User talk:Iadmc/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Iadmc. 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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Contemporary music/project or task force?

Hi. I thought i'd write directly about the technical issue of whether this should be a project or a task force.

At the moment the project has 2,762 articles, covering music from before the first world war to the present day. Banners have both quality and importance scales (unlike other classical music projects which only do quality). At the moment most articles (1,911) are unassessed.

If the project is revived with a new scope, someone will have to check all the articles individually to see if they still belong. This will be a big job. If Contemp. Music is revived as a Classical music task force we can use a bot to remove all the old banners. This can be done automatically. Best. --Klein zach 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, that is a lot. Could we briefly become a task force do the admin stuff and the go back to being a project? (he-he-he!) Actually, we aught to be a daughter of WProj:Classical music, anyway, rather than a separate project: would that help? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. I think you've answered the first question! If I could think of a way of doing the work by bot, I would. The problem is that the two founders of the project spent all their time playing with the banners. (In particular, having an 'importance scale' is a real nuisance unless you have the luxury of dedicated 'importance scale' editors.)

Project parentage has no bearing on the banner problem. 'Haydn and Mozart' is a daughter project of ClassM, but theoretically that isn't correct because ClassM only looks after "articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects" — it should be under Composers. FWIW the ContempM parent should probably be Music. --Klein zach 01:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We need the founders back... ;) --Jubilee♫clipman 01:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

One of them is. --Klein zach 03:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

As you have entered the debate/fray, I'd like to explain a bit of the background. The problem originated with Biography Project banners that had an 'infobox required' field (asking non-contributors to add boxes). These banners were placed by Biography (Musicians) Project bots (of which A Knight Who Says Ni is a member) starting in 2007.

A debate started in the Composers Project (with a strong consensus not to use infoboxes), and then was repeated (with similar results) in the Opera Project and Classical Music. ClassM adopted the following guideline "Current consensus among project participants holds that the use of biographical infoboxes is often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians, including conductors and instrumentalists." (see here, which also gives links to the debates). I should say that the subject of infoboxes for orchestras (as opposed to individuals) has not been controversial and as far as I can remember has not been discussed. (I'm certainly not against all infoboxes myself.)

The Music Project (the umbrella for all the small popular music projects) has been engulfed in infobox problems (see here and the following 4 archives). The same thing will happen to the classical music projects if the box is applied to all musicians. I'd appreciate it if you could give this some consideration. We've enjoyed months and more of peace and quiet. I'm really hoping this isn't about to end. --Klein zach 01:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! Thanks for the info. Perhaps "Non-classical" should stay... I'll change my vote giving reasons. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Polite Notice - Possible solution to Ondine merging

I am creating this notice to invite all interested parties to vote on the proposal to merge Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton) to a new article at Ondine (ballet). You can read the discussion and add your vote to the poll at:

Look forward to seeing you there to help resolve this situation, thanks! Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Pieces-style

I've raised the question of the purpose of this template, see Template talk:Pieces-style. If you have a moment I'd be interested in your opinion. --Klein zach 23:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Re. Contemp Music cats and banners

(Talkback dealt with --Jubilee♫clipman 23:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Mathis der Maler (symphony) request

I wanted to let you know I moved your request to move Mathis der Maler (symphony) from the uncontroversial section of Wikipedia:Requested moves to the controversial section since it is "clearly" not a uncontroversial move and there is a reasonable possibility it could be opposed. Aspects (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Classical music project assessments

Hi. I've trying to make some progress with the Assessments redux discussion - probably to make it into a non-assessing project (unlike its daughter 'Contemporary music'). I don't think anyone seriously wants to assess 10,000 odd articles but I'd like to establish a consensus. I wonder if you would like to comment to help the debate on a bit? Thanks. --Klein zach 06:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Klein, I'll have a look. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

history of india? (no to sure if this is correct)

i have read the talk page about history of prepartition india history

the state which is india beore 1947 did not exist how it possible for the state to have history and what ever was before the was under the british empire ,just because a few historians stated this that - does not refelct the global pereption of what is of what(5 continents ) e.g some history of something would different another for example bangladesh would view 1971 indo paksiatni war as a war of independence ,however Pakistan would view it as as it 3 indo pakistani war Mughalnz (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC) What I am disputing is did anything exist before 1947 to have history (only British i can think of ) I only recall British india in Pre 1947 to say it is India hisory is pov and back by a some historian just in writing doesn't reflect the actual physical state that existed at that time if there was.However people have used shotened word india to refer British india they actual existing Before 1947 (at that ime peroid) - furthermore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 23:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm... You may have a point. However, when the point was made that the article should be renamed to "history of Indian Subcontenent" (which would address your issues) there was an enormous amount of resistance. Futhermore, the Mughals and other peoples have a huge history which is examined in detail in the article: it is not just about the British Raj which has its own entry. Perhaps this question needs to be better examined... and sourced from non-European based texts. I'll have a think how to approach this and get back to you. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

just to let u know mughal conquered from modern afganistan ,paksiatn,bangladesh,india but not maldives ,Sri lanka, bhutan, and not noerthern indian states of arunchal pradesh ,sikim ,manipur,assam,etc e.g the states above bangladesh futhermore southerrn indian states of kerala etc ( theres some more )aslo indian terroites of laskshaweep and adman and nicobar island however British india existed in all places i stated except afganistan which is also disputed if it is considered part of indian subcontinent where some maps show it whle other dont Mughalnz (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

threatened to delete the page if no compremise can met , then they will comprimise joking lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 23:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sri lanka i think it not part of British india but part of sub continent it make no sense if there is ressistance to logic( i think i have stated ) ,where the resistnace is only driven emotional povMughalnz (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't think you'll get consensus to delete the page... Only thing you can do is address the issues on the talkpage. That, and actually edit the page to include your insights, assuming you have good sources to hand. Regards. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

what kind of resources do you want from me state specifally or kind to add tothe talk page or what resources are good to add or to look and start fromMughalnz (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC) can wiki,srlanka,afghanistan,bhutan, bangladesh ,pakistan veto in majority overuling other wiki projects edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk to SpacemanSpiff who seems to be far more knowledgeable about this matter. I cannot help you much I'm afraid. Thanks for raising this though. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

k SweetMughalnz (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

hw about 'Pre-1947 india' as temperary title to comprmise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 02:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Article was expanded to include a brief history of Post-47, so that won't work either. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

on the under title page summary it says 'This article is about the history of the Indian Subcontinent prior to the Partition of India in 1947 'so it contradicts it self Mughalnz (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm keeping out of it now. You have a good point though which ought to be raised on the talkpage. Talk to SpacemanSpiff, too. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator?

Would you be willing to coordinate WP:CTM (note new shortcut)? This is a system used at Military History and Films. Films have a good page explaining how their system works, see here. We would obviously have a scaled down version. I've done a draft proposal and an election notice for user talk pages here. Thanks. --Klein zach 02:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I accept. Thanks! I'll have to learn about bot runs and correct categorization etc, but I suspect I could ask others (hint, hint) if I really haven't a clue about something. Most of the stuff you list in the draft proposal is simple admin stuff that I'm doing anyway. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I'll nominate you. CTM is not my natural habitat — I just don't have the books — so I'll probably retire from this project, though I will be available if you need any technical help. --Klein zach 03:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your pointers and continued offer of help. I'll have to look at that cat thing now... --Jubilee♫clipman 03:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Please see here and let me know if you think anything needs changing before we run this. --Klein zach 05:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Hyacinth#My apologies

No problem and no offense taken. I'm indeed male and gay. Flowers are associated with femininity in Euro-American culture and the myth is not well known. However, the strangest assumption, to me, was that my user name was a reference to Hyacinth Bucket. Hyacinth (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha! I remember that! Wasn't Sheridan gay and she just thought he had a lot of male mates? Thanks for the info on the Hyacinth myth which I had heard vaguely about but never knew in depth. On a totallly different track, I notice you flagged up Quartal and quintal harmony on your user page as needing work on its "length". I have actually revised it extensively (mostly in userspace then dumped over). See the talk page for a full explanation of my rationale. The thing is still massive, actually, given the fact that the term is rarely used and the method itself is not that common. I can't find decent English sources at the moment (I actually cut out most of the German ones since most vistors to the article will not be able the read them). I am done with the article for now so feel free to play with it further! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too!

Merry Christmas from the Antandrus Orchard in southern California, the citrus delight where it snoweth not, but where the cheer is no less. Peace and best wishes for 2010! I look forward to working with you on some music stuff ... Antandrus (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And for another view of the holiday . . .

Merry Christmas!

Thank you for the wishes! Wishing you also a productive and wonderful new year, and wishing the best for Wikipedia in the next decade! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CTM election notice

WikiProject Contemporary music

Hi and hello! We are currently electing our first coordinator, see Election: Coordinator for 2010. If you are interested in being a candidate, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. Nominations are open until Sunday 3 January. You can see more information about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music/Coordinator.

P.S. You are currently listed on the project participants list. Are you still active on the project? If so, please reconfirm your name on the Members list. Thanks and good editing!

Reply at Talk:Complement (set theory)

Hi Jubilee. I've replied to your comment at Talk:Complement (set theory), please let me know there if I've addressed your concerns. Thanks and regards, Paul August ☎ 15:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

... and again. Paul August ☎ 16:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory

Saw your post at Music Theory. FYI this project was started by Nrswanson, the notorious sockpuppeteer. It never really got going. Some of the members may well have been puppets. Reviving it might take a lot of work. --Klein zach 03:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Thanks for the info! Nevertheless, the project should in theory be invaluable given the huge number of theory articles and lack of depth and citation in a great many of them... Might at least be worth a shot. We have several other priorities first though. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A late merry Christmas!

Thanks for the Christmas greeting, and all the best for 2010!

I've spent the last few days shovelling Aberdeenshire snow instead of editing Wikipedia, so the Kleinzach picture above looks more familiar than the Antandrus one.

--Deskford (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto replacing Aberdeenshire with Yorkshire and adding ice...! --Jubilee♫clipman 16:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, plenty of ice here too - makes the shovelling hard work! --Deskford (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Composer WP question

Hi, I saw you're active at the Composer Wikiproject so I wanted to ask your opinion whether Ram Narayan is in the project scope for his work as a film composer. The involvement was often anonymous, which is why I'm hesitating. A. R. Rahman qualifies though, right? Regards Hekerui (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean Ram Narayan, the Pandit and Sarangi player, then he is unquestionably notable as a performer. His contributions to film music may well be important, too, though this is glossed over in his article. A. R. Rahman is certainly notable as a film composer. The question is not so much whether the articles are within the scope of the Composer Wikiproject (technically they are, though the wording of the scope is somewhat fudged, actually) but whether they will be usefully dealt with by that project. First, they are composers of Indian classical music but that project covers mainly Western classical music (purely because the editors involved are from Europe, Australasia, and North American and are likely know little about "non"-Western classical music (as it were)). Second, they are film composers but the project tends to focus on "art music": film music tends to be excluded from this category. I'd raise the question on the project talk page: you are likely to get further answers and the question will spark useful debate about the precise scope of the project. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that clears it up for me and I'll leave things as they are. Thanks for responding. Hekerui (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem --Jubilee♫clipman 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is responsible for these pages

You're right that Who is responsible for these pages → Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control seems like someone's clever idea, but looking at the relevant page histories it seems to be a natural artifact of the moving and subsequent development of a real antique created by Larry Sanger in March 2001 when Wikipedia was two months old. A little piece of history! Glenfarclas (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ooh! Perhaps that one should stay. You learn something new everyday! Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you're right—maybe it should stay. I posted here rather than on the RfD because I didn't want to make a digression, but now I think I will mention it. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I see you archived recent stuff on Composers. The norm for archiving is to wait two weeks from the last posting before putting the topics to bed. The idea is to let everybody see them, which won't happen if they are displayed for a shorter time, so I wonder if you can you unarchive at least the timeline item which is only 4 days old? --Klein zach 15:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for pointing that out! I archived the Timeline discussion because the TfD has been closed but never spotted your reminder about the other timelines. The page was getting rather big, too, so it seemed best to archive before the 2 week norm. I will leave the parentage discussion archived, though, as I suspect everyone will be aware of it by now. --Jubilee♫clipman 16:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. --Klein zach 01:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Prods/AfDs

Hi, I noticed you seem to be making a systematic review of composers and nominating many for deletion. I have found that many of the pages you've nominated for deletion are of notable subjects, and I urge you to spend more time investigating before nominating for deletion in the future. Thanks. Chubbles (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In particular, please review the pages in non-English wikipedia before preparing an AfD; you will be likely to find expanded coverage for notable people whose primary language is not English in those places. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A little explanation: I have been reviewing List of 21st-century classical composers mainly checking that they all link to actual composers (rather than fooballers etc), but also checking to see if they are decent articles. Unsuprisingly (for this type of article), the vast majority of articles I have come across are not great. I have had to tag quite a few using Friendly simply because they are poorly sourced. A small number of others appear to have been either poorly sourced or unsourced BLPs for over 5 years or are apparently self-promotional articles: PROD seemed appropriate for all these. A few others are also poorly sourced or unsourced BLPs but seem more contentious: I AfDed these. Hans Abrahamsen, István Anhalt and Clarence Barlow: should these now be sent to AfD? They have remained stubs for years (since 2003 for the last named) with no one improving them. This is hardly an indication of notability since no one seems to actually require the article enough to even maintain it. A little clarification would be helpful here: how can an unsourced stub BLP from 2005 like István Anhalt be a viable article? Anyway, I'll hold off nominating more for now unless they are really very obvious. --Jubilee♫clipman 05:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I improved Anhalt's article with a few moments of search in Google Books to find a biography. If an article is poorly sourced, do your bit of research and improve it incrementally, even if it's just to note one article or book that the next editor can use to improve on it. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is: why has it been completely neglected for all this time if he is so notable? What about Clarence Barlow? That's been a stub for nearly 7 years: PROD seemed pretty reasonable to me. --Jubilee♫clipman 06:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#List_of_21st-century_classical_composers and most of the following for the background to all this. --Jubilee♫clipman 06:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability hasn't anything to do with frequency of editing. No doubt as Wikipedia ages, there will be many articles which go many years without any edits. That's particularly true in art music, since it is a subject that concerns comparatively few people. People put stubs up because, well, something is better than nothing, and it allows for the possibility that other people will take an interest and make improvements. (In particular, anonymous editors can't work on a page at all without it already existing.) There are many paltry articles dealing with composers, but their current state shouldn't in and of itself be taken as a reason for deletion. It's worth familiarizing yourself with WP:MET, which is a huge list of everyone (and everything) in The New Grove, Grove Jazz, and a bunch of other standard music encyclopedias. Chubbles (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I had never even heard of MET before I checked your edit summary in one article. Thanks for that! This was a good faith screw up, for which I apologise. See my comment over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cacilda Borges Barbosa. --Jubilee♫clipman 06:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Mark Barchan

I've been having a look at this one, partly because all the sources were buried in miscoding. IMO he just about makes it even though he is young, as there are already couple of reviews and it looks very likely that he will become established. The problem is that there is really too much to check but that's really a plus point compared with a lot of other articles. --Klein zach 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah I wondered where you had got to! Thanks for that. I'll remove the PROD and let you edit it in peace! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts about this. The links obviously amount to every web page with Barchan's name of it, plus every link to the film. If it went to Afd I would probably vote for deletion. --Klein zach 04:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My !vote delete, also. AfD, IMO. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

about: Roberto Carnevale

Hello Jubilee♫clipman, My name is Andrea Ferrante Solerzi. I’m professor of Composition at the Conservatorio di Stato “A. Corelli” in Messina e at the Conservatorio di Stato “Scontrino” in Trapani. From 1997 to 2004 I was professor of Elementi di Composizione at at the Conservatorio di Stato in Palermo, L’Aquila and La Spezia. I have studied with Roberto Carnevale from 1991 to 1995. Roberto Carnevale is professor and vice-director at the Instituto Superiore di Studi Musicali ‘Vincenzo Bellini’ in Catania. I’m NOT a representative of Nuove Edizioni Neopoiesis; I have chosen the name NEOPOIESIS (no Nuove edizioni neopoiesis!) because I’m a composer and some my works was published by Nuove Edizioni Neopoiesis (2001-2005). Now my works are published by Edipan and Prosono. Is this conflict of interest? Best regards, Andrea Ferrante —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neopoiesis (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrea. I have copied your post over to the talk page over at WP:CTM for the other members to consider. I feel you are close to the subject but are not necessarily attempting to unduly promote him (though it may appear that you are at times). Best wishes and happy editing! --Jubilee♫clipman 16:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Tadd Russo

Hello, I'd like to refer you to an article on Tadd Russo. Perhaps because I am new to Wikipedia and not as well-versed in notability I'm having difficulty understanding how it might work for young composers. That is, if one receives a growing number of commissions and high-level performances, but still is not cited in an academic text, does this define notability? I would defer to the judgment of you and your colleagues in this matter. Thanks... (Russoerica (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC))