![]() | 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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Hey. I've nomed Henryk Górecki at FAC, and would appreciate if some of ye could go through the page to find inaccruacies or suggest areas for expansion. It was a tough one to write, input would be appreciated, and is needed. Brianboulton is already helping. Ceoil ( talk) 20:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
There was a merge proposal on the talk page of Beethoven for a while, proposing the merging of Ludwig van Beethoven and Life and work of Ludwig van Beethoven. I added the appropriate templates to the top of each page. It was suggested that I mention this here too, so here it is. See the discussion here. Asmeurer ( talk ♬ contribs) 17:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a new service by Legoktm, coded by B. Wolterding who also did the useful 'Cleanup Listings' used by some projects.
ArticleAlertbot provides notification of all proposed deletions, AFDs, GA/FA nominations, RFCs etc etc. for articles with project banners. The explanation is here. Should we subscribe? Best. -- Klein zach 00:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I thought. As I said, I think the project scope could use some better wording. Currently:
This WikiProject aims primarily to document biographical and musical information of composers of any and all eras and styles. Information to each composer's life, style, and influence—both influence of other composers and their influence on others—are included as examples of focuses. This project page features a selection of ideas that can be used to improve these pages.
Perhaps something like this:
This WikiProject aims primarily to document biographical and musical information of art music composers of any and all eras and styles. Information to each composer's life, style, and influence—both influence of other composers and their influence on others—are included as examples of focuses. This project page features a selection of ideas that can be used to improve these pages.
Composers that primarily write in a field that comes under the scope of a sibling or child project do not fall under the scope of this project. (For example Giuseppe Verdi falls under the scope of the Opera project.)
Comments? (Note that I specifically added art music to the first paragraph.) Magic ♪piano 13:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
A few more entries as fodder for the discussion:
These are both contemporary composers working largely in an area that mixes rock, improvisational, and avant-garde methods (if I read their entries right). Most of their output appears to be more in the popular mode: make recordings; tour to promote. Frith has held positions as Composer-in-residence and Professor of Composition; Hodgkinson has apparently not had any academic posts. Are they conceptually the same as, or different than, say, Philip Glass? (He also records his own music and tours to promote his music; but then he's also written some large-scale works.) Magic ♪piano 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping some other people would comment on your suggestions, but since they haven't I'm going to give my own version of the scope of the project:
This scope of this WikiProject includes the life and work of art music composers of all eras and all styles. Information on musical traditions, styles, and interrelationships will also be pertinent to articles.
Articles that are edited by one of the more specialized projects ( Films, Musical Theatre, Opera, G&S, Wagner) will normally be looked after by that project, and not this one.
Please hack! -- Klein zach 03:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Any more comments - I've left this for a while. May I now enter the last boxed definition on the project page? -- Klein zach 03:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
In my head at least, the point of this project is to join together the people who work on similar articles. When it was started, the trend of seeing the same editors on several posts made the idea of having a common meeting ground make that much more sense. Now any individual will be editing any subset of these posts and they might edit posts that have nothing to do with this project. And no you do not have to explicitly join the project to post here or take part of discussions as it is with any Wikipedia page ("Everyone is invited to contribute to the project, comment and edit the project pages.") I don't know if anyone wants that changed, but I would object since if individuals or other projects object to what we're saying we want on articles this is definitely a place to talk about it. Although in practice, the majority of editing done in this project has been classical, most of what we have talked about on the project has been pretty general. The flexibility allows us to have a starting point when talking about the composer in their article. It all just turns out to be about music writers and they all live different lives that the genre distinctions in composers are pretty difficult and often arbitrary so we keep on coming back to the loosest and flexible guidelines. Anyway, the Opera project has as much to contribute to Composer articles as we do. And the Biography project as well. Wagner should have biographical information on his page. Wagner should have opera related information on his page. And Wagner should have musical style, influence and whatever else we contribute on his page. Why falsely pretend it shouldn't fit under our scope or the scope of othes. How it all fits together is for his talk page. We don't own articles on Wikipedia. The banner is more about saying, hey if you need to talk about more than one article we have a place to talk about it. Claiming it under the project exclusively defeats the whole purpose of collaboration. -- Sketchee ( talk) 10:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion at ANI, see here. I'm not sure I understand the technical issues, so any help explaining it would be appreciated. -- Klein zach 06:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Felix Mendelssohn's 200th birthday is this coming February 3. I thought it might be appropriate for the relevent music project's to acknowledge this in some way. What do you all think? I am going to notify the opera and classical music projects as well. I will direct everyone to the discussion here at the composer project. Cheers. Nrswanson ( talk) 00:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I have now considerably extended and rewritten the 'Life' section of the FM article. Could some kind soul please assess the article as a whole and suggest what it might need to upgrade to A-class?-- Smerus ( talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has moved Mozart from List of Austrian composers to List of German composers. The main Mozart article is in both Category:Austrian composers and Category:German composers. He was born in what was then the Holy Roman Empire, and is now Austria, and always seems to have made his home there (even if he did travel extensively in areas that are now Germany). It seems to me he shouldn't be in German lists or categories. Am I missing something? Magic ♪piano 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
A copy of Niels Eje (contemporary Danish composer of unknown notability), has been repeatedly added to the Category:Danish composers page. It has a history of blanking and reverts as various editors have tried to remove it. I've now removed it again, but keep an eye on it Voceditenore ( talk) 07:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
We've been making a lot of progress with assessments - thanks to MagicPiano's well-organized and impeccably objective approach. 101 out of 315 B-nominated articles have been reviewed by MagicPiano and Smerus. Almost all over these have been confirmed as B-class. (Only 4 articles have been downgraded to 'Start'. 21 pages have been identified as candidates for promotion.)
However we still have to decide what to do about 2,347 articles that remain completely unassessed, see Category:Unassessed Composers articles. Some of us have tried to look at these pages individually - but it's unrewarding and laborious. Previous bot runs have marked stub-tagged articles as stub class, and articles rated B by other projects have been marked as B-class here. This means that 90 to 95 percent of these 'unassessed' articles are 'start' class - a view confirmed by individual assessing.
My suggestion is that we arrange a new bot run to automatically mark all 'unassessed' articles as 'start' class (providing there is no stub tag on the article page, or contradictory assessment by another project on the talk page). Is that an acceptable way forward on this? Best. -- Klein zach 01:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The bot run has been completed. We now have:
The articles that remain unassessed are anomalies that need checking on an article by article basis. The overwhelming majority of them are pages that have been mis-ranked by the Biography Project, typically labelled as 'Stub' class when there is no 'Stub' tag on the article page. If anyone has time to look at articles in Category:Unassessed Composers articles that would be appreciated. Best. -- Klein zach 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The project banner was changed on 9 February, see [3] and appears to be problematic regarding the display of the Comments/Assessment page information.
Originally the Composers banner was intentionally not coded using WPBannerMeta because of various technical problems and I'd be in favour of reverting the change to the stable (non-WPBannerMeta) version we had before. Of course, this project should have been consulted before any change was made. There are 4,300 pages with this banner. -- Klein zach 11:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
An important advantage of WPBannerMeta is that problems, once discovered, can be immediately fixed for all 800 projects using the template, rather than having to re-invent the wheel innumerable times. So I'm very keen to locate and fix any issues you identify. What, exactly, seems to be the problem? Happy‑ melon 10:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
Composers}}
and once by {{
WPBiography}}
. The situation would occur whether or not the Composers template used WPBannerMeta (WPBiography does not, as a case study). Given the very simple rules that govern default ToC positioning, it is also to be expected that the ToC will be rendered inside the banner if the first heading on the expanded page is located in the /Comments transclusion;
Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart avoids this issue by explicitly setting the ToC position using {{
TOCcentre}}
. Again, this is not a consequence of using WPBannerMeta, and will not be explicitly resolved by removing it. The problem will go away, but only because the prior version of the template did not include Comments functionality at all. Note, however, that neither did the WPBannerMeta version I implemented on 8 February; the comments functionality was
added by
Alanbly on 19 February. The version without the Comments functionality would not have these issues as far as I am aware, and as I've said the fact that the functionality is implemented through WPBannerMeta is not the source of the issues. The only way to avoid these problems is either not to transclude the comments subpage, or to not use section headers within the comments.
Happy‑
melon
20:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC){{
Composers}}
before the conversion to WPBannerMeta.
This is the same page using
this version of the composers template, before Alanbly's edits. In neither case are there the issues with the ToC that are observed after Alanbly's edits. Doing the same thing on
Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven produces a ToC with only two duplicated heaaders, not three; this is as expected since there is still the duplication from the transclusions from the WikiProject Deaf and WikiProject Biography banners. As noted below, the only complete solution is to remove the section headers from the /Comments subpage.
Happy‑
melon
18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC){{
composers}}
template to be 'responsible' for the ToC problems, and that Alanbly's edits were not the trigger. My apologies if I have interpreted that comment incorrectly. My response was merely to demonstrate the incorrectness of that statement in that context. The ToC "problems" have been present in the /Comments subpages for however long; the problem only becomes visible when two banners that both transclude the /Comments subpage are added to the page; by changing the composers banner to behave in such a way, Alanbly's edits made the problem visible on a significantly greater number of articles.I've now referred this to the Village Pump (Technical) here, in the hope of finding someone who can solve this problem. -- Klein zach 00:45, 27 February 2009 (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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Hey. I've nomed Henryk Górecki at FAC, and would appreciate if some of ye could go through the page to find inaccruacies or suggest areas for expansion. It was a tough one to write, input would be appreciated, and is needed. Brianboulton is already helping. Ceoil ( talk) 20:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
There was a merge proposal on the talk page of Beethoven for a while, proposing the merging of Ludwig van Beethoven and Life and work of Ludwig van Beethoven. I added the appropriate templates to the top of each page. It was suggested that I mention this here too, so here it is. See the discussion here. Asmeurer ( talk ♬ contribs) 17:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a new service by Legoktm, coded by B. Wolterding who also did the useful 'Cleanup Listings' used by some projects.
ArticleAlertbot provides notification of all proposed deletions, AFDs, GA/FA nominations, RFCs etc etc. for articles with project banners. The explanation is here. Should we subscribe? Best. -- Klein zach 00:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty much what I thought. As I said, I think the project scope could use some better wording. Currently:
This WikiProject aims primarily to document biographical and musical information of composers of any and all eras and styles. Information to each composer's life, style, and influence—both influence of other composers and their influence on others—are included as examples of focuses. This project page features a selection of ideas that can be used to improve these pages.
Perhaps something like this:
This WikiProject aims primarily to document biographical and musical information of art music composers of any and all eras and styles. Information to each composer's life, style, and influence—both influence of other composers and their influence on others—are included as examples of focuses. This project page features a selection of ideas that can be used to improve these pages.
Composers that primarily write in a field that comes under the scope of a sibling or child project do not fall under the scope of this project. (For example Giuseppe Verdi falls under the scope of the Opera project.)
Comments? (Note that I specifically added art music to the first paragraph.) Magic ♪piano 13:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
A few more entries as fodder for the discussion:
These are both contemporary composers working largely in an area that mixes rock, improvisational, and avant-garde methods (if I read their entries right). Most of their output appears to be more in the popular mode: make recordings; tour to promote. Frith has held positions as Composer-in-residence and Professor of Composition; Hodgkinson has apparently not had any academic posts. Are they conceptually the same as, or different than, say, Philip Glass? (He also records his own music and tours to promote his music; but then he's also written some large-scale works.) Magic ♪piano 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping some other people would comment on your suggestions, but since they haven't I'm going to give my own version of the scope of the project:
This scope of this WikiProject includes the life and work of art music composers of all eras and all styles. Information on musical traditions, styles, and interrelationships will also be pertinent to articles.
Articles that are edited by one of the more specialized projects ( Films, Musical Theatre, Opera, G&S, Wagner) will normally be looked after by that project, and not this one.
Please hack! -- Klein zach 03:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Any more comments - I've left this for a while. May I now enter the last boxed definition on the project page? -- Klein zach 03:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
In my head at least, the point of this project is to join together the people who work on similar articles. When it was started, the trend of seeing the same editors on several posts made the idea of having a common meeting ground make that much more sense. Now any individual will be editing any subset of these posts and they might edit posts that have nothing to do with this project. And no you do not have to explicitly join the project to post here or take part of discussions as it is with any Wikipedia page ("Everyone is invited to contribute to the project, comment and edit the project pages.") I don't know if anyone wants that changed, but I would object since if individuals or other projects object to what we're saying we want on articles this is definitely a place to talk about it. Although in practice, the majority of editing done in this project has been classical, most of what we have talked about on the project has been pretty general. The flexibility allows us to have a starting point when talking about the composer in their article. It all just turns out to be about music writers and they all live different lives that the genre distinctions in composers are pretty difficult and often arbitrary so we keep on coming back to the loosest and flexible guidelines. Anyway, the Opera project has as much to contribute to Composer articles as we do. And the Biography project as well. Wagner should have biographical information on his page. Wagner should have opera related information on his page. And Wagner should have musical style, influence and whatever else we contribute on his page. Why falsely pretend it shouldn't fit under our scope or the scope of othes. How it all fits together is for his talk page. We don't own articles on Wikipedia. The banner is more about saying, hey if you need to talk about more than one article we have a place to talk about it. Claiming it under the project exclusively defeats the whole purpose of collaboration. -- Sketchee ( talk) 10:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion at ANI, see here. I'm not sure I understand the technical issues, so any help explaining it would be appreciated. -- Klein zach 06:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Felix Mendelssohn's 200th birthday is this coming February 3. I thought it might be appropriate for the relevent music project's to acknowledge this in some way. What do you all think? I am going to notify the opera and classical music projects as well. I will direct everyone to the discussion here at the composer project. Cheers. Nrswanson ( talk) 00:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I have now considerably extended and rewritten the 'Life' section of the FM article. Could some kind soul please assess the article as a whole and suggest what it might need to upgrade to A-class?-- Smerus ( talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
An anonymous editor has moved Mozart from List of Austrian composers to List of German composers. The main Mozart article is in both Category:Austrian composers and Category:German composers. He was born in what was then the Holy Roman Empire, and is now Austria, and always seems to have made his home there (even if he did travel extensively in areas that are now Germany). It seems to me he shouldn't be in German lists or categories. Am I missing something? Magic ♪piano 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
A copy of Niels Eje (contemporary Danish composer of unknown notability), has been repeatedly added to the Category:Danish composers page. It has a history of blanking and reverts as various editors have tried to remove it. I've now removed it again, but keep an eye on it Voceditenore ( talk) 07:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
We've been making a lot of progress with assessments - thanks to MagicPiano's well-organized and impeccably objective approach. 101 out of 315 B-nominated articles have been reviewed by MagicPiano and Smerus. Almost all over these have been confirmed as B-class. (Only 4 articles have been downgraded to 'Start'. 21 pages have been identified as candidates for promotion.)
However we still have to decide what to do about 2,347 articles that remain completely unassessed, see Category:Unassessed Composers articles. Some of us have tried to look at these pages individually - but it's unrewarding and laborious. Previous bot runs have marked stub-tagged articles as stub class, and articles rated B by other projects have been marked as B-class here. This means that 90 to 95 percent of these 'unassessed' articles are 'start' class - a view confirmed by individual assessing.
My suggestion is that we arrange a new bot run to automatically mark all 'unassessed' articles as 'start' class (providing there is no stub tag on the article page, or contradictory assessment by another project on the talk page). Is that an acceptable way forward on this? Best. -- Klein zach 01:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The bot run has been completed. We now have:
The articles that remain unassessed are anomalies that need checking on an article by article basis. The overwhelming majority of them are pages that have been mis-ranked by the Biography Project, typically labelled as 'Stub' class when there is no 'Stub' tag on the article page. If anyone has time to look at articles in Category:Unassessed Composers articles that would be appreciated. Best. -- Klein zach 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
The project banner was changed on 9 February, see [3] and appears to be problematic regarding the display of the Comments/Assessment page information.
Originally the Composers banner was intentionally not coded using WPBannerMeta because of various technical problems and I'd be in favour of reverting the change to the stable (non-WPBannerMeta) version we had before. Of course, this project should have been consulted before any change was made. There are 4,300 pages with this banner. -- Klein zach 11:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
An important advantage of WPBannerMeta is that problems, once discovered, can be immediately fixed for all 800 projects using the template, rather than having to re-invent the wheel innumerable times. So I'm very keen to locate and fix any issues you identify. What, exactly, seems to be the problem? Happy‑ melon 10:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
{{
Composers}}
and once by {{
WPBiography}}
. The situation would occur whether or not the Composers template used WPBannerMeta (WPBiography does not, as a case study). Given the very simple rules that govern default ToC positioning, it is also to be expected that the ToC will be rendered inside the banner if the first heading on the expanded page is located in the /Comments transclusion;
Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart avoids this issue by explicitly setting the ToC position using {{
TOCcentre}}
. Again, this is not a consequence of using WPBannerMeta, and will not be explicitly resolved by removing it. The problem will go away, but only because the prior version of the template did not include Comments functionality at all. Note, however, that neither did the WPBannerMeta version I implemented on 8 February; the comments functionality was
added by
Alanbly on 19 February. The version without the Comments functionality would not have these issues as far as I am aware, and as I've said the fact that the functionality is implemented through WPBannerMeta is not the source of the issues. The only way to avoid these problems is either not to transclude the comments subpage, or to not use section headers within the comments.
Happy‑
melon
20:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC){{
Composers}}
before the conversion to WPBannerMeta.
This is the same page using
this version of the composers template, before Alanbly's edits. In neither case are there the issues with the ToC that are observed after Alanbly's edits. Doing the same thing on
Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven produces a ToC with only two duplicated heaaders, not three; this is as expected since there is still the duplication from the transclusions from the WikiProject Deaf and WikiProject Biography banners. As noted below, the only complete solution is to remove the section headers from the /Comments subpage.
Happy‑
melon
18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC){{
composers}}
template to be 'responsible' for the ToC problems, and that Alanbly's edits were not the trigger. My apologies if I have interpreted that comment incorrectly. My response was merely to demonstrate the incorrectness of that statement in that context. The ToC "problems" have been present in the /Comments subpages for however long; the problem only becomes visible when two banners that both transclude the /Comments subpage are added to the page; by changing the composers banner to behave in such a way, Alanbly's edits made the problem visible on a significantly greater number of articles.I've now referred this to the Village Pump (Technical) here, in the hope of finding someone who can solve this problem. -- Klein zach 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)