Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 26

AfD: Pavel E. Smid
I have nominated Pavel E. Smid for AfD. Please add your comments and/or improve the article. --Deskford (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Haydn and Mozart
See the discussion Too many WikiProjects over at H&M. --Jubilee♫ clipman 23:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Michal Novotny
For your information: Articles for deletion/Michal Novotny. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Guto Puw
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Guto Puw/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD: Michael Mazin
Deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Michael Mazin - Voceditenore (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Tfd: Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous
This template is being considered for deletion here. -- Klein zach  05:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This Tfd is still ongoing, in fact it looks as though it may become permanent. Three almost identical timelines are involved which will probably confuse any potential closer. Help putting this thing out of its misery (but which I, of course, mean Tfd-limbo) would be much appreciated. Thank you. -- Klein zach  23:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical composers time-line
This timeline (which overlaps with the one highlighted by Kleinzach) is in desperate need of experts... --Jubilee♫ clipman 01:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Other timelines
I note that the above TfD has now been closed with the template having been deleted. However, there are still at least two other timelines: Template:Classical composers timeline and its offspring Classical composers time-line. As I understand it, the template appeared when Klein pulled the timeline out of the Classical music article and preserved it as a template for editors to discuss. Somewhere along the line, the template-timeline was reinserted back into the Classical music article and it was once again pulled out, but this time an article was created to house it. See the diff of the last time the line was removed and Talk:Classical composers time-line which discusses the rationale. Note, there is also List of classical music composers which groups composers by era. --Jubilee♫ clipman 17:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Review of List of 21st-century classical composers
An extensive review of the above list is taking place over at WP:CTM. See here and many of the discussions that follow. Your input would be invaluable. Thanks --Jubilee♫ clipman 16:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Cfd Deletion review: Works by Richard Wagner
There is a deletion review (i.e appeal) by Smerus underway here. It's significant because it could affect the way other composers are categorized, with or without the input of the relevant projects. -- Klein zach  01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Joel Rust
Responses invited at Articles_for_deletion/Joel_Rust_(2nd_nomination). --Deskford (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Alan Fleming-Baird
Responses invited at Articles_for_deletion/Alan Fleming-Baird. --Deskford (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

20th-century composer lists
I've recommended a merger of the 20th-century lists:


 * List of 20th-century classical composers by name
 * List of 20th-century classical composers by birth date
 * List of 20th-century classical composers by death date

Michael Bednarek has kindly offered to help with technical aspects if there is support for the merger. -- Klein zach  00:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed as per List of 21st-century classical composers merger. --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, the merger discussion itself is here --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Any more opinions on this? -- Klein zach  03:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we need all these categories?
I'm wondering if Category:Composers for piano serves any useful purpose. It only contains a handful of composers, most of them minor. Similarly, do we need Category:Composers for violin? Bizarrely, Category:Composers for pipe organ contains many more examples than the piano and violin categories do. If these categories are to be retained, should they contain only composers who wrote mainly for the named instrument, or any composer who wrote anything for the instrument. If the latter, then almost any composer would be eligible for inclusion. I could understand Chopin being categorised as a "composer for piano" (at present he isn't), but am less sure that, say, Schoenberg should be so categorised &mdash; he is presently included in all three categories I have mentioned. What does anyone think? --Deskford (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it needs to be objective either way. I mean, how do you decide who should go? Sure, Chopin wrote mainly for the piano, but what about Liszt, creator of the symphonic poem? Beethoven? What about Smetana, who wrote much more piano music than he did orchestral and chamber music? Honestly I imagine they should probably be nixed here (were this a music specific encyclopedia I might say the other way) -- no need to have, say, Mozart under piano, organ, violin, chamber, orchestral, etc etc etc. And really, I'm not surprised there's more for organ simply because organ players are disproportionally also composers in some fashion. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Category:Composers for piano and Category:Composers for violin are viable as defining sets. On the other hand I'd caution against going to Cfd to get them removed as they may well invent a whole lot of new ones we don't want. (The Wagner project has just had major problems with this, see Deletion review/Log/2010 January 12.) -- Klein zach  03:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories for 'creative works' - music, visual arts, literature etc.
Please see this discussion at the Arts Project about reorganizing high-level categories for 'art works', including compositions, songs and albums. The intention is to make it easier for projects to look after large sets of articles. Thank you. -- Klein zach  23:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see specific proposals — and join in the iVote! -- Klein zach  23:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nadia Boulanger
Does anyone have access to good sources for Nadia Boulanger (1887–1979)? Grove? This article has been peppered with 'original research'/'citation needed' tags and then seemingly abandoned for more than a year. Any help with it would be appreciated! -- Klein zach  14:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
 * 1) supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
 * 2) opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.
 * I am maintaining User:Peter_cohen/BLP_RFC_stats which records those statements which have received the most supporting and/or opposing comments and indicates trends in the !voting patterns. So it you can't wade through the whole rfc, these and newer comments towards the bottom of the page are probably the places to look.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks peter, I appreciate all your hard work! Ikip 22:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip Ikip 05:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Composers to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Composers/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 03:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Much appreciated. -- Klein zach  03:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
List of unreferenced articles intersecting and template , created with the help of this tool: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php. These articles could be prodded and deleted without noticing. Any help with cleanup is appreciated. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Petar Krumov -
 * 2) Tomaž Pengov -   sorted --Smerus (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Ralph Siegel -  Eurovision songwriter - an editor keeps adding the composer cat so we need to watch it  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) David Linx -
 * 5) Björn J:son Lindh -
 * 6) Hari Varešanović -  	 sorted --Smerus (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Boris Đurđević -   sorted --Smerus (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) César de Oliveira -
 * 9) Kaj Chydenius -
 * 10) Giorgos Katsaros -
 * 11) Steffen Schleiermacher -   sorted --Smerus (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Paavo Heininen -  sorted -- Klein  zach  01:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)--
 * 13) John Ewbank -
 * 14) Isabel Soveral -
 * 15) Rihards Dubra -
 * 16) Nils Lindberg -
 * 17) Alex Christensen -   	sorted --Smerus (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Hirofumi Taniguchi -
 * 19) Marek Biliński -  speedied (G12) --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Cristobal Pazmino -
 * 21) Pierre Cogen -

Happy editing. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping with this — but is this all? Only 21 articles? I'll check them off with the Oxford Dictionary of Music which I find ideal for this purpose. -- Klein zach  10:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is strange. A lot of talk pages contain simple template, but the intersecting with  gives no results. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * None of these are in the ODM. In fact I wonder how many of them are really worth saving. -- Klein zach  10:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, [ [Tomaž Pengov]], Alex Christensen, Hirofumi Taniguchi, [ [Ralph Siegel]], Hari Varešanović, Boris Đurđević , John Ewbank aren't within the scope of this project, as they are rather songwriters. Oxford Dictionary of Music is surely not the only possible source, though it is reliable and up-to-date guide. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed composer status from those struck through above, who do in any way qualify for this status. The other two might (marginally) qualify--Smerus (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We've been saving some significant unreferenced articles for contemporary composers and opera singers, so I'm a bit concerned that we aren't seeing anything equivalent here. BTW it's a good idea to remove the Composers' banners as well as cats when these are not relevant. -- Klein zach  13:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I too was surprised that the list was so short. However, re-running the query allowing for  as well as  generates the list of 168 below.  At a quick count, I reckon 38 of them are notable.  --Deskford (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to bounce back and forth between projects, but a query based on categories rather than templates shows we have about 1700 unreferenced BLP composer articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary music.  --Deskford (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, of all the 21 names above only César de Oliveira and Paavo Heininen are in List of 21st-century classical composers. Heininen is flagged in my list: User:Jubileeclipman/List of problematic 21st-century composer articles (I haven't got to O yet).  Of course, those diacritics will cause problems, so I might have to check by eye rather than by using the FireFox "Find" feature...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLP composers

 * Massive list removed to subpage, see here.

I have dealt with those struck through - they clearly don't qualify as composers so I have removed cats/stubs. Amazed to see Muldowney and Rautavaraa here, should be simple to get refs for them.


 * I think this should go on a subpage. Also we need a system, otherwise we will just be checking each other's work. We need to know which articles have been successfully referenced, cat corrected and banner corrected. -- Klein zach  22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just found we have a subpage for checking articles, here. -- Klein zach  22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point &mdash; mustn't get carried away with more and more lists! If, rather than storing lists and ticking off composers as they are dealt with, we regenerate the list dynamically whenever we need to refer to it, then any solved problems will no longer appear on the list.  The links for generating the lists I have used are below, with a new section heading for ease of navigation.  --Deskford (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I don't think the lists regenerate automatically - at least not within the timeframe I've tested. -- Klein zach  02:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, they can't be static: perhaps they are updated daily or at worst (I hope) weekly? Or perhaps you have to clear your browser cache, first?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You can test it if you like, but I don't have a very fast connection (only about 1 meg down) and it takes me a long time to get anything. I think it's more practical to use the list I extracted. -- Klein zach  03:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are probably right about your list being more immeadiately useful: I'll continue my manual checking/listing, too of the C21st composer list over at CTM. (That list still needs checking for Olympic armwrestlers or what ever, too, so I have to keep going with it anyway...) --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, please continue the C21st composer list. That's useful in other ways. -- Klein zach  03:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed: perhaps I should just go back to adding not only uBLPs (plus the odd other thing) but also other articles with lesser issues to that list (I changed tack recently) and leave others to identify/tackle the unref'ed stuff for now (they seem to be doing sterling work already)? --Jubilee♫ clipman 03:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic list generation: unreferenced BLP composers
Links for generating unreferenced BLP composer lists: --Deskford (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All unreferenced BLP composers
 * Unreferenced BLP composers who are not songwriters
 * Unreferenced BLP composers bannered by the Composers Project


 * I've extracted the 160-odd articles from the last catscan and put them here on the subpage with suggestions on how to process them. I've noticed that the catscan does not update immediately so articles we remove from the project will still show up – for how long I don't know.


 * Perhaps checking 160-odd articles is doable if enough of us take part? -- Klein zach  00:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 160 divided between the frequenters here and at CTM? That's almost a doddle!  Even 4 editors dividing the list between them would be only 40 each...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Great work
This is great work we are all doing on our unref'ed BLPs! I suspect we really should be doing all of this as a project collaboration, though, since different people frequent different projects (Composers, WP:WPO, WP:CTM, any others?) --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletions of paragraphs in BLPs that lack inline citations
There have been deletions of paragraphs lacking inline citations in composers biographies. The edit summary in each case is  "removing section which is not specifically attributed to a reliable third party source WP:BLP" . Here are the two examples I have found, Tristan Murail and Joseph-François Kremer: see here and here. -- Klein zach  09:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The first one is easily checkable e.g. with this link, the material was originally published in The Rough Guide to Classical Music. No problem with the online sources also for the second one. Deleting is easier than complicated and thankless searching and verifying process. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor involved has just done another 20-odd edits of exactly this type today! See here. -- Klein zach  10:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Insofar as it promotes interested project participants (not just us) to provide sourcing, I can see the point of the exercise, even if it can also look like borderline vandalism. Eusebeus (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, their edits will be appreciated by a part of the Wiki community. Sometimes, it doesn't matter what is good for the project. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These article weren't low-quality Afd material. Paragraphs of Joseph-François Kremer actually containing references were deleted. In the case of Tristan Murail, referencing material was in the form of 'External links', thus apparently disregarded. Of course the editing of these articles wasn't ideal, but if this is the new standard most of our BLPs are vulnerable. -- Klein zach  13:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree with Vejvančický and Eusebeus on this: removing huge blocks of "true" but "unverified" material is not appreciated unless the material itself is contentious and impossible to source. Please see here for a fuller explanation of my thoughts on this. I have seen more subtle versions of this where entire sections are removed in a fairly quick succession of edits (each one removing more material each time). Why doesn't the editor just request RSs with a banner/inline-tag and/or attempt to source the material themselves? This is almost as bad as summarily deleting the whole article because it is unsourced (please don't say you agree which that...) --Jubilee♫ clipman  16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Editors that remove uncited material are within their rights to do so; it is an explicit challenge to the verifiability of the material. There is no particular requirement for an editor to be polite about this (by using fact and other resources).  Unfortunately, it is far easier to remove uncited material than it is to cite material that already exists.
 * I've no particular opinion either way on this, since I tend to avoid living person biographies. As long as removing the material doesn't totally wreck the article (which I would classify as borderline vandalism), I think it's OK.  It's not like the material goes away forever; it's in the edit history, after all, and can be retrieved and cited. (And I'll state that AfD'ing or PROD'ing an unsourced article is a perfectly reasonable thing to do; that's not really "summarily deleting" it...)  Magic ♪piano 17:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To answer your parenthetical statement, first: I recently PRODed or AfDed several unsourced BLPs (challenged for years) and got severely beaten up because of my actions... Those editors would hardly say that such actions were "perfectly reasonable"! This issue is contentious, however, I agree: other editors came to my rescue and argued as you do.  During the debates that followed, the notables were sourced and the non-notables or unverifiable were deleted.  That was a positive outcome but many editors feel that forcing cleanup by AfD is also not a good thing...  We can't really win here!  The present situation brought to our attention by Kleinzach is similar.  The material is merely unsourced but not unverifiable.  You stated "[a]s long as removing the material doesn't totally wreck the article... I think it's OK."  However, the edit Klein highlighted in Kremer stubbed the article completely!  Is that not vandalism (by you own admission)?   As a way forward, I suggest simply restoring the material (and sourcing if you have time) then contacting the editor to ask them for a fuller explanation.  This way, a proper debate can be set up regarding how to handle the material: communication is the key.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with paragraph deletions is that they are invisible. When I first saw Tristan Murail and Joseph-François Kremer I assumed they were just stubs. For some reason I looked at the edit history of Tristan Murail and then realized what had been going on. I've recently been going through a series of articles on recent French composers and I've probably missed other articles where the material has been taken out. -- Klein zach  22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI and Rfc
This issue led to an ANI discussion, see UnitAnode and BLP content deletions in which various editors tried to stop one editor from deleting content (16 in favour, 14 against). This has led to an Rfc on Biographies of living people/Content which started yesterday. -- Klein zach  03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note the pro-deletion View by Kevin and the (essentially) anti-deletion View by Sandstein, View by Rd232, and View by SoWhy. -- Klein zach  03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just scanned that quickly. I'll look more closely tommorow and vote.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mineminemine
This group appears on most of the Catscans. Not convinced a group counts as "a" composer but I'd like confirmation that no other reason exists to leave them bannered by Composers and catted as composers (C20th, C21st etc) before those banners/cats are removed. --Jubilee♫ clipman 01:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed all the incorrect cats and banners, including the Composers banner (given that they are a group rather than a single composer). Should be off the radar now.  Pretty NN anyway, so it may well get AfDed soon: the single source (which was there) simply mentions them a few times during an article on one of their members, Magali Babin, whose article is also pretty awful...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  10:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)