Talk:Michael Laucke/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Suggestion to add navboxes to this article

Request

I propose adding two naboxes to this article, both of which Wikilink back to this article. After 14 days of discussion a decision will be made about whether or not to add these navboxes. The discussion can continue after the 14 days, but after 30 days of inactivity, this thread will automatically be archived by MiszaBot. If the navboxes are added, and there is subsequent discussion the navboxes will stay in place per status quo ante bellum, until the subsequent discussion has been concluded.
{{classical guitar}}

{{flamenco guitar}}

Guideline

The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by wikiprojects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template (which may be watchlisted mostly only by template coders).

References

References

Submitted by

Respectfully submitted, {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

!Voting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Support – as proposer. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support – These navboxes would add value to the article. Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(guestbook)} 00:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support – I feel these would be helpful to the reader. Cheers, Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose to both. Nav boxes should only be included for subjects that appear in the nav box. Readers can click through to the classical guitar and flamenco guitar articles. Although it does appear on the Andrés Segovia article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  Hi, Walter Görlitz. Thank you for your !Vote. Can you expand on this? I seriously want to understand what you mean. The flamenco navbox includes a link to the list of flamenco guitarists, which Laucke is on. The classical navbox includes a link to the list of classical guitarists which Laucke is also on. Even so, why would somebody on the Laucke page want to click on a navbox to get back to the Laucke page? If you go to the list pages, and click on Laucke, you can then click on the navbox, and get back to the list page. It is totally bi-directional, AFAICS. I am not dismissing your !Vote, I simply want to understand it, so I can learn from it. In particular, what does this sentence mean: "Readers can click through to the classical guitar and flamenco guitar articles." Click through what, and where? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

  There are links in the article to both articles. The navbox is correctly linked at the bottom of those. We do no link any other Category:Musical instrument templates on musician articles just because they are listed in an article linked in that article. It would be unusual to do so unless the subject is an obvious example of the style of music. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Would add much value and interest; very helpful to readers. I strongly support! Precedence for these informative, related navboxes exists in guitar articles on Andrés Segovia, Julian Bream, Alirio Diaz, Christopher Parkening, Sabicas, and many others. With these wonderful navboxes, the reader has at his fingertips knowledge about both classical and flamenco guitar styles and it’s exciting to have the related navbox content just a click away. Also, I concur with Checkingfax (above) that The {{classical guitar}} navbox contains a 'list of classical guitarists' which includes Michael Laucke as a notable classical guitarist, and the {{flamenco guitar}} navbox contains a 'list of flamenco guitarists' which includes Laucke as a notable flamenco guitarist! Warm regards, Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL plus the various RFCs regarding inclusion of articles that may be included in lists in a navbox (notably Template talk:Aviation lists#RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles?). I would, OTOH, support a navbox or two with him and his contemporaries. --Izno (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support – This seems to me uncontroversial, even though some opposition has been voiced. I see no harm in adding these boxes, and think they would be useful to readers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, but would support adding navigational boxes which included Michael Laucke as one of the items listed within the navigational box. Frietjes (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support, if he appears on a major list on the template he is on the template. Some templates are tiny, and have only a few items, and these often include lists. A list puts the article within the template. Common sense. Randy Kryn 20:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per guideline WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and per RFCs mentioned by Izno above. Moreover, template should be removed from all the articles not linked from the templates here as this is not how Navboxes work. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  It is how templates work. What we have here are two very sparse templates about two very large subjects. Makes no sense that the only place they can be placed concerning individual guitarists is on the one page labeled 'List of...'. There should be, at a minimum, a list of ten or twenty major guitarists on each template with a final link to the list labeled 'more', and anyone on a list such as this should be able have their art's template on their page so interested readers will have a good map. Small templates like these are just a brief outline, not a full template of the topic, so they should point to and be used on articles which relate this closely. A list brings the topic to the reader, and hiding the lists from the reader seems counter-productive when discussing complete-field small templates. Randy Kryn 13:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  All of which is language rejected in multiple RFCs. Do you have something new to consider? --Izno (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  Very few editors participate in RFC's, which often end up as walls-of-text. When faced with a real question about the guideline, such as this topic, the holes in the guideline are apparent. So you think a template representing an entire field of artistic endeavor should only go on a dozen or so pages? Common sense sometimes has to take the place of restriction. Randy Kryn 13:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  If you believe an RFC did not reach the participation level to be valid sitewide, your recourse is to start a new RFC seeking to overturn the previous, not to continue to argue against that single consensus repeatedly. The rest of your comment also comprises previously rejected language. --Izno (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This is my point as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The only hole in the guideline is the text which waters it down, suggesting it should be discussed here. Other than that, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL holds up very well. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"Waters it down" according to the results you want, "Opens it up to common sense" to some Wikipedians. To make a picture of this clearer, the opposers want these templates to appear on a tiny amount of articles, a dozen or two dozen or so, those presently on the template. Included are the "List of such and such guitarists", so it's okay to include it there, apparently, without including it on individual pages of those same guitarists where it would do the most good in terms of readers finding out about the subject. Templates are a map to the subject. These templates seem too small to be much of a map, like a world map which just shows the continents. Someone should put twenty or more of the better known guitarists on the templates, which might be the best solution to this particular discussion. Sound fair? Randy Kryn

No Randy, it's how you want them to work, but it's not what the guideline recommends. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments

• Comment – It would be logical to conclude that a reader interested in the classical guitarist, would then also be interested in the instrument from which the music emanates, and perhaps how it is played, how the technique differs between classical and flamenco guitars and so on. (S)he might even appreciate a quick link to the difference in construction between these two instruments, information which is neatly contained in the two nav boxes in question. The user could of course do a more lengthy web search, but it’s exciting to have the nav boxes just a click away. I find the flamenco nav box particularly interesting in that one has direct links to the various techniques; if someone would wonder about the flamenco guitar, which may very well be one of the reasons they visited this article , then it is indeed very handy to just click ‘show’ and have all these great links to flamenco guitar techniques in the same place: Apoyando ('Rest stroke'), Golpe ('Tap'), Picados ('Runs'), Rasgueado ('Roll') and Tirando ('Pluck' stroke). Cordially, Natalie... Natalie.Desautels (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The point is that the articles are already linked. Nav boxes are highly unusual. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • And now the portals are linked as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi Walter Görlitz, Many thanks for sharing your point of view, much appreciated. May I prevail upon your good nature to ask you to further comment on the results of my new research mentioned in the comment below; to wit, that A) there are over 2000 classical guitar articles displaying these navboxes (1809 articles; and 359 articles; kindly excuse that I originally pointed out only 4, and B) The total number of quick and handy links is 33 with the proposed navbox implementation as compared to 2 without. Please be so kind as to share your thoughts on this. Thanks you so much in advance for your kind consideration and for helping me understand your viewpoint more clearly. With respect and kind regards, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 06:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment –  A) Based on my new research, there are over 2000 classical guitar articles that have implemented the navboxes we are talking about; 1809 articles showing {{Classical guitar}} and 359 articles displaying {{flamenco guitar}}! Indeed, it does seem standard practice to include these navboxes in classical and flamenco guitar articles. B) The {{Classical guitar}} navbox contains 24 links and the >{{flamenco guitar}} navbox has 9 links. The two links in the See also portion presently appearing in the article can not fulfill the same interweaving dynamics that the two proposed navboxes accomplish. The two links presently available in the article cannot be compared to the 33 links offered by these navboxes. And, the suggested navbox implementation embraces the idea of speed and efficiency that the web is all about; without these navboxes, one infers that the reader must do his own research. Natalie.Desautels (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Quite odd indeed. I'll have to take that discussion elsewhere as it's unusual and will likely have to be discussed at a higher level. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • This is not in keeping with WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and especially the direction established at Template talk:Aviation lists. --Izno (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I wonder if all of you would humor an editor who is still learning about templates and content creation. I'm trying to understand the issues, and I have read all of the above comments. I find several statements to be confusing, and I think it would help me to come to a decision if I could understand them. One is Walter Görlitz's statement that immediately follows his "Oppose" !vote, "Nav boxes should only be included for subjects that appear in the nav box." I don't understand this at all. Would you be so kind as to explain it, Walter? Regarding your second comment,

There are links in the article to both articles. The navbox is correctly linked at the bottom of those. We do no link any other Category:Musical instrument templates on musician articles just because they are listed in an article linked in that article. It would be unusual to do so unless the subject is an obvious example of the style of music.

Are you saying that it is appropriate to provide a navbox containing links to articles specifically about flamenco music and flamenco guitar in the Flamenco guitar article but not in the Michael Laucke article? If I have not understood you correctly, would you mind helping me understand what you meant? Then you added, "It would be unusual to do so unless the subject is an obvious example of the style of music." Does that mean that you think Michael Laucke is not "an obvious example" of flamenco music?

Izno and Frietjes voiced opposition, citing WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I read the entire section at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates, and specifically at the section on "bidirectional", and I guess I don't really understand this statement:

Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional.

Could someone please explain the first part of this to me: "Every article that transcludes a given navbox" so that I can understand the whole sentence? I assume that Izno and Frietjes found instances where this is not the case, and based their opposition on this. (I might point out that it says "should normally be included", which leaves some leeway for exceptions.)

Later on, there is this sentence:

Per the bidirectionality principle above, this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template.

Now, this may reveal how little I understand about this, but it seems to me that this sentence does not say, "this may affect inclusion of a navbox in a particular article". Thanks in advance for any help in understanding the issues.  – Corinne (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not wrong, but it is unusual. There's a Template:Percussion similar to the two we're discussing here. I don't see that linked to Phil Collins even though he is a drummer. In fact, I don't see any drummer/percussionist articles linking to it (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Percussion). based on the rationale I have seen provided here, if someone wanted to learn more about drums and percussion, it should be there and on every drummer's article. Imagine if sport infoboxes navboxes appeared at the bottom of every professional athlete. It would get out of hand. It's not a debate for here though. I'll take it to the appropriate location. Make your local decision and if it needs to be adjusted later, that can happen later. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Walter Görlitz. Taking it to a higher level for a decision is not appropriate per this snippet from the introductory guideline posted at the top of this proposal (and now highlighted for you convenience):

… is often suggested by wikiprojects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

The editors who have previously worked on this article need to work it out here, locally. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue is not this article, but any article where this incorrect use is happening. Local consensus can never override general consensus. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Walter Görlitz. At navbox central discussions it was already decided by general consensus to be this:

ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article

This is a direct copy/paste from the navbox inclusion general consensus guidelines. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems you really don't want me to discuss this with others. That makes me want to do it all the more. I will do it. If the general decision is that it should be permitted, then it's not an issue. If the general decision is that it should not be permitted you're S.O.L. Your commentary is noted either way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Walter Görlitz. Have you yet read the general consensus stated here? I have highlighted it three times now for convenience. That general consensus is a copy/paste and nothing personal is added. I have made no commentary as it stands on its own legs. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No. And I won't. But thanks for asking. Stop highlighting because it is wasting my time. You don't seem to realize that I think that it's wrong and I will get it changed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the text there any longer? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That text should never have been added. It's just underlining WP:IAR, and is unnecessary. If I recall, it was added to stop Wikiprojects having preferences for navboxes on articles under their remit, not as an excuse for ignoring the guideline completely. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

In any case it states this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template, not inclusion of the navbox on the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

When you decide to use a template on a page, you use a mechanism that's called "transclusion". Then, "every article that uses a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional". The full impact of this statement is that: I should be able to jump from page A to page B, and back to page A, by using the navigation template (and nothing else). If you look at the proposed templates, you don't see Michael Laucke included in either of them via a link. This means that, were I to add them to this page, and jumped to any other page on the template (say, Classical guitar), I would not be able to navigate back to Michael Laucke. This is why addition of these templates would not be in keeping with WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. (Both I and Frietjes were making a slightly more policy/guideline-based argument than Walter, but his, I think, is fundamentally the same as ours, if indirectly so.) --Izno (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Walter and Izno, for the explanations. I understand things slightly better now. I think I don't know enough about this to take a stand one way or another. Would it make sense to include a limited navbox, a kind of compromise between a large one and no navbox at all, that included only bidirectional links?  – Corinne (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has an issue with having a navbox on this page so long as it meets the WP:NAVBOX/WP:CLN guidelines. What are you thinking? --Izno (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in particular. I was just wondering if there were a way to satisfy the wishes of Natalie.Desautels and the concerns of those who oppose the navbox. Ignore my comment if it doesn't help.  – Corinne (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Izno and Corinne. " … should normally … " is leeway given to us to not be bound by a hard and fast MoS rule which Wikipedia does not have any of anyway. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Ignoring a rule doesn't work like that. There have been multiple RFCs on this exact manner of late and multiple RFCs have concluded that this is an incorrect application. Review WP:Consensus when you get a chance, and specifically WP:LOCALCON. --Izno (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Izno. To that end, the current rule is, " … is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Izno, it isn't exactly "ignoring a rule" when there is no hard-and-fast rule to ignore. The section on navboxes – Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates – seems to have a number of qualifiers that allow editors leeway. I was just reading this (emphasis mine):

Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.}}

If some of these criteria are met, then it might be appropriate to include one or more navboxes in the Laucke article. I'm still not advocating the inclusion. I just don't think the first statement in your last comment was logical. I understand the point made in WP:LOCALCON. It also seems a bit contradictory to include several qualifiers in the navigation template guidelines that clearly offer leeway and state that the decision is to be left to editors working on an article:

The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by wikiprojects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.

and at the same time say in WP:LOCALCON:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay.

Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.

Does anyone else see the contradiction? I suppose both can be true at the same time, but it is confusing.

Is the inclusion of navboxes in the Michael Laucke article a change "to policies and guidelines" (first sentence, second paragraph). If so, then Walter Görlitz was right in saying pretty much:

Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny.

If not, then the decision can be made locally, by the editors working on the article. If "community consensus on a wider scale" has already been reached regarding this specific issue, then the leeway offered in the navigation template guidelines shouldn't be there.

Other considerations:

• Does the inclusion of navboxes hurt the article in some way? How?
• Does the inclusion of navboxes hurt WP in some way? How?
• Does the inclusion of navboxes establish a bad precedent? How, and why?
• Does it make a crucial difference whether the links in the proposed navboxes are bidirectional or not?
• Is there something specific in these particular navboxes that, if fixed, would make them acceptable?
• Have there been navboxes that have withstood the higher level scrutiny mentioned in WP:LOCALCON?

I'm just trying to help move the discussion along. I apologize if any of my statements or questions are off-target, and, of course, you're free to ignore all of it.  – Corinne (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – :@Pdebee, Checkingfax, Sainsf, and Walter Görlitz:, @Izno, Jerome Kohl, Frietjes, Corinne, and Casliber:

Although there is no overseeing authority, I am hoping to either come a resolution, or let the navbox issue wither away like the tide over the sandcastles, until one asks "what was it, where did it go?" It seems that through discussion and consensus among the editors of this article, there now stands, quantitatively, five Support votes and two Oppose votes; both Oppose votes express conditional alternatives. In the discussion, we also find, qualitatively, various comments. Note that one of the opposed is not an editor of the article—local consensus is formed by article editors.

May I once again prevail upon the kindness of experienced editors to offer final thoughts as to whether this small matter of navboxes is to be, ...or not to be, and thus might 'suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortunes', ...and remain 'in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes' (sorry, I got understandably carried away following Shakespeare's birthday; kindly excuse ). Shall we 'put out the light, or put out the light'?

As a, hopefully, final consideration, here is an interesting WP article on navboxes: Wikipedia:A navbox on every page. Thank you kindly, everyone, for your time and thoughts. kindest regards, avec l'expression de mes sentiments les plus sincères, Natalie.Desautels (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

PS. Seen from a broader perspective, simply speaking there seems to be a way to please the two Opposed votes and make everyone (relatively) happy. One opposed says (s)he would 'support a navbox or two with him [Laucke] and his contemporaries' and the other 'would support adding navigational boxes which included Michael Laucke as one of the items'. Merci de nouveau! Natalie.Desautels (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There's also an opposing essay WP:Not everything needs a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Robsinden. Have you read the essay you are countering with? It works against your assertions. Go read it. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Pinged the wrong Robsinden due to a munged user name. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Hi, Frietjes. Can you please take a minute and answer Corrine's questions above?

• Also, the section you quoted WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is quoted here in full with no added emphasis:

Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional.

The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by wikiprojects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. Per the bidirectionality principle above, this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template. If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template (which may be watchlisted mostly only by template coders).

Finally, external links should not be included in navigation templates. Sources may be included in the template documentation (a <noinclude> section that is visible only after viewing the template itself, but not upon its transclusion).}}

Can you please take it point by point and explain how it can be interpreted so dogmatically? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Restructure

This article really needs a major overhaul if this is to obtain FA status. It's poorly structured overall which affects the flow with too many short sections. In places it reads like a magazine article too. It needs a stronger coverage of his career. We have early career, but the article seems to fork off then into different areas, rather than being a comprehensive account to present.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Nicely done so far

Nicely done so far with this article.

It's well referenced and comprehensive.

I've performed a bit of copy editing but I still have some lingering concerns about long sentences and WP:NPOV.

Some of the tone, not all but some, comes across as a bit hagiographic.

Perhaps might want to tone that down to more of an objective encyclopedic tone if and when thinking about going for a second try at Featured Article.

He's certainly had quite an impressive and admirable career, and even if the wording is changed slightly to improve tone for more of a neutral point of view presentation -- the article will still end up serving him in good stead as a comprehensive look at an inspiring career.

Hope that's helpful.

I haven't read the old Featured Article candidate try that didn't pass yet, but I'll read that through later and see what else could maybe be addressed further. Sagecandor (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I took a brief look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Laucke/archive1, will read it over more later. But at first glance, unfortunately, I see an issue with "This article is over-stuffed with cheesy hyperbole." and "bring it back when the glare from the praise has been dimmed to human levels." I happen to agree here with Lingzhi. The article in its present state still needs some work to avoid hagiographic hyperbole and bring it back to an encyclopedic objective tone that satisfies WP:NPOV. Sagecandor (talk) 05:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Compare article text with much more encyclopedic, objective, and WP:NPOV tone in article "Michael Laucke" at The Canadian Encyclopedia. This Wikipedia article, over time and with some work, can become better than that article, but that one, for now, has a more neutral tone. Sagecandor (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

An overzealous copy-editor

Please see User talk:Florian Blaschke#Copy edits, Talk:Fake news website#Copy edits to intro section, and User talk:Corinne#Hello and thank you for your intererst [sic].  – Corinne (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific? Highlight a particular edit and maybe we can talk about a specific complaint? Sagecandor (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne:I truly find copy editing to be most enjoyable. But perhaps you could let me know what copy edit, in particular, to this article, you found to be "overzealous" ? Maybe we can talk about it here on the talk page, please? Sagecandor (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sagecandor I'm sorry. I disagree with almost all of your edits, so it would be quite time-consuming to discuss them. If you had first looked at the top of the article's talk page, you would have seen that this article had achieved Good Article status after Natalie.Desautels, Checkingfax, Pdebee, and I had put a lot of work into it. It was also copy-edited by a prolific WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors editor, Twofingered Typist. The article was near achieving, but did not achieve, Featured article status (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Laucke/archive1, but not particularly because of the prose but mostly for other types of problems. Now you are changing everything, and I am just disappointed, that's all.

• One example: you changed "Laucke performed mainly on classical guitar" to "Laucke mainly performed on classical guitar". The adverb should be near "on classical guitar" because he performed on several different instruments but particularly on one of them. When you put the adverb before the verb, you are focusing the reader's attention on the action of performing, not on the instrument.

• Another example: you took out "awards" in the phrase "awards and honours", leaving just "honours". To me, awards and honours are different, so I would keep the two words.

• Another example: you changed what I think is a perfectly good sentence, "He mainly performed on classical guitar until 1990; from then on, his concerts consisted solely of flamenco and new flamenco." to a compound sentence with "and". I don't see any reason to join the two clauses with "and". This sentence is about time, and about two periods of his life.

• Another example: I don't think it is necessary to add a wiki-link to "U.S. Senator" when there is already a link to Claiborne Pell. The concert was held in New York. Why would he meet a Canadian senator there? Also, there are no senators in Canada. There are Members of Parliament. I could go on.  – Corinne (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Will change it back, thank you for being specific.
2. "awards and honours" seems a bit not NPOV, the whole article tone comes across as a bit promotional in nature and failing NPOV.
3. That sentence was a bit too long and used one semicolon and two commas. Best to shorten it a bit.
4. Not appropriate to wikilink a person's name and then give them the title "Senator" inside of the wikilink for the name, per WP:CREDENTIAL. Why not link the United States Senate separate from the person's name. Sagecandor (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Changed "mainly performed" back to --> "performed mainly" as per request by Corinne, above, to do so. Sagecandor (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I was just coming to say how much better the article reads now without all the fluff and that I can't wait until the rest of the cruft is removed, but then I see Corinne complaining. I'll point you to the fact that the piece was created to promote the subject by gathering every press release and promoted interview into one article. Better known musicians in Canada have shorter articles and nothing would be lost to the readers of Wikipedia if 75% of the article was removed. Nit-picking over removal of WP:PEACOCK words and adjectives is not helping. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz:Thank you very much, Walter Görlitz, I'm so glad you said you think my recent copy edits have improved the article! Sagecandor (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)