User:Vivo4/Feedback

(Coppied from my talk page): Thank you for your full and thoughtful response to my comments, Mdsummer (your nickname is far too long for me to type out each time :) THIS is what I needed to hear. I realize that most people who've been around the system more than 15 minutes don't have the energy, time or inclination to explain what appears to them to be obvious, so I do appreciate your efforts (and time). I grant you that if I'd devoted myself to weeks of reading of Wikipedia policy/guidelines/suggestions/topic pages etc. etc. etc. I might eventually have twigged to the extent of the issues and how I might correct them. But with every new tag added to the Chor Leoni article and what felt like the threat of its immediate permanent "extinction" I felt enormous pressure to act quickly. (That's another thing. I'll try to be kind here since you might have had a hand in drafting Wikipedia's boilerplate, but as a former lawyer, well, let's just say something really could be done to improve it. But I'll leave that until I'm older and wiser in things Wikipedian.)

I'd like to take you up on your offer to adopt me. I just don't know how to do that. :) I know we might have had "issues" at the outset but I'm made of sterner stuff than that. Besides, I know you know your stuff, and with your assistance, I know I can and will make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. I've been a user and admirer of reference texts all my life (I know, how boring) and hope to make my mark on this one. Who knows... there might even be some benefit in our association for you - some of my innate ability to spell might just rub off. :)

With respect to the "list of choirs" and choir article pages, I'd love to help. I think the first problem as you suggest is in the structuring of the list. (That's another thing - I don't comprehend the distinction between lists and articles or how they are to be linked etc. But that aside.):

I just don't see the utility of having "notable" anywhere as a designation in the "list of choirs". Presumably, if this is Wikipedia and the essence of an item's existence on Wikipedia is its notability, then notability should be a precursor for inclusion of any choir in any part of the list. How one sets a standard for the notability of a choir might be problematic, although personally I'd assume a minimum of one national or international choral competition win by the choir. But in any event, that standard should be spelled out at the beginning of the list, basically to warn off all those who assume they should include their choir there, just because. Given that professional choirs form a microscopic fraction of choirs in the world, the designation "volunteer" is superfluous. For example, there are essentially 3 professional choirs in Canada. Also the use of the word "volunteer" is probably not correct. It should read "amateur" as "volunteer" denotes unpaid work, whereas most choristers will tell you they sing for the love of singing. My designations would be "professional choirs, adult male choirs, adult female choirs, youth choirs (12-18 years of age), and children's choirs (under 12 years of age)". The adult choirs might be further broken down into "chamber choirs", "gospel and church choirs", "community choirs", and "university choirs" but then you might get more of the duplication you want to avoid. Such distinctions could easily be spelled out in any article or stub on each choir.
 * Wow! I certainly don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but I think you might be biting off more than you can chew! The choir list is a resonable place to begin, but that bit about hoping your good spelling skills might rub off on me is very unlikely to get anywhere!
 * First: "the distinction between lists and articles": Lists are just another type of article. I generally don't like them as they tend to gather garbage. The inherent problem is defining what does and does not belong on the list and enforcing it. I much prefer Categories. A List article is just what the name implies: an article that is a list the list of choirs article is a perfect example of this messy article type.
 * Fred's Choir, to have its own article must meet notability guidelines spelled out at Notability (organizations and companies). Mainly, this is going to be the existance of substantial coverage in reliable sources. A handful of newspaper articles about the choir and they're in.
 * To qualify for inclusion on the List of choirs article, though, Fred's Choir must meet ... well ... whatever guidelines the editors of that article agree on. It could be "all choirs", "all choirs formed before 1856, with more than 100 members who are all left handed" or anything inbetween. Guidelines that are overly restrictive, overly loose, subjective, or "unencyclopedic" will set up the article for deletion. We can't very well have an article on "Actresses with big teeth" if we don't know what qualifies as "big" teeth and there's no "encyclopedic" meaning in the category (whatever that may mean).
 * To kind of dodge the whole issue of what would qualify for the list what I do is generally say that any X that has its own article on wikipedia qualifies for the article "List of Xs". That's what someone has done on the list of choirs article as well (sort of). They've said "This list of choirs contains choirs with entries in the Wikipedia plus other particularly noted choirs." (That's actually pretty sloppy. Wikipedia should not self-refer and "particularly noted" is very vague.)
 * You might add something to the talk page asking for opinions on what the inclusion criteria should be. That article sees pretty limited activity, so you might not get any/many responses. Ask anyway. If no one responds, you can decide whatever you want.
 * In terms of organizing the list, again, you might ask for opinions.
 * Rather than have this article, though, I'd prefer to see Categories. At the end of many articles, you'll see a list of them. Looking at The Beatles we see them listed in a bunch of categories. A few advantages right away. No group without an article will be listed in a category. Anyone looking at the Beatles article can see what categories they're listed in. If we started a category "List of musical groups comprised of 12 or more people" we would have to count on people looking at the List article to know the Beatles didn't belong. Meanwhile, the editors at the Beatles article (who probably know they were the "Fab Four") wouldn't know to remove them. If Musical groups of 12 or more people were a category, though, the editors at the Beatles would spot the error immediately.
 * The problem you're seeing with Choirs fitting into one or more category (is a "youth community choir" a "youth choir" or a "community choir"?) can be solved with categories. A generic choir might go in the category "Choirs" and the categories "Youth choirs" and "Community choirs" would also go in the category "Choirs". Our "youth community choir" would go into both the youth and the community categories. With the list, you can't really do that unless you spin off lists from the list (which I wouldn't recommend.
 * So the primary question is: do you want to try to clean up this article or try to kill it and replace it with categories?
 * Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)