Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 23

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 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

New articles

There have been a whole slew of stubs transwikied from the Slovenian Wikipedia, all are unreferenced. I've added the WikiProject Composers banner to them, so they don't slip under your radar. You can find them at: Category:Unassessed Composers articles. Voceditenore (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Ahn Eak-tai

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Ahn Eak-tai/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for someone with access to Grove

I've linked [1] from Johann Ernst of Saxe-Weimar (composer). Judging by the comment "Published on Kunst der Fuge with written permission by: Grove Music", the item is derived from Grove. Is someone able to confirm which edition and provide publishing information? Thanks--Peter cohen (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

New articles on Czech composers etc.

User:Voodoobug has been creating some very useful articles on (mostly Czech) musicians and composers. He still doesn't have the hang of always adding at least one reference, and the articles aren't wikified. He also doesn't banner the talk pages, so the articles may have slipped under your project's radar. I've fixed a few that showed up on the opera new article bot. The problem is that trigger-happy young vandal fighters sometimes try to strangle them at birth, e.g. [2]. Here's a list of the new articles he's created. So over to you. By the way, does this project subscribe to the new article bot, e.g. User:AlexNewArtBot/OperaSearchResult and the article alert bot. e.g. WikiProject Opera Alerts? If not, you might find them useful. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added references and banners to many Voodoobug's articles ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), all of his creations are useful, he helps to reduce the red mass of important Czech music related articles. I check all "Czech articles" with excellent new article bot. I completely agree with AlexNewArtBot subscription also for WP:COMPOSERS and WP:CLASSICAL, I'm just not sure how to create it with correct keywords. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad News - multiple copyios

We have just discovered that Voodoobug (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of the serial copyright violator and previously banned editor User:Nrswanson. Details here. I checked all "Voodoobug's" articles on Czech composers today and they are all verbatim from Grove Music Online . If you want to save them, re-write them on the temporary page linked on the copyvio notice. There will probably be more to come as we investigate further. Here are the ones so far:

Ladislao_Zavrtal
Václav_Hugo_Zavrtal
Josef_Rudolf_Zavrtal
Jan_Jáchym_Kopřiva
Hans_Hampel
Karel_Komzák
Vladimír_Štědroň
Jana_Obrovská
František_Sušil
Carl_Hermann_Heinrich_Benda
Pietro_Paolo_Bugeja
Otmar_Mácha
Paolino_Vassallo
Joseph_Benda
Giuseppe_Staffa
Johann_Joseph_Ignaz_Brentner

Sorry to dump this here, but at WikiProject Opera, we are already swamped dealing with the hundreds of opera-related articles that Nrswanson and his sockpuppets have created/edited. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist discussion

For the past couple of years there has been an understanding that infobox musical artist is for popular musicians. Template:Infobox musical artist explains that it is for non-classical artists, (moreover the fields are obviously designed for these artists).

On 31 August Pigsonthewing (aka Andy Mabbett) removed the words 'non-classical' from Infobox musical artist here. After several reversions, discussion has developed at Template_talk:Infobox_musical_artist/doc, see Classical artists and following sections, notably the last one Classical artists (continued).

Pro-infobox editors have said that "The musical artist infobox belongs to WikiProject Musicians" (A Knight Who Says Ni), which has bannered 54,000 music articles (including all classical music biographies) as part of the Biography Project, but also by strong implication that this and the Classical Music and Opera Projects have been claiming 'ownership' of articles - the old Pigsonthewing/Mabbett charge (for which he was eventually blocked, see here). (Also posted to Classical Music.) --Klein zach 03:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion has confirmed that infobox musical artist is for popular musicians. The explanation that it is for non-classical artists remains in place. --Klein zach 23:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Two contemporary composers

Anyone know anything about Brian Inglis or Howard Thomas? Ruth Holton gave first performances of works by them. I've managed to find likely links for the other composers she gave premieres for, but not these two.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ruth Holton gave first performance of In Sorrow and Joy by Brian Inglis, though at this website the composition is called Visions of Sorrow and Joy. I also found an essay [10] Hildegard the Opera by composer himself. Inglis could be also the author of 'one woman opera' The Song of Margery Kemp ([11], [12], [13]). The connection between Holton and Howard Thomas is noted only in this profile. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Potential problems with Keith Burstein

See Talk:Keith Burstein for more. Voceditenore (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation - Siegfried Translateur

I have flagged this article as a copy vio of its German sources. I fear that the author is a hitherto unidentified sock of Nrswanson. And this id is a beaurocrat on wikinews.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought this user was a sock (as he dates back to August 08), but then last time round I reported just about the only related account that wasn't Swanson! Is any check being kept on his IP? Is that a possibility? --Klein zach 00:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for a checkuser. Even if the swanson account is old, some of the other socks have only been caught relatively recently. The key indicator of this being a sock is that the earliest edits do not read as if they are new to Wikipedia. The key indicator for this being Swanson is that I spotted the article as a self-nom at Template Talk:DYK.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A third part has removed the copyvio tag. Could someone else (with basic understanding of German) urgently provide a third opinion.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look. Proving a copyviol on a translation is inherently difficult, because copyright is all about 'form' and that 'form' is obviously changed in a translation. Maybe it's better to concentrate on the Swanson aspect? --Klein zach 02:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed a checkuser to try to expedite this. The suspect user is an arb on Wikinews. I've also posted examples at WT:DYK as to why I think it is plagiarism. See if they convince you--Peter cohen (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the sentences, especially in the Biography section, are clearly fairly direct translations of the first source. A few are augmented by information from the second. There is some similarity in content between the two sources, as well, although they clearly diverge in the music section. I'm not a copyvio expert; if necessary, I could probably elaborate the similarities in more detail. Magic♪piano 03:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Composers of the World and Orelfoundation.org links

User:Composers of the World, who has been warned in the past for spamming, has just been adding a series of Orelfoundation.org links, see for example here. Are these legit or spam? --Klein zach 01:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Music Project

The Contemporary Music Project has been revived.

Covering the past 50 years or so, this project concentrates on music variously described as 'New', 'Postmodernist' or 'Contemporary classical'.

New editors and contributors will be most welcome. The project page is here. --Klein zach 00:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Project banner and article assessments

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Assessment, FL-Class appears to be used by this project, but there is no support for it in the {{Composers}} banner. Similary, the banner does support Category-Class and Merge-Class, but these are currently unused and the relevent categories Category:Category-Class Composers articles and Category:Merge-Class Composers articles don't exist. Do changes need to be made to the banner? PC78 (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this. We are certainly using FL and List, though there are no FLs at present. If FL is not possible with the present banner then, yes, we need to fix that. On the other hand I don't see any pressing need for category and merge class. --Klein zach 02:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorted; I've added FL-Class to the banner and removed Category and Merge-Class. PC78 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I thought I'd done it - anyway please let me know if you see any new problems. --Klein zach 02:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Announcing a class project

Please see the relevant notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Announcing_a_class_project

Let's keep comments to a single venue. Eusebeus (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dmitri Aleksandrovich Pavlov

Hi all. I stumbled upon this site: Dmitri Aleksandrovich Pavlov composer. Obviously, this page needs to be cleaned up and wikified, but I'm not entirely clear if the composer is even notable. I had a bit of trouble finding sources right away, but you guys are the experts, not me... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Tallis reference books

The following general books are cited in Thomas Tallis (c. 1505 – 1585).

Barber, David W. Bach, Beethoven, and the Boys: Music History As It Ought to Be Taught. Toronto Sound and Vision, 1996.
Barber, David W. If It Ain’t Baroque: More Music History As It Ought to Be Taught. Toronto Sound and Vision, 1992.
Cohn-Sherbok, Lavinia. Who’s Who in Christianity. London, New York Routledge, 1998.

Would we be justified in completely removing this kind of reference from specialized articles? What do people think? (BTW it seems these references have been there for some time. They are not new additions.) --Klein zach 07:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

these books are not specifically about Tallis and if they are not cited in the article they should be removed, I would say.--Smerus (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually they were cited, though more to justify generalizations than anything specific or factual. --Klein zach 22:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Z-bot's 'popular pages'

In view of the interest in having a monthly 'popular pages' output for composers (based on page views), as discussed here, I've today made a request with Mr.Z-bot (Task 3). --Klein zach 10:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

PROD of Beethoven relatives

I've proposed deletion of Johanna van Beethoven and Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven; I believe they fail notability (especially WP:NOTINHERITED); things known about them appear almost exclusively in the context of Karl's better-known brother (and both are given coverage there). Feel free to disagree and move the discussion to WP:AFD. Magic♪piano 19:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Now at AFD: Johanna, Kaspar. Magic♪piano 22:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Beethoven's relatives

Just to let you know that both articles have now been re-listed, with the request to clarify each editor's present position. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Book-class

Copied and tweaked from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Arts#Book-class

Since several couple of Wikipedia-Books are art-related (and composers related in particular), could this project (and other art projects if they see this) adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP Arts (and taskforces) people can oversee books like Art and Art Business much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts.

There's an article in last week's Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. If you have any questions just ask. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For those who don't know much about what books are about, essentially Wikipedia-Books are collections of articles, which you can arrange in a certain order, separated by chapter an so on. For example Wikipedia:Books/Anton_Bruckner is divided in his biography plus four sections (Insights, Music, Compositions, Symphonies) [I'm not saying this is the best way to arrange the articles, but that's how it is as of writing]. This compilation, meant to be read like a book, can then be downloaded electronically, or ordered in print. See this example PDF.

You can also check WP:Books and Help:Books for more info. Or contact me. (I'll watch this page for a while though). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Books/Anton_Bruckner. It may be worth doing something similar for Haydn, Mozart and Wagner through their respective projects. This is an impressive new development for us. --Klein zach 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, it's implementend. You have 7 books for now, but you could easily bring that in the 50s or 100s (Mozart, Schubert, Brahms, Mahler, ...). If it would be good to ensure that the composer has a link to the book (use {{Wikipedia-Books|Booktitle}} in the "see also" section), otherwise no one will know these exist. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmm. The reason I said Haydn, Mozart and Wagner is because these are all have dedicated projects with experienced editors. (P.S. It's unlikely anyone here has heard of Bradley Joseph.) BTW I forgot to ask if the contents of the 'books' are automatically updated when pages are changed? --Klein zach 07:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Books are updated automatically, unless you specify a revision, in which case they'll use that revision. (See Help:Books/for experts for how to use specific revisions). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. One other question. Is it possible to make your own hierarchy of book headings according to the subject of the collection? For example I see Wikipedia:Books/Ludwig van Beethoven only has one level of heading, whereas several might be desirable. --Klein zach 09:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Also can we leave the Biography Project banners off these collections? The contents go far beyond the scope of that project. --Klein zach 09:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes you can change the hierarchy. Just load the book in the book-creator (click "load book" in the banner you see on the book page [not the talk page]), and you'll be able to change just about everything from it. You can also do it manually.

[edit]: I misinterpreted what you meant by "changing the hierarchy". The answer your question is no, you can't. Each elements (level 2 header, level 3 headers, bolded statements (lines that start with ;), ...) have a specific meaning (See Help:Books/for experts#Saving books).

While it's possible to remove the Biography banner, I'd rather not for the simple reason that it's a book about someone, thus also falls in the scope of WP Biography (particularly the first sections). If you remove the banner, less eyes gets to review the book supposing it gets sent to MfD or somewhere else, and eyes will check that the book is complete, neutral, etc... If the concern is that the banners take a lot of space on the talk page, the banners can be placed in {{WPBS}} which will collapse them. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing attention to this Headbomb. I had no idea these books existed. Are they published alongside Wikipedia FA and FL if they reach a similar standard or do they remain e-books which can be donwloaded as PDF only? I am assuming they can only be used as further extended reading rather than as sources since they are edited by WPians. I also assume the standards for citation, NOR, NPOV, BLP (if any) etc are identical? How about adding all the relevent (collapsible) banners, rather than removing any? These books cover many other things beyond the biographical details and need to be spotted by as many people as possibe. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well books are relatively new. There was a drive to create them from Good Topics and Featured Topics a while ago [since books are usually focused on a particular topic], so that's why there is bias in that direction, but truth is book can be created wherever, whenever, by whomever, for whatever reason. Categories make good candidates for books too, or good starting points at the least. And yes the usual rules applies for books as well, can't cite them, must not be used to attack people, must be NPOV, and so on.

As for the banners, personally I'm all for adding all the relevant ones (with the usual caveat that the project can remove their own banners if they feel like it). Right now there are only ~25 projects that support the book-class. I'm slowly going through all of them, but any help is appreciated to "recruit" more. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I misunderstood anyway: I had thought these were extra articles in book form rather than the same articles from WP collected together as books. I notice, though, that Beethoven's book contains several articles being considered for deletion (family) and other lower standard articles. There is no compunction to include only GAs and above, then? That will lower the standard considerably in many cases. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's something you're much better off deciding between you. Should X be included in an book about Beethoven? Well you're the composer's project, so if anyone knows, it's you. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense and pretty obvious now I've got to grips with the basic idea. Thanks again. We (the project) clearly need to review all those books to tidy/purge/add and also to write any articles/sections that are patently missing. That'll keep us going! --Jubilee♫clipman 16:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we now understand the general idea of 'Wikipedia books', but what have they got to do with assessments? Why do you have a 'book-class' and why and how does this have to be 'supported' by specific projects? Isn't it just an extra service? --Klein zach 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The book-class isn't really an "assessment" per se, at least it's no more an assessment than template-class or category-class are.

The book-class' main purpose is simply to associate books and relevant Wikiprojects so people who are looking for help can easily find people who have relevant opinions, and so project members can focus their efforts on books relevant to them [if they so choose, it's not a obligation after all]. It's unlikely, that someone in the Military History project would go through a book about Ludwig van Beethoven and make sure it's POV-free, and that the articles in there warrant being in the book. Likewise it's unlikely that members of the Composers' Project would review a book on the Guadalcanal Campaign.

"Supporting" the book-class, as far as I'm concerned, simply means allowing for your project banner to categorize books in a Book-Class article|relevant category when |class=book is used in the banner. This means that you might be notified of certain discussion concerned books through the Article Alerts (for example if a book is sent to MfD, or PR, it will show up on the alerts).

But of course any help in making sure that books are decent is appreciated, as well as help making sure that books are linked on the relevant articles (through {{Wikipedia-Books}} in the see also section), and that topics that warrant books get them, and so on. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I see there is a Village Pump proposal to give a Namespace for books. This is an excellent idea that needs more support. I hope Wikipedia-Books - which has such great potential - can develop unfettered by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 and all its paraphernalia of stars, banners and boxes. --Klein zach 12:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...um, you'd better check the comment on your support over there... --Jubilee♫clipman 18:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No one ever said it would be easy to get rid of bureaucracy on WP. --Klein zach 23:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if someone could go through each book and make sure all the main articles (and possible other important articles) have the {{Wikipedia-Books}} template in the see also section (or some other relevant section) that would be great. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Created a book on Stravinsky/Chopin

Wikipedia:Books/Igor Stravinsky - Any thing missing/superfluous? I'm still getting to grips with it all and I should explain that I (eventually) used the Book Creator tool (see print/export box at side of the main window). It was a little hard to get to grips with at first but once I got going it was fairly easy to add/remove things. See Help:Books and WP:Books for details. I had actually started by copying another book (Bruckner) into my user space and modifying that, which actually worked well too, but the tool makes it a little easier once you work out all the functions etc. Anyway, is my first attempt any good? (I had initially started by creating a book for Cage but then spotted Wikipedia:Books/John Cage. This was not indexed as Book-class in this project, so I added it.) --Jubilee♫clipman 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Ebony Concerto (Stravinsky), Piano Sonata (Stravinsky) (the 1924 one, not the early one) and Octet (Stravinsky) are three glaring omissions from the list of articles on his works. There are many, many others. (I only added the blue links.) This actually helps to highlight shortcomings, which can only be a good thing. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. I'm notifying the editors of the main biography (and putting the standard book link on the article page) each time I do one of these: I've just done Chopin. --Klein zach 02:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me as far as chapter structure is concerned. There's a "suggest pages" feature in the book tool which might find some pages you missed. Might be worth a try. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I checked and the suggest page didn't give much here. Also Harvard University seems like an odd choice for inclusion. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I still have some questions regarding chapter structure, but I will put these with my other technical questions, here. Thanks. --Klein zach 07:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed Harvard Uni. I added since he was associated with it and gave important lectures there on Formalism (music). That reminds me... <adding>... Then again that article is a mere stub which does not discuss Poetics of music and, indeed, only actually discusses the derogatory usage of the term in the USSR... More editing to come! --Jubilee♫clipman 17:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)