Talk:European Bridges Ensemble

Suggestions for improvement

I'm not sure there's a real need to include the "Bipolar Nachlese" concert, as it was a really short one compared to the other concerts the ensemble had, and I'm not sure there was any reaction to that concert in the newspapers (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong).
The need for a few words about the first concert of the ensemble is evident (if possible, with citations).
Also it would be nice to mention somehow those concerts that were done using Quintet.net before founding the EBE, to illustrate the way that led to the founding of the Ensemble.
Is there a paper or something about the Viewer? It would be nice to cite it.
I added the two ICMC 2008 concerts on a nutshell. However, I'm not sure it's a good idea to add a concert that actually hasn't been performed yet, maybe it would be better to remove it and put it back after the end of ICMC (that is, the end of this month). Any ideas on this?

The problem is that I've almost no info about these, so it would be nice if someone with a better knowledge would add these things. Thanks. AdamSiska (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the ICMC date supports overall notability, but what is notable about this concert? With relation to the domain of network music what is notable about the other concerts? this has still not been established. Same applies to repertoire outline. If there are 'firsts', or innovations of one description or another, that are notable, detail specific events in prose style, don't simply compile a list of performances using headings and subheadings. The bullet pointing is not an ideal format for encyclopedic purposes. Is there a precedent on wiki for formatting information, relating to activities of a band/ensemble/performer, in this manner? Semitransgenic (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, and partly agree. Actually, the only notable of the ICMC concert is ICMC itself, as you mentioned, its a data supporting overall notability (well, one additional thing is that a main topic at this year's ICMC is actually "Networked and Geographically Displaced Performance" — see http://icmc2008.net/theme —, and that's why the Ensemble got the possibility to play

there, as a notable network ensemble — maybe this should be added to the article itself, but I'm still not sure whether this should be done right now, or better would be to wait until the end of ICMC 2008, as encyclopediae rarely refer to events of the future). The concert of Budapest mentioned there was notable for reasons like the above one: that was the opening event of the Music in the Global Village conference, which was an other notable conference in network music field (as stated in this page, it "was the first international conference dedicated exclusively to network music composition and performance", although I'm not 100% sure about the reliability of this fact). The notability of the first concert of the ensemble is somehow obvious, as first concerts are always notable ones in the histories of bands. On the other hand, that concert might also be notable because the technique used by the ensemble was first presented there, as a new way of playing networked music. There was an entry about a concert in Berlin, which I removed (as I suggested it in this talk page before) because the exact reason you mentioned: it was not a notable concert. The other Berlin concert (the Ligeti one) might also be not very notable. Most likely it should be removed as well.

Regarding the format, I'm also not convinced that this is the best way of doing it. However, I didn't have an other idea. Maybe the whole thing should be reformatted as a big table? AdamSiska (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if GVC was a first fair enough, but what did EBE do at this event that is notable? I still think it would be possible to encapsulate notable information and other developments in a prose style section. You could also place a table, but extraneous event program information etc. should, in my view, be excised. Are the works written by ensemble members specifically for EBE network based music? Is there anything notable about the compositions? Anything novel that needs to be highlighted? Semitransgenic (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll rework it then. Actually it seems a good idea to have more prose and less listings, although it's obviously much more work. But that's why I'm here. :-) I also understand that having some explanation about the events is much clean that having a few links to some webpages where readers might or might not find things and related stuff. So I'll do it in the next few days. AdamSiska (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you use prose format you can then use footnotes to provide additional detail, and further explanations, if required. Prose is generally the preferred style, see WP:LIST for issues relating to list usage, and WP:WTUT might offer some tips on table use. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started converting the text into prose format, however, I'm sure the grammar and maybe the style of the text needs some corrections. I'm also planning to add some citations to the text (especially, I'd really like to find an old article I read a while ago where János Négyesy speaks about the riot that happened in Ivrea in 1984, but I'm not sure it was published online — I'm actually not sure where I saw it). AdamSiska (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are still outstanding WP:COI issues. A greater display of secondary souce referencing is required to address the descriptive tone, which still sounds promotional. Source language issues are covered in WP:NONENG. If you feel that you have reached an impasse I would suggest a third opinion. I will accept the conclusions offered by a neutral observer. You can request that here WP:3. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I did some reorganizing in the page (which means that I changed the section about concerts). Now there are also more links, but the problem is that the links seem quite mazy right now. Some of them doesn't appear at the right place in the text, also the style of them is a bit mixed. Also it would be nice to indicate which links are English ones and which aren't (this could be a good starting point to collect the non-English links and translate their relevant parts). Also the text itself should be corrected stylistically and grammatically by a native speaker. AdamSiska (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

This thread is to resolve notability issues of the page, more specificly, WP:MUSIC. I think what really could help here: adding much more information (and of course external citations) about the ensemble itself, particularly its history, and "prehistory". In the article's current state it's not obvious at all that the Ensemble uses the Quintet.net software (developed by the ensemble leader Georg Hajdu), and how it all came since the first release of the software, the concerts that Georg Hajdu made with the Quintet.net software before founding EBE, and that currently EBE is the only ensemble using the software. At least this last thing could be a starting point to make evident the notability of the ensemble in Wikipedia terms, since AFAIK the Quintet.net software has very high quality references, like proceedings of different ICMCs or several articles in different newspapers relevant in the electroacoustic field, or (as an other example) the two papers presented at the Music in the Global Village conference about the software. An other point that could make evident the notability of the ensemble was if the sections about the concerts would be cleaned a bit: apart from simply listing the pieces of the concerts, it could be helpful if there was some short text at each concert about why those selected concerts were notable events. Maybe proving the notability of the concerts themselves would make the Ensemble notable as well (for example, after reading the article it's not obvious that the concert of 17^th July, 2005 was probably the first concert in the history when 6 people sitting in 3 different cities of Europe made a live concert via the Internet, playing an ensemble piece of John Cage for 5 musicians + conductor, and that this was documented by several articles).

The basic problem is that I don't have access to many of these articles (since I'm not a subscriber), so I can't really be the one making these citations (although I can put some basic text with the usual "citation needed" tags, and hope that there'd be someone with access to the articles and resolving the citations). AdamSiska (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I was wrong here (that can be seen from the article as well), as on that 17th July concert the programme was the piece called Bridges, not the John Cage one. On the other hand, I read the three scanned articles on the quintet.net website (http://www.quintet-net.org/realizations/Concerts/2005-06-17/2005-06-17.html) about that concert. The relevant info from those articles are somehow the following sentences: First article: "Ein Höhepunkt war die Musikklang—Performance Bridges von Georg Hajdu, bei der Musiker in mehreren europaischen Stadten live via Internet zusammenspielten." ("A climax was the sound—performance Bridges of Georg Hajdu where musicians played together in several European cities live via Internet.") Second article: "Surreale Bilder vom Dortmund—Emskanal huschen über die Leinwand von der Musiker Kai Niggemann sitzt. Zielischer drückt er die Tasten seines Laptops und bedient konzentriert die Regler eines Mischpults. Das Experiment beginnt. Die Rede is von der Musikklang—performance "Bridges" von Georg Hajdu, die in Münsters Kunstakademie ihre Uraufführung erlebte. […]" ("Surreal pictures of the Dortmund-Emskanal dart above the canvas where the musician Kai Niggemann sits. He presses the keys of his laptop and concentrates on the regulators of a mixing desk. The experiment starts. The subjective is the sound performance Bridges of Georg Hajdu which experiences her premiere in the Academy of arts of Münster.") The problem is that I couldn't find these articles online. However, do these references satisfy WP:MUS no. 1 guideline? Any comments? AdamSiska (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again, I forgot to translate the third article's relevant part. Here it is: "Gleich zu Anfang wurde der Besucher Zeugen eines ambitionierten Projekts. Die Ensemblekomposition einer Internetplattform Bridges ist im wahrsten Sinne Weltmusik. Via Internet konzertieren Tastaturvirtuosen aus Münster, Stuttgart, Wien und Budapest miteinander. Zugegeben — wenn er ganz allein am Laptop tüftelt muss man es Kai Niggemann einfach mal glauben, dass hier nicht nur er am Werk ist. Trotzdem, die Videoklangkollage ist as Ergebnis sehens- und hörenswert." ("Immediately at first the visitor became witnesses of an ambitious project. The ensemble composition of an Internet platform Bridges is a world music in the most true sense. Via Internet keyboard virtuosi together from Münster, Stuttgart, Vienna and Budapest gave a concert. Furthermore, when Kai Niggemann lonely plays his laptop one must believe that he's not only working here. Nevertheless, the video-sound collage is seeing- and hearingworth.") AdamSiska (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remove WP:MUSIC from the article for two reasons. These are: 1) there is published, independent material (unfortunately in German) cited by the article, and 2) IMHO ICMC is one of the biggest conferences about electronic music, I think playing there supports notability well enough to inculde its subject in Wikipedia. Please add your opinions. AdamSiska (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Can editors working on this page ensure that they have reviewed WP:COI. Pay particular attention to

Campaigning

Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest.

Promotional article production on behalf of clients

Producing promotional articles for Wikipedia on behalf of clients is strictly prohibited.

Self-promotion

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

Examples of these types of material include:

Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links). Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

Autobiography

For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Autobiography. It is not recommended to write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article. In some cases, Wikipedia users write articles about themselves when the more appropriate action would be to create a user page. In these cases, the article is normally moved into the user namespace rather than deleted. If you believe you may be notable enough, make your case on the appropriate talk pages, and seek consensus first, both with the notability and any proposed autobiography.

Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the above tags. Reading the article, it is obvious that it's not a self-promotion, nor "promotional article on behalf of clients" (what kind of clients?), nor campaigning, but a collection of data about an ensemble, partly unverified, and of course with the need of future expansion and addition of more data and citations. This is why I previously tagged the page as "stub".

Also it's hard to understand the "autobiography" tag, as the ensemble is not a person, so what is then "autobiography"?

What most unclear is to me, is the "notability guideline" issue. Actually, before the removal of some citations from the article, it was clear that the Ensemble was mentioned in several independent musical newspapers and sources, and they were invited to several (more or less) important musical conferences in the Eastern and Middle European area. But what mostly makes the relevance of the article evident is the simple fact, that (as far as I know) this Ensemble is the only laptop ensemble in Eastern Europe, although this is a fact that is really hard to prove (that's why it's not present in the article itself), as it's really hard to cite something that doesn't exist... However, being the only laptop ensemble of an area for a long time period makes an ensemble relevant, IMHO.

I suggest the removal of the "notability" and the "advertisement" tags from the article, as these tags are simply not true. However, the tag regarding unverifiable or incomplete material should be kept until some other fan of the ensemble doesn't really find the appropriate citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.111.65.29 (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

above was pasted to outline general WP:COI issues, there are relevant points throughout, even in the autobiographical section. Please take the time to review all guidelines before disputing the WP:COI issue. Also review the issue of editors declaring interest on WP:COI. In relation to notability review WP:MUSIC. Please also sign your comments. Semitransgenic (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize, as I misunderstood your first comment, so I didn't read the WP:COI guidelines (I just didn't realize that the posted text is an extract from there), just the text pasted to this thread. Although now I think I might know why you put the self—promotion tag (although I wouldn't completely agree — but anyway, that's why these talk page is for: to agree and disagree with each other and come to a final conclusion), I still don't really understand the other three, specially not the Promotional article production on behalf of clients, which I think is simply an insult to me and every other people who tried to contribute to this article in a positive way (at this point I must point out that good critics is one of the most positive ways to improve something, but I find your comments rather insults than positive critics, since you never indicate where in the article you exactly have a problem, but rather you only quote different Wikipedia policies. IMHO if you really wanted to have a constructive discussion, you would have cited the exact text fragments of the article that violated in your point of view the cited Wikipedia policies. That's something you actually never did on these talk pages up to now).

Although I could follow your path, and simply remove the tags you added to the article (since you didn't really point out why you actually think that those policies apply to this article), I won't do that. Instead, I'll try to figure out why you had the mentioned problems with the article, and I'll try to solve them.

I have to think that you added the Campaigning and the Self-promotion tags because the main source of the data comes from the Ensemble's own webpage. This is something that I agree (I mean, I also think this is a problem), that's why I added the two "stub" tags (although somebody removed them, without leaving any comment here about that, so maybe I'll simply put it back), and yes, probably it would help very much if someone could add the proper external sources to the article (like citations from conference proceeding, newspapers etc.) Actually, if I wouldn't need to defend the article from simply being deleted, I could be (as an example) the one including those articles (sorry to say that, but I'm a student on my holiday, and I really don't want to spend all of my free time with the creation of this article, so if I wouldn't have to argue about the reasons why this article was created, and find out what your problems are - as you honestly didn't cite the article to prove your problems -, maybe I could use this couple of minutes to find references on the web or in newspapers, maybe in English). The Promotional article production on behalf of clients, as I already pointed out, is an insult, and I don't even want to waste my time with finding out why you put that here. I'd be really glad if you could cite any part of the article that made you think that, or if you can't cite the article to prove your insult, you are free to apologize for that and remove it from the list of problems with the article. Finally, I still don't clearly understand what Autobiography means related to an Ensemble (or, if it simply means "the article was created/edited by a member", then I don't understand the difference between Campaigning/Self-promotion issue, and the Autobiography issue).

As a conclusion, I really try to find the appropriate links and sources to save the article from the Self-promotion state. Please be patient. Actually I think that putting the stub templates to a page help much more in the improvement process than tagging it as self-promotion, although in the current state of the article the self-promotion tag is partially true, basically because the lack of relevant external links.

I have to mention also that I completely disagree with the notability problem, but I think a new topic for the notability discussion would be more convenient, as WP:COI and WP:MUSIC are different topics. I'll open a new topic in the talk page for the notability questions probably tomorrow, or today late in the evening (but feel free to do it if you had some spare time before I'd again have). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.199.56 (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please see WP:FAITH, taken on face value the article appears to exist soley for promotional purposes. Personally, I am opposed to the existence of such articles on Wikipedia. However, as stated earlier, some editors would list it automatically for speedy deletion, I did not do so becasue I believe with appropriate changes, particularly to the layout, it would be passable, despite currently failing notability guidelines. To clarify, WP:COI for obvious reasons, WP:OR because of lack of notable third party referencing, WP:ADVERT becasue it has the appearance of a publicity posting, note that:Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I try to believe that your comments fall under the WP:FAITH criteria, and I try to assume your good faith, however, I'm not really convinced about that. If you really had good faith, then IMHO you would have included at least one citation from the article you're criticizing. Also you wouldn't write things like "WP:COI for obvious reasons" (as referring to "obvious reasons" in a dispute is quite odd — if it would be really obvious, there wouldn't be a dispute about the topic), or "WP:ADVERT becasue it has the appearance of a publicity posting" (it might have that appearence for you, but that doesn't mean that it actually is a publicity posting). Also please consider WP:DONTBITE.

Actually I feel that I followed WP:FAITH in this discussion as much as I could (although I didn't know that policy before now), since 1) I started replying and discussing a critic without any citation from its targeted article, 2) I tried to find every point where I could agree, at least partially, with you (that is, the lack of references, or with your words, WP:OR), 3) I tried to find out why you put those comments, and 4) I changed the references' layout as you suggested it in an other thread (although you could have done it yourself too).

As I feel that this discussion is pointless in its current state (as it lost its connection with the main article — since there were no citations from the article, I'm not sure it ever had a connection with the article itself), I'm not going to continue it until there won't be any specific indications about where the article violated the mentioned Wikipedia policies.

WP:COI is obvious becasue, it seems apparent that some ensemble members, or individuals associated with it, are involved in editing the page. I came to this page via the addition at the computer music article and was curious about the notability or relevance of the addition. I dealt with what I found dispassionately and in a manner that I would deal with any page that displayed the issues highlighted. Before I made any changes, note that there was a banner already in place but had been moved to he bottom of the page, there was also a second publicity shot in place; the entire article looked dubious, hence the notifications. You seem to have taken all of this rather personally. I have done nothing other than follow tried and tested guidelines, you seem to suggest that you would rather see a Wikipedia without such measures in place, my position is quite different. Please sign your comments, it is a common courtesy. Semitransgenic (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit tag

I put a {{Request edit}} tag to the article. I'd like to ask outsider editors to review the article and remove the COI template if they find the article good enough to meet Wikipedia's standards. I can't do this since I have got a conflict of interest with the subject, however, I contributed to the article in a big part of it. On one hand I need to apologize for this behaviour, but on the other hand, I couldn't find any information in the Wikipedia Guidelines on how to solve COI problems after having them "committed". This is why I'd like to ask other editors to help solving the COI tag on the main page. AdamSiska (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This tag is meant for the article talk pages only, so I've moved it here above your comment. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked over the page and removed the COI template as it doesn't appear biased or in need of cleanup. Them From Space 20:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-english citations

I looked for English citations, and I put back every one that I've found. However, if there's no link to a page available in English as well (for example, because many concert halls or newspapers doesn't have English editions), what is to be done to solve citation problems? IMHO in an encyclopedic environment the reliability of information is essential, much more essential than simply removing citations just because they are not available at all in English, and there is no other equivalent English source. Also it should be considered that although a scientific paper, or encyclopedia entry usually is written in a given language (so that usually you don't mix languages in a paper or in a book), the references usually are written in many different languages. This is particularly true for texts about art (including music) or history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.50.33 (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines state the following:

Non-English sources

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors

Please also review WP:MOS regarding the current formatting style. The current use of a referencing in a heading is highly idiosyncratic; as is the general layout of the pages content. It currently reads like a resume.

Please also sign comments. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do my bests, so I found some English sources, and cited them. However, I couldn't find an English citation for the time schedule of Projekt—Bipolar (which is somehow weird, although it was a German—Hungarian collaboration, so theoretically it can be understood that they didn't provide an English version of their webpage). So, according to the guidelines you posted, I made a translation of the original time schedule, and put them to this page.

I also reformatted the page a bit, so now the citations aren't there any longer in the headings.

Please don't remove material from the page, particularly not the references, unless a prior agreement has been made in this discussion page. As I understood, discussion pages are made exactly to discuss about the content of an article before deeply modifying the article itself. I understand that this is a wiki, so you can delete any content anytime, but I don't find this a very polite behaviour IMHO, specially not if you consider the huge amount of time it takes to find the almost same links on the web every time you remove them. If you feel that something is incomplete, please leave a comment here, I'm almost sure that there'd be a volunteer sooner or later that fixed the error (like making a translation of a source that is currently not available in English, or find a right source in English language).

Also feel free to correct the content, either the grammar and/or style of the text, or the layout. Although I try to do my best, it takes a long time to familiarize myself with every stylistic and/or content guideline of Wikipedia. Problems might also derive from the fact that I'm not a native English speaker. So if you're having problems with the layout, please help the article with improving it: if you already know the Wikipedia guidelines, please help me applying those guidelines to this page in a positive way (that is, instead of leaving a comment about the poorness of the layout, please be more specific regarding the problems there might be, or simply approve the page by reformatting the article's layout).

I'd be glad to sign my comments if I knew how to do that. Unfortunately I couldn't find a button for that, the only thing I found is a box called "Edit summary", which I usually fill out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.111.65.29 (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under normal circumstances discussion would indeed be more appropriate but please appreciate that this page was problematic from the outset and has flouted a number of Wikipedia guidelines, as such an editor may act without consultation. Please also appreciate that other editors could have legitimately deleted this page using using WP:SPEED. Semitransgenic (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on European Bridges Ensemble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on European Bridges Ensemble. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]