Talk:Earnest Andersson

Stravinsky's work
A long listing of Stravinsky's work does not belong here, it just an attempt to bolster the thin reputation of Earnest's compositional career. An extremely tenuous and changable connection through one not very reliable reference (Slim). The onus is on the original author to justify all this padding for just one tenuously connected (at worst disliked) compositional pupil. Comments anyone? Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Please make up your mind and decide whether to discuss this subject here or at your talk page. I left you a message there already, but the tl;dr version is you seem to be a new user who misunderstands the purpose of templates. Also, Andersson has no reputation as his works have not been performed since at least Sample's death and what reception there has been in the last 50 years has been invariably negative. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize for slipping up on writing what where, here seems to be the place. So you agree Andersson has no reputation and his works have not been performed since his son-in-law died, and the little reception his work has had in the last 50 years is negative.  That seems to be the conclusion of reading the article, and I agree.  So perhaps we should remove the long Stravinsky listing from this article linking him to Andersson? Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Andersson is included in the Stravinsky template because he was the only person to study with the composer for an extended period of time and kept meticulous record of his lessons. In addition, Andersson provided essential financial and personal support to Stravinsky and his wife in the early 1940s; his function became similar to that occupied by Arthur Lourié in the 1920s, or Robert Craft starting in the late 1940s. Again, there are many subjects included in the Stravinsky template. They are there not because of their perceived quality, but because of their relevance to Stravinsky and his music. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think for navigational/relevance purposes, the navbox has merit. Perhaps it should be collapsed by default, though—I suspect Andersson's inclusion is more useful as a navigational destination (people will come to this article because it is on Stravinsky articles), than a beginning.  Aza24  (talk)   02:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Andersson's connection to Stravinsky is rather minor, and Andersson's composing career was pretty much a failure, so pumping up his poor reputation by including this complete listing of Stravinsky's work (with no connection to Andersson) is not constructive.
 * Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, they belong in the Stravinsky template. But the Stravinsky template does not belong here, is my point.  Besides Stravinsky called his work "very very idiotic" and other non-complimentary terms.  I imagine Stravinsky would not appreciate his being lumped in here, and it does not belong here.  And, the Slim writings are not a very good reliable source; no other sources (such as a source quoted in Slim) have been brought up.  Virtually the whole article is based on Slim's opinions, and a few newspaper clippings of reviews.  Stravinsky putting up with Anderrson for awhile to make money does not make Andersson successful (it did not).
 * Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Inclusion in a template has nothing to do with your estimation of a subject's personal success or whether the template's main subject would have approved of them or not. Again, you seem to misunderstand their purpose. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * OK then tell me why it should be included. And you can't use the circular arguement that Andersson's name is included in the template because he is important and has a Wikpedia page, and then argue that he has a Wikipedia page because he is important enough to be included in the template.
 * Or, tell my why this template should be on here, the justification. Onus should be on your to justify it's inclusion.  Not using a circular argument. Dr.gregory.retzlaff (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My guy, are you OK? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * These templates are purely for navigational reasons. Given that Andersson's article has seven paragraphs devoted to Stravinsky in the article, its logical that a reader may want to know more about Stravinsky, so there's a way for them to do that. Its completely harmless, and again, can be much less visually intrusive if it is automatically collapsed.  Aza24  (talk)   05:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite generally: if an article is linked from a navbox, the navbox should be in that article. I see no reason for an exception here. It's collapsed at the bottom, and does no harm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)