Talk:Jonathan Cohler/Archive 2

Proposal to remove primary sources tag
Based upon the information explained in the preceding section, I am requesting that somebody remove the "primary sources" tag at the top of the article page, as it is not now true that the article depends in any significant way on primary sources. --TheClarinetGuy talk 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. As far as I see, no consensus has been reached on whether those sources are suitable or not. You may wish to reopen the request once the discussion has come to an agreement. Regards, VB00 (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

All of the sources in question have now either been removed or supplemented with secondary sources. So I am reopening the request to remove the "primary sources" tag. --TheClarinetGuy talk 18:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cohler, please stop repeatedly requesting this when it it is quite clear that there is no consensus yet to remove the primary sources tag. When there is, it will be removed. Voceditenore (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * all of the tags questioned by Lemongirl942 or yourself were already removed and/or updated/supplemented with secondary sources, so I don't understand why it is inappropriate to request the removal of the tag once again at this point? How else am I supposed to bring it up? I don't understand your hostile response to a simple request on the talk page. --TheClarinetGuy talk 21:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note I have restored the discussion on this issue which has not been concluded but was prematurely archived. Cohler, given your conflict of interest, please refrain from archiving discussions here. Leave it to other editors. And especially do not archive discussions which are pertinent to an edit request which remains on this page. Voceditenore (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First, the edit request you refer to was declined by you, and I did not archive that edit request, because I posed questions in response to your declining the edit to which you have to date not responded. Second, the discussion prior to that, which I did archive, was and is dormant with no outstanding issues to resolve. All of the items mentioned in that discussion have been resolved. Furthermore, it was overly large and bulky, and it makes the page clearer and more productive to deal current discussions as we have now been doing for the past week or so. And no, I will not refrain from archiving discussions that are clearly dormant and serve no purpose other than to clutter the page unless you can point me to some policy that requires such. I totally disagree with your assessment here, although for now I will leave the long and already concluded section  intact as you wish. --TheClarinetGuy talk 16:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cohler, the first request was declined by VB00. The second request three days later was declined by me because there was no change in the consensus. The fact that you had no response in those three days does not mean that consensus had been reached. It means that we are all volunteers, working on numerous other articles. On the other hand, this article is your first and only priority. Please be patient. Lemongirl942 has not yet responded to your claim that the references you've added now justify the removal of primary sources. Nor has MrOllie who concerned about synthesis from primary sources. Hopefully, they will weigh in here soon. Voceditenore (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If you guys agree, I'll set up the automated archive bot for this page, then no one has to worry about it. OK? - MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. How does that work? --TheClarinetGuy talk 16:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That would very helpful, MrOllie. How many days old before archiving do you suggest? The default is 31. Voceditenore (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 31 days seems awfully long. How about 15? --TheClarinetGuy talk 16:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 15 is abnormally short, except for the most highly trafficked discussion pages on Wikipedia. It looks like RandyKitty has set it up starting a 6 months. We should let it sit like that for a bit and see if the page gets out of control. - MrOllie (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Archiving
It is highly unusual to archive discussion that are only days old. , please revert this immediately. I will set up automated archiving of threads that have not been active for more than 6 months (which is a more usual period). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * How do I "revert" it given there are many intervening edits? Do you mean to simply go cut and paste the material back from the Archive page to the Talk page? I am happy to do that. Just let me know, but I don't want to make another mistake for you and User:Voceditenore to attack me for. --TheClarinetGuy talk 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what you need to do. Because of the intervening edits, a simple "undo" won't work any more. --Randykitty (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. --TheClarinetGuy talk 23:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox person labels
In reviewing other highly rated articles of musicians, the infobox appears to always contains a complete list of labels for which the musician has recorded. Furthermore, according to Template:Infobox_musical_artist the "label" field should include "The record label or labels to which the act has been signed. Omit parenthetical dates; save that information for the main article as this degree of detail is better discussed in prose. Drop the word 'Records' from the end of any label's name... Start with the oldest first." Additionally, my recording Moonflowers, Baby! (Crystal CD733) has third-party international acclaim including a 1994 "Outstanding Recording" mark from American Record Guide and a 2010 Recording of the Month designation from MusicWeb International,     and has been sold around the world from 1993 to the present, is currently available on all major CD reseller sites, and regularly appears in the Top 100 lists for Honegger and Milhaud on Amazon. For all these reasons, I believe this clearly justifies and necessitates the listing of Crystal as one of the labels in the infobox listing.

I would further propose creating a new section head "Ongaku Records" above the last paragraph of the Career section, and given that Ongaku Records does not yet have its own Wikipedia page, I would propose linking the Ongaku Records label reference in the infobox to that section. Here are the two proposed changes.

First, inside the Infobox musical artist


 * label = Crystal, Ongaku

Second, before the last paragraph of Jonathan Cohler, add the following section header


 * == Ongaku Records ==


 * In the early 1990s, Cohler founded the classical music record company Ongaku Records, Inc...

--TheClarinetGuy talk 13:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have created the separate section and linked it from the infobox. I have not added Crystal Records to the box because as I said before, the documentation for Template:Infobox Musical artist states that the label parameter for labels to which the artist has been contractually signed. This could possibly be stretched to one for whom the artists has recorded extensively but not to every label that they have ever appeared on. As far as I can see you have one recording on Crystal Records. The number of reviews it has received and the fact that it is on sale etc. is immaterial. The label is appropriately linked in the discography where it belongs. Cohler, I have left the previous discussion on this subject in the archive where you put it today, but once again, please do not archive a discussion where you didn't like the answer and then bring it up again devoid of the previous context. That is misleading to other editors participating on this talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First, as I told you before I was signed with Crystal Records. Template:Infobox musical artist says "The record label or labels to which the act has been signed." The words "has been" are not equivalent to "is currently". I have been signed to Crystal Records and no amount of you claiming that I have not will make that true. And it has nothing to do with "stretching" anything. The fact is that if you look at virtually all of the Wikipedia articles about musicians with high assessment ratings, the labels list includes all of the labels to which an artist has been signed over the course of their career, so your opinion is clearly a minority one. After all, the article is supposed to represent the career with due weight, not just the most recent snapshot of that career. I have clearly established that I have been signed to Crystal Records and that the release from Crystal Records was and is a notable release—indeed recipient of outstanding recording mark and record of the month recognition—with extensive coverage from throughout the classical music press. Why are you so adamant about omitting such important, significant, and noteworthy information from the article in precisely the location where it should be represented according to Template:Infobox musical artist? Your statement that the only reference to the label "should be" in the discography section is backed by nothing other than your own opinion. I would appreciate other editors opinion on this. What is the best way to request other opinions? --TheClarinetGuy talk 16:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Try posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. I'm happy to defer to the opinion of the editors there. Voceditenore (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, how do I do that? --TheClarinetGuy talk 20:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * fyi I posted my query here at WT:WPMU hopefully that is correct. --TheClarinetGuy talk 21:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * glad to see that you have implemented the change that I requested in following the WP:WikiProject Music policies on label listings. It would be nice if you also let the various administrators to whom you complained about my even requesting this change that you were contradicted by editors at the project page who agreed precisely with my interpretation, indeed the first response was "That's what the documentation states." Also, according to Template:Infobox Musical artist, the word "Records" is supposed to be removed from label names. Could you please do that? Thank you. --TheClarinetGuy talk 17:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I added the label following the opinion of one of the editors there, as its a minor stylistic point. However, as you well know, my objections and those of four other editors to your behaviour on this talk page at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard are far broader than that. Voceditenore (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Far broader and with no specific examples to the generalized and false accusations. --TheClarinetGuy talk 19:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And thank you for creating the Ongaku Records section and linking that from the Infobox. I appreciate it. --TheClarinetGuy talk 16:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Dividing Career into subsections
Wouldn't it be useful in terms of style to divide the Career section into multiple sections perhaps divided by the different roles I have functioned in my career? For example, how about something along these lines? The Recordings and Reviews section would require some additional research and writing as currently there is simply a discography listing. --TheClarinetGuy talk 17:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Solo Performance
 * Chamber Music
 * Conducting
 * Recordings and Reviews
 * Teaching and Judging
 * No, it would not be useful to turn this article into more of a CV/résumé than it already is. Voceditenore (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest then to improve the article? --TheClarinetGuy talk 05:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A complete re-write. However, I would venture to say that no editor will attempt this until you step completely away from this article. This talk page is full of indications of what is wrong with this article from its structure, to its content, to its sourcing and provides ample demonstration of why creating and editing an autobiography is strongly discouraged. You have disputed them all, at length. Voceditenore (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I totally agree here. This is a good example why COI editing is discouraged. The article as it stands is full of minute details and is badly written. After the amount of arguments on the talk page, I doubt if I would even want to improve it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)