters (such as composer bios) simply don't work. Incorrect date of birth included an in infobox is not a "minor" issue: it is an incredibly major issue that smacks of ignorance. Sacrificing accuracy to these allegedly magical microformats makes no sense. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in technowizardry or prettiness. If some very important matter such as genre cannot be accurately described in the infobox, then the infobox should be nuked. We cannot present inaccuracies in infoboxes and then expect people to parse out the truth from the main text. No infobox at all is better than misleading our readers. Moreschi Talk 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We return to this subject again and again, and each time opposition to the bio-infoboxes grows. A number of projects have firm guidelines against using them. A question for those of you who are wise in the ways of WP (which I'm not): Would it be possible to write some kind of WP-wide infobox opt-out policy? A policy which would obviate these discussions and also bring together all those on WP who are opposed to them (in both science and arts projects). -- Kleinzach 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, there are differing opinions so far about what the real issue is, or whether it is a mixture of different issues. Ansell 09:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
How about: 4. Needing to use an external site to extract and analyse the data. If this was done on Wikipedia, and the results were visible and useful here, you might convert some of the opponents of infoboxes. At the very least, it would enable people to check which bits were wrong, and make corrections. Carcharoth 09:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
How about:
Ansell, this discussion is going in circles, and I doubt it is going to come any sort of resolution that you would find satisfactory. So I would appreciate it if you just let it go for now, and then we can all spend our time in other, more productive ways. Sincerely, Opus33 15:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
I took the liberty of adding a "New articles" section to your main page, in line with other Wikiprojects that I've seen, so that these articles can be highlighted for others to review. I've kicked off with Guto Puw: seeing as he is to feature in the 2007 Proms, I thought there should be an article about him. Bencherlite 10:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have run into some resistance in using the online New Grove as a reference, since it's subscription-only (for example, here). As far as I know, using this encyclopedia in its online version is a long-accepted practice here; we do it since it's more convenient than going to the library to use the 29-volume hard copy, or purchasing one (or in my case, because the online version has an excellent search feature). Haven't we had this discussion somewhere before? Frankly I don't care if the article I'm referencing is "downgraded" to a "B" for whatever reason (I probably shouldn't have given it an "A" rating myself), but if people are not going to let us use the New Grove as a reference this could be a major problem for anyone who contributes content to the project--especially on composers--and in my opinion contributing well-referenced and cited content should always be our first priority. Opinions? Has this been discussed on a policy page which I have missed? Antandrus (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have to call attention to the dead horse yet again, but editors are insisting that the consensus not to use a biographical infobox at Edvard Grieg be reinstantiated at that article's talk page. Fireplace 18:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a list of missing topics related to music, including many composers. I wonder if any of you could have a good look at it? - Skysmith 10:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The Chopin Project has been inactive for some time now. I propose that this project merge whatever content from that page relevant into this project, given that it is the most directly similar active project. John Carter 18:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
WPComposers or WP:CM? In either case, I think WP:Chopin should be closed. Of the two listed participants, one hasn't contributed to Wiki[edia this year, and the other has on ly contributed to say that they are now an ex-wikipedian. -- Peter cohen 18:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be good if someone who knows more about Albéniz than I do could have a look at the article, which seems bizarrely unbalanced to me. Most of it is devoted to one work of his ("Chants d'Espagne", not Iberia), it is very confusingly arranged, there is no list of works, or even a partial list, and so on. -- GuillaumeTell 21:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I placed your project tag on this article. Rlevse 13:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
People here may be interested in the AfD on Grieg's music in popular culture [1], and a a number of similar ... In popular culture AfDs. DGG ( talk) 06:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay - so I can see why Compositional style of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky might be its own article - it's really long, so should be separated from Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. But my question is - does the new article get the same cats as the old one? I mean "Compositional style..." isn't a Category:Russian composer, right? Or how does that work? -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 07:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Would appreciate any comments and/or suggestions for improvement on whether I've followed guidelines/policy for fair use of composer sound excerpts at this Fair use Review. Thank you. ♫ Cricket02 23:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The rejection of the infobox concept has a serious downside to the extended use of Wikipedia knowledge by outside computer-based entities. The microformats project relies mostly on information derived from the standardised markup that infoboxes were designed for. Among the subjective participants of the artistic community, do not people still want to be able to search for things in more extensive ways, however not perfect they may be? Its a shame that a group of people can get together and tamper with the resource that wikipedia could be. The semantic web may be a foreign concept to some, but it is being helped in part by Wikipedia contributing concise pieces of structured information to it.
Neither of the major argument on the talk page are convincing to me. 1. Infoboxes don't look crappy, if you think they do then style them, or take them out with your Monobook.css, don't impose your artistic tastes on the wider community. 2. That they are technically incorrect, leading to misassertions, which are somehow better described in free flowing text. A scan of major composers (and in other related projects) which are apparently hard to describe concisely are actually extremely minor issues. Not knowing someone's birth date or place should not be reason for destroying every infobox. Likewise, it is not the wikipedia, or consensus way, to lay down and die lest there is something incorrect such as the musical period or genre, they are specific issues, not general ones. If the community outside of wikipedia refers to someone as being in a particular genre, style or period, then it is not the place of wikipedia editors to put their Original Research thoughts in. On the other hand, if it truly if so debatable in a particular situation, then put both in the infobox, and describe the truth in text. No harm done.
Articles aren't precious resources to handle carefully. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Ansell 10:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We've been over this quite a lot. Wikipedia is about accuracy. If we cannot be accurate, we're finished. Infoboxes applied to complex matters (such as composer bios) simply don't work. Incorrect date of birth included an in infobox is not a "minor" issue: it is an incredibly major issue that smacks of ignorance. Sacrificing accuracy to these allegedly magical microformats makes no sense. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in technowizardry or prettiness. If some very important matter such as genre cannot be accurately described in the infobox, then the infobox should be nuked. We cannot present inaccuracies in infoboxes and then expect people to parse out the truth from the main text. No infobox at all is better than misleading our readers. Moreschi Talk 16:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We return to this subject again and again, and each time opposition to the bio-infoboxes grows. A number of projects have firm guidelines against using them. A question for those of you who are wise in the ways of WP (which I'm not): Would it be possible to write some kind of WP-wide infobox opt-out policy? A policy which would obviate these discussions and also bring together all those on WP who are opposed to them (in both science and arts projects). -- Kleinzach 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, there are differing opinions so far about what the real issue is, or whether it is a mixture of different issues. Ansell 09:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
How about: 4. Needing to use an external site to extract and analyse the data. If this was done on Wikipedia, and the results were visible and useful here, you might convert some of the opponents of infoboxes. At the very least, it would enable people to check which bits were wrong, and make corrections. Carcharoth 09:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
How about:
Ansell, this discussion is going in circles, and I doubt it is going to come any sort of resolution that you would find satisfactory. So I would appreciate it if you just let it go for now, and then we can all spend our time in other, more productive ways. Sincerely, Opus33 15:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)