Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers. 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 18

→

Commemorative coins in classical music articles

Once again we have an issue regarding including commemorative coins in music articles, (see here). I wonder if we need to make a guideline on when and when not to include coin/stamp/banknote images and information in articles? Thanks. --Klein zach 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the discussion currently at the talk page of Kärntnertortheater is in some respects useful. If the article in question is, say, Joseph Haydn, then the fame of the subject is so obvious that coin material becomes irrelevant and intrusive. If the topic is more obscure, then conceivably a commemorative coin could count as a form of documentation that the person/building is notable.

On the other hand, I think the decision as to whether a coin reference would be useful should be made by editors who have read widely on the topic of the article, who bring a sense of perspective. It should not be left to misguided coin enthusiasts. Opus33 (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just a thought, but are we sure they have permission to reproduce the coin images on these pages? The 100 NOK note image was bot-removed from the Kirsten Flagstad article because norwegian bank only allows free reproduction of the image when its used to describe the currency itself, but not when its used to describe what is depicted on the currency. Similar issues arise with publicity shots for TV shows. They are legal on pages for the shows or the shows' characters but not on pages for the actors and actresses.DavidRF (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also it's gaudy coin spam. Eusebeus (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Austrian mint's web site says:

"The content of these pages is subject to copyright. Any reproduction other than for private use (publication, duplication, distribution to third parties, printing in the media) is dependent on the written consent from the Austrian Mint. (http://austrian-mint.at/impressum?l=en)

I'm curious how the use of the image at WP is justified in light of this. (No one has obtained written permission.) Opus33 (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was the only (or almost the only) editor on the Kärntnertortheater talk page opposed to including the coin. As I pointed out there, the coin doesn't commemorate the theatre, it commemorates the Anthem of Europe — where the coin and text also appear. In general I think the criteria we use for including coins should be the similar to that for trivia. What do other people think? --Klein zach 03:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It *is* trivia. No doubt about it. But editors can be forgiving of trivia if the article is obscure enough... and this seemingly innocuous overlooking of a general rule opens the door for these relentless coin editors to negotiate. We waste tons of time rehashing the same discussions over and over with these guys. A few months from now, it will happen again. They're like the liquid terminator.DavidRF (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There might be a case to remove the coins from non-coin articles. An image of the Sacagawea dollar used to be the featured picture on the Sacagawea article until this edit removed it because it violated fair use. Wikipedia's policy for copyrighted currency images states: In these cases, their use on Wikipedia is contended to be fair use when they are used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself. Maybe they got permission from the Austrian mint, I don't know, but its worth checking. I wouldn't want to be violating any copyrights. DavidRF (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also the commercial aspect. A similar coin (one of those illustrated in Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) is currently on sale on eBay, see [1]. I can't imagine any other encyclopedia including this stuff.--Klein zach 06:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, there's other reasons why someone might not like the coins in the articles, but its possible their presence might actually be expressly forbidden. I'm checking with editors in the media copyright area. The preliminary response I've received is that the coin images need to be in coin articles only, but I'm checking to see how strict that is. I'm sure the coin collector guys would push back hard if we deleted all their image references from non-coin articles en masse. DavidRF (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the images are allowed. See Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Commemorative_coin_images. I'm not a legal expert though. I'm busy with other things today. I'll let the group here digest this information and decide if this warrants making any edits. DavidRF (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm pro action — but not in being the only head stuck over the parapet. Opus33? --Klein zach 01:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(re-margining...)

Hi Kleinzach, what a metaphor you are using! I'm guess I'm not ready for the Battle of the Somme, but perhaps a minor raid in no-man's land? A Google search of WP hunting for "composer" or "music" with "commemorative coin" found:

Leopold II of Belgium

Fredrik Pacius

Perhaps first check each one that it's truly not kosher to use, then remove, asking for the required permissions to be obtained first? No time for me to do this now, but I could take it on soon... Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've linked the list above. But do we really want to engage the whole 'Western Front' - music and history, literature, medicine etc? --Klein zach 00:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. Opus33 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now questioned the use of the coin for Maria Callas, see Talk:Maria_Callas#Non-free_coin_image. --Klein zach 00:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

There's more. Schloss Esterházy, Palais Lobkowitz, Getreidegasse (mozart's home street), Salzburg Cathedral, Wien River, Antonio Vivaldi. They've even spammed one for The Smurfs. :-) They seem indiscriminant about where they link images. Basically start at the coin pages and chances are if there's an article for what is pictured, then they've posted an image on that article. DavidRF (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thus, list, mark II:

Antonio Vivaldi (plus James Watt, Bertha von Suttner and Martin Luther)

Thanks, Kleinzach and DavidRF, and don't forget to duck. Opus33 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the coin from Antonio Vivaldi (within our bailiwick) and it was immediately put back [2]. Any suggestions? --Klein zach 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I got most of them.DavidRF (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. We seem to have a full-scale edit war now on with the editor in question reverting Maria Callas, Antonio Vivaldi, Martin Luther, and Herbert von Karajan — and all the other articles. --Klein zach 04:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, there is no copyright infrigment (yet), if there is I will remove them my self. Still that gives you no right to remove the prose (over the copyright issue). I am a very reasonable person, and what I see here is you guys teaming against me, that can easily escalate ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Miguel, you seem to be on a solitary crusade to put coin images in numerous articles; if you encounter a large group of editors opposed to this, it may not be a "teaming against you" but rather a WP:CONSENSUS, which is a normal, and desirable occurrence on Wikipedia. Regarding the ANI threat you left on Opus's talk page, beware the Law of unintended consequences. I know what will happen there, and it's best avoided. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus was reached in Kärntnertortheater to keep it. Consensus was reached in Joseph Haydn to remove it, and I agreed. But this gives no rights to these three guys to blantly going to every single article and removing my contributions because "I am violating the law". I am clear about the copyright fair-use and if that recently changed, I have already said I will remove those images myself. Still that give them no rights to remove the prose as well. If you read carefully the top of this thread, you will notice that is definitely a teaming fight. Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We're probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg here. There are coins on articles about places, sports, mythology and whatever — and all in the same style. --Klein zach 06:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And you're sure you're not taking this personal? I am very aware of that fact, go to my watch list and you will see more than 900 articles with a similar kind of contributions ... I just wonder why do you care? Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach, you are crossing the line now, you are removing the images and the prose in articles that you have never touch, that is wiki hunting. I am asking you to stop right now! Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I'm the one that added that the 100 NOK note to the Kirsten Flagstad article [3]... got removed. No fair use. Pictures of money can only be on money articles. I have also recently suggested that a picture of a television character Sun-Hwa Kwon be used on the page for the actress Yunjin Kim which is missing a photo (see [4])... no dice... no fair use. Pictures of characters can only be on articles for the characters, not the actors who play them. I live and I learn. I missed the Kärntnertortheater debate or I would have pointed these things out earlier. Still see a conspiracy against you here? I suppose its in your best interest to claim that there is one. DavidRF (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

David, not all fair rationales are the same, and I am telling you, you're definitely wrong about "can only be used in xxxx articles", look at the sample, a classic sample, I put in the page in question. Again, no one has answered why you are removing the prose as well! Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach, DavidRF, Opus33: I am taking a couple of hours off wiki to cool down. You guys decide whatever you want to do "together" aginst me and my contributions. My fatcs as of now:

The copyright issue is not final, I am very clear about it and I have samples, please follow the conversation in the the page you reported the issue. As I have said in the past several times, I will remove all images myself if that turns to be an issue.

You are removing the image and the prose, is the prose also copyright infringement? And now you are going beyond articles outside this project as well? Please enlight me how come this is not personal.

When I come I will decide my next course of actions, you are free to do whatever you want I will not be disturbing any of your edits, even the ones against my own contributions. Best regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Miguel.mateo has broken the 3RR, see here [5]. If he's really going to stop this nonsense now I suggest we don't report it. There's nothing personal about this, all that is necessary is the removal of the images (and accompanying text) from articles where they are copyright infringements.--Klein zach 06:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with discussing coin policy here. We've had long debates several times within the past year:

Its exhausting! So I think its perfectly reasonable for a wikiproject to discuss some sort of policy so it doesn't have to rehash the same debate over and over again. We're not leaving anyone out here. DavidRF (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This has now been raised at ANI by Buster7 and Miguel.mateo, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Commemorative_Coin_Controversy. --Klein zach 14:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

For the records: I did tell you in your talk page, so I am hiding nothing from any of you. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed guideline

Here is a possible text for a guideline for the project page and for Mustard:

Images of collectibles (coins, banknotes, postage stamps, souvenirs and similar items) in music articles should meet the following conditions:

1. Images should be free of copyright, or have a valid fair use rationale that satisfies WP:NFCC, specifically 'Criteria 8' (Significance): "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

2. Inclusion should contribute to information about the subject of the article, not be used to obtain credibility and value for the collectible by associating it with the subject.

~~3. The inclusion should not be for commercial purposes.~~

4. The information should be of interest to the average reader of the music article. It should not be trivia.

N B coins, notes, stamps etc. in general circulation are more likely to meet these criteria than 'commemorative' issues.

Please agree, disagree, hack or whatever as appropriate! --Klein zach 01:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You might not believe that this is coming from me, but I do agree, it will save all of us a lot of headaches in the future. I want to ask about the last comment: why do you think so?

If the coin is in general circulation, inclusion can't affect its value (meeting condition 3) and it will probably be less trivial. --Klein zach 02:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You should clarify point 2, it seems like a justification for removal of this type of contributions. Maybe a couple of bad and good samples would help.

You should allow text only, when free images are not available.

That doesn't follow. Reference to text could be included in the guideline, but I think it's covered by existing trivia rules.--Klein zach 02:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It should also say, that once you have one sample (of either stamp, coin, bill) there is no need to put another, and the previous one should not be removed "... because the new one is more relevant..." I am trying to save you time leading with "my bill is more relevant than your coin" type of discussions.

It should also say, that this is not trivia, that there is no need to put more than 50 words of text and it should be wikilinked to a relevant article or sourced.

And finally, you should also say that when the subject or the article in question is notable enough (like Mozart for example) there is no need to add this type of information (or else I am putting an Austrian 1 euro coin right now, that is free!). But I soo feel that "notable enough" should be defined.

Well, the subject has to be notable, otherwise there will be no article. --Klein zach 02:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is why I said "notable enough", this information in stub articles only enhances the article, IMO. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean like Providentia? IMO that subverts the article, it doesn't enhance it. --Klein zach 09:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Now feel free to ignore me once again, no problems. Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea to me. My one quibble is: are we really in a position to discern the motivation (financial or otherwise) of someone who posts coin info? Perhaps best better just to address the bad consequences (i.e. listing trivia) Opus33 (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. I have struck out number 3. I thought of rewording it to refer to a commercial effect or impact, rather than the intention to create one, but on reflection I doubt if we need this clause anyway. --Klein zach 09:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for drafting the list. I think we should make sure that #1 and #2 are worded as close to the WP:NFCC policy as possible... making sure that we include references to the reasons the admins gave in resolving the dispute. There was some detail there that we should get right and I don't think any of us really got it right in last weeks debates (including myself). The point is not that we're dictating the policy here, but including a local reference to that policy so that its easy to find.

I have added to number #1. Please say if you think additional changes are necessary. --Klein zach 08:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As for #4, we've always had tighter trivia restrictions here and at WP:CM. That spans more than just collectibles. Without those restrictions, we end up with long litanies of movie and televisions references. It might not be a bad idea to consider breaking out (or duplicating) #4 into a separate policy. Its something that seems innocent enough for an editor new to the area to want to include, but over time one realizes how easy it is for those things to grow out of control. That's a separate issue, though. DavidRF (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Opera Project has a specific trivia guideline (see here) but WP:CM and this project don't. I think it might be a good idea to adopt one (perhaps discussed in a separate section?). (I'd still recommend keeping a simple reference to 'trivia' in the 'Collectibles guideline'.) --Klein zach 08:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The guideline above is fine, but the real concern here surely is that the actions of one committed editor continue to cause vexation, 3RR conflicts and repeated trips to AN/I. This is a complete waste of time and needs to stop. Eusebeus (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now added the guideline to the project page. --Klein zach 02:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia guideline?

Re. DavidRF's comment above, perhaps we should have a trivia guideline here and for Mustard? This is adapted from the Opera Project, but maybe it can be developed.

Anecdotes, influences on pop culture, and other peripheral content or "trivia", should only be included in composers' articles if they are likely to be of interest to a typical reader of the article. Examples of content which almost always fail this test are: songs, albums, video games, TV shows, or movies that reference the music.

--Klein zach 02:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now added this to the project page. --Klein zach 00:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. §hep ^Talk 00:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already a controversy about this - the page has been put up for deletion at Mfd. Does anyone have an opinion about whether it's worth participating? There are supposedly 800 projects but only 50 participants so far. --Klein zach 01:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Händel/Handel nationality issue

This again, see here. --Klein zach 02:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange redirect to Vivaldi

This has just been made a redirect to Vivaldi: JCII G T? To understand the true meaning, replace eaċh letter with the one that comes two letters before it in the alphabet. Does anybody know what is going on here? --Klein zach 05:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved (I think). Just vandalism. --Klein zach 06:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:59, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Missing composers

FYI, there are a lot of missing songwriters and composers listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/biographies. Examples:

Hiromori Hayashi, Hayashi, Hiromori
- '''Hiromori Hayashi''' (1831–1896), Japanese composer; composed Japanese national anthem "Kimigayo" 1880
John Hopkins, Jr., John Hopkins Jr.
- '''John Jr. Hopkins''' (1820–1891), [[United States of America|U.S.]] clergyman & hymnist; wrote & composed song "We Three Kings of Orient Are" 1857
Edvin Kallstenius, Kallstenius, Edvin
- '''Edvin Kallstenius''' (1881–1967), [[Swedish]] songwriter; arranged folk music to [[Swedish]] national anthem "Du Gamla, Du Fria" (also "Thou Ancient, Thou Glorious")
John Kneen, Kneen, John
- '''John Kneen''' (1873–1939), [[British]] Manx linguist; wrote Manx version of anthem of Isle of Man "Arrane Ashoonagh Dy Vannin"
Wilmot Moses Smith, Wilmot Smith, Smith, Wilmot
- '''Wilmot Smith''' (1852–1906), [[United States of America|U.S.]] songwriter; co-wrote song "Far Above Cayuga's Waters" 1872

etc. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What notability criteria are you using? Or to put it another way, why should these articles be prioritized? --Klein zach 23:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a general FYI with no implied priority. Eusebeus (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Grove Quotes reliable?

I've noticed an IP remove quotes from Grove from both Igor Stravinsky and Dmitri Shostakovich‎ citing that they are "entirely subjective and don't belong in an encyclopedic entry". Since Grove itself is an encyclopedia I can see the point of not using it as a source directly, but it seems to me the IP is missing the point of using a direct quote in the first place. Thoughts? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the way the quote is framed in Stravinsky; it doesn't emphasise enough the fact that it is in fact a quotation and not an analysis. But the removal in Shostakovich is, IMO, completely unjustified; we're not using the source to support a claim that he is the most influential Soviet composer blah blah blah, but merely using the quote to verify that Grove does indeed say he was. Entirely appropriate; removal entirely inappropriate. Happy‑melon 12:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Haydn + Mozart Sub-Project

I am soliciting attention to the possibility of setting up a Haydn and Mozart daughter project. I have initiated discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Haydn_.2B_Mozart_Sub-Project and warmly welcome any thoughts editors may have. Eusebeus (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)