Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 29

Time to move all BLP discussions to WP:CTM?
I wonder if it's time now to move all the BLP-related discussions to the Contemporary Music Project? Now we know which articles need to be bannered, it should be more efficient to keep the discussions all in one place. Is that OK? -- Klein zach  02:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. We were either missing or tripping over each other in the mass sourcing attempt!  Further discussion in one place is far better and CTM is the more focussed project to deal with these people.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See also User:Jubileeclipman/CTM which is discussed at CTM. Thoughts on this are welcome over at CTM.  Thanks --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, comment on the subpage or on its talk page. More obvious place, for now.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus required
As many of you will know, I have been working on the List of 21st-century classical composers and placing problem articles in User:Jubileeclipman/List of problematic 21st-century composer articles. I broke off this work to help with the unref'edBLPs drama. Now I have resumed, I have noticed certain fundamental problems with the list and require consensus before I proceed with a huge cull of the list. Technically, most of these composers are CTM's domain (most are still alive), but since we haven't yet decided that these composers are exclusive to CTM I feel I should ask here for consensus, too. This discussion on CTM's talkpage contains my analysis of the situation and my proposal. Answer over there please. Thank you --Jubilee♫ clipman  19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Biographical infoboxes/10th discussion
[Initial discussion archived to free up the Composers project talk page for discussion unrelated to the RfC --Jubilee♫ clipman 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)]

A new perspective
I have moved the RfC to a subpage Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Infoboxes RfC to allow other project discussions to continue on this page without the disturbance of the heavy traffic that an RfC creates. The usual time of an RfC is 30 days, and although it is common to end them a little early when the discussion has dried up and the outcome is clear, I feel that talk of closing this one after 4 days is rather premature. If you want to avoid having this discussion again in the near future it would be a good idea to make sure you have a proper discussion and allow time for everyone to have their say. There really is no rush to close this. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Martin. I fully understand your reasoning and withdraw my suggestion to close the discussion.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in responding (have been away for a few days), but I fully agree with Martin. 4 days is nowhere near long enough to gain as full a discussion as this issue needs; or to establish an enduring consensus.  We've been waiting 1,200 days already; 24 more is not going to kill anyone.  But should stop people killing each other in future.   Happy ‑ melon  17:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The below rationale is actually wrong anyway: the vote is in fact split, now, between those that endorse option 2, those that endorse option 5, those that endorse option 9 and those feel that none of the options best describes their position, with some other endorsing 3, 4 and 10. More votes are being cast daily.  Therefore, the consensus is far from clear.  I urge as many as possible to voice their opinions as clearly and concisely as possible, if they have not done so already.  Thank you --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Propose closure of RfC
It is clear (as if it wasn't already) that the consensus at this and similar WikiProjects is against infoboxes for articles on classical musicians (and indeed for articles on most classical music topics). It is also clear that most members do not reject the use of a suitably designed infobox for articles where the consensus is for inclusion of such a box (User:Quiddity/composers gives one such possiblility). Furthermore, everyone seems to reject Infobox musical artist as unsuited to classical music bios and group profiles. Many have pointed out serious objections to the use of any infobox: these need to be carefully evaluated alongside several other factors. Some others have pointed to the usefulness of limited infoboxes: this needs to be considered, also. Finally, most editors here appear to agree that the project guidelines need some reworking to explain the precise objections to infoboxes voiced by the members of these projects rather than simply state those objections. However, as I wasn't the original proposer (Buzzzsherman was: the RfC was later refactored), I am not sure if I can actually remove the RfC tag myself. I have asked for clarification on this matter from and  (my former Wiki-mentor) and suggested a non-involved admin close the debate. In the meantime, we should consider the need to close this up and move on. Thank you --Jubilee♫ clipman  15:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Stricken: see above --Jubilee♫ clipman 17:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Subtexts from the Infobox RfC - Moving forward
I think there must be deeper forces at work here to explain this ongoing infobox RFC saga. As a project, we seem to be accused on a, shall we say, not infrequent basis essentially of ownership (WP:OWN) and, for want of a better term, snootiness. Now, some of us are undeniably ownery and snooty - I single myself, Antandrus and Melodia out here for being particularly unbearable in this respect. But most participants here are good folks with good intentions, good editing records and a demonstrable commitment to providing strong content across our project's embrace. So, is this impression because people come here already thinking classical music generally is rather elitist? Is it because of the way our project broadcasts itself? I don't claim to have answers, but the amount of energy being wasted on something which, we have all agreed in the past and will agree again, can amount to little more than a date-adorned picture frame, suggests we should try to address the deeper problem. Melodia: absolutely no shouting. Eusebeus (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling discussing this topic won't move us forward very far. In fact, it's more likely to lead to a huge row. --Folantin (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned that this thread is owned by project participants and comments from outsiders will be deleted. Eusebeus (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing on WP is WP:OWNed by anyone. Comments by "outsiders" will be restored  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, that was (I thought pretty clearly) a joke. And don't move this to the RFC. Eusebeus (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops... yes I misread that! I still feel this thread should actually be in the RfC, however, as you are commenting on it outside of the discussion.  That's why I requested Quiditty move our comments from his sandbox to his talkpage (and did consider further requesting that they be moved to the RfC, something I should have indeed done in hindsight).  Those comments are now well linked in the RfC so perhaps a simple link to here also would suffice?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest we reflect on what we miht do differently the next time this stuff shows up. I mean, per Quiditty, perhaps we are being far too nice.... But it's outside the RFC, which should examine the merits (or lack) of i diot nfoboxes ;) Eusebeus (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Avoiding distraction per Quiditty, Ravpapa, Antandrus, and me?  Yes I see that.  Stricken comments duly...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To reiterate, I turned up for the rfc because of a request for input somewhere (probably this thread).
 * In the whole rfc, I've only had a single raised-eyebrow moment, in regards to the comment "I wish infoboxes could be removed wholesale from WP and regret that this is only done in areas (science, classical music) where the editors are unusually well-informed about their topic." I almost replied, but withheld. I understood what the editor meant (you are an exceptionally well-educated group), and I understand the frustration of seeing complex subjects oversimplified (or worse, having errors propagate) and the other objections (aesthetics, redundancy). I won't try to discuss/answer those objections here (unless requested to ;). However, I will note that nobody has been able to verify that any science-wikiproject has deprecated the use of infoboxes, biographical or otherwise. (see here and here for attempts to verify). Also, any attempt to summarize anything will be incomplete; Such is the nature of summaries. But templates like History of European art music and music portal etc etc, are somewhat useful, to some people, therefor their deficiencies are tolerated.
 * In regards to ownership, without having experienced it myself, I'd guess it is a case of the normal problems facing a volunteer community of experts and amateurs, who all have different priorities and visions of the end-goal. There are many essays/pages that might resonate with you, such as Expert retention, Expert editors, Anti-elitism, etc.
 * So, in general, I've found everyone to be very friendly. You're almost making up for the hole in my life that the departure of Jurgen Gothe (and all that was good about CBC radio2) has left :) Sorry for rambling. Archive if it's not helpful. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the above should be in the RfC, not here. If it is not moved within 1 hour I will move it my self. Thank you --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, sorry for the strong wording: I believe it was the only way to make the point clear. Cheers  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And fuck you too, Eusebeus. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Eusebeus considers himself duly fucked. I hope you were gentle.
 * Melodia: absolutely no shouting. Eusebeus shout as much as you like but do try to be civil... I think Eusebeus is perhaps admitting that this project has tried to claim ownership over all of its articles (and has therefore hated outside "interference") for far too long.  I look forward to the day that that attidude is replaced by one of collabration with the rest of WP, as should you.  Not sure when you personally have claimed ownership of anything though: perhaps Eusebeus could clarify?  (Might as well continue this particular rant here so as not to send the RfC off an a tangent)  --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good grief, what a fab advertisement for new members this section is. SMirC-medium.svg If I were a potential member or a visitor with a question and wandered onto this page, I'd run a mile and never come back. In light of that, I'm particularly amazed at the contributions (stricken or otherwise) from editors who claim that they want to "open up" this project.


 * Eusebeus asked a serious and relevant question which pertains to the future of the project in general, to which both Quiddity (above) and Ravpapa (below) gave very thoughtful answers, I hope the conversation continues in that vein.


 * A final note about "owning". I found nothing in what Eusebeus wrote that indicated he was "admitting that this project has tried to claim ownership over all of its articles". He was talking about others' perception that this is the case, and what might contribute to it, and what could be done about it.  Ownership is often thrown around (and not just on this project) when editors find that their opinion is in the minority. Sometimes it's genuinely because they feel ignored or belittled, but sometimes it's because they are genuinely losing the argument. In any case, accusing those who hold a different opinion from you  of "ownership" is a very poor way to make your case, and completely stalls constructive discussion. My advice is to try to avoid it. Voceditenore (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was refering to "Now, some of us are undeniably ownery and snooty..." It sounded like an admission.  Anyway, my strong impression is was indeed of ownery and elitist attitudes among members.  Kleinzach's reversions of infoboxes with only a link to a huge wad of discussion and his general bad temper throughout the beginning of this present debate did not help me review that opinion.  The perception of the group attitude of this project is now being reviewed and that can only be a good thing.  FWIW, the debates over at the RfC avoid Ownerism and Elitism, and remain on topic, civil and openminded.  I have completely reviewed my perception of this project and its relatives and look forward to working with you all far more in the future  --Jubilee♫ clipman  11:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I interpreted "Now, some of us are undeniably ownery and snooty..." as self-deprecating humour with more than touch of irony considering the three people he listed. Nuances like that can often be missed, but it's worth taking the time to consider other interpetations (or ask what the person meant) before responding. Saves a lot of striking out too. ;-). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * well... yes and no [← forget that] --Jubilee♫ clipman 14:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Er... um... --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC) point taken [[File:wink.png]]  --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Setting all the rancour aside, and looking at Eusebius's original comment - this is something I have often wondered about myself. Ownership and elitism - these are indeed things that characterize this project. The flap about the infobox is one symptom, another is our attitude toward trivia. The thought of the unwashed masses mucking around with our important works of scholarship causes hives to many of us. Who cares that Charles Bronson contemplated murder to the strains of the Grosse Fuge? Or, more important, who cares that anyone cares that Charles Bronson contemplated murder to the strains of the Grosse Fuge? Because someone obviously does, enough to think it worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia.

I am not arguing for or against infoboxes or trivia in our articles, or elitism in our attitudes. But I think that we often lose sight of what our true objective should be: to inform our readers. We are much too caught up with what we feel about our articles and our own aspirations to scholarship, and not enough with what the readers want and need.

This problem of editor centricity, as opposed to reader centricity, is inherent in the way the rules of Wikipedia work. We the editors are a community, and most, yea, all of what we do here is channeled to serve that community. But our small and ingrown gang is not whom we should be serving; rather, it is the millions of high school sophomores, curious movie-goers, and casual browsers who are our audience. And the question we need to ask ourselves is always, what serves our readers best? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I've said above, most commenters create the "Hypothetical general reader" in their own image so this kind of speculation is pretty pointless. --Folantin (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that no one reads articles but that rather they only edit them? I couldn't agree less...  The whole point of WP is to write articles to be read not toyed with.  We have to keep an image of the non-editing reader in our mind: it is one reason I dislike tags and banners in articles and feel that they would be better in talkpages where the editors go to discuss changes to the article.  The reader would not normally go there unless they are curious about what is being said about the article.  Given that Fearne Cotton's Wikipedia article (disclosure: one I substantially overhauled when I first joined WP as an editor) is right at the top of a Google search should give you a hint that any casual surfer that wants to know about her will probably look there first—or at least pretty soon after looking at the images... ;)  The same goes for almost any search you try!  WP is there, glaring at you and saying "read me!!!"  No: we do have readers and they have needs that should be served.  That is the point of WP:5P  --Jubilee♫ clipman  11:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware Wikipedia has readers. I'm one myself. My point is that in talk page conversations like this one, commenters always tend to speak about "the readers" as if they were a single composite Hypothetical General Reader, who usually backs the commenter's opinions about what needs to be done. "The readers" want infoboxes? Who says so? Some probably do, some probably don't. I'm a reader, I don't want them. In other words, this kind of talk is mostly just idle speculation. --Folantin (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's true: readers are certainly not a homogenous conglomoration and, indeed, neither are editors (well d'uh!) I just mean that we need to consider what adds readability to the article, as it were.  Sometimes a box will, sometimes it won't; sometimes a certain template will, sometimes it won't.  Most editorial tags reduce readability, IMO, sometimes to the detriment of the whole article.  Readability is one of the major factors—alongside verifiability, accuracy and impartiality—that I look at when reviewing/rewriting any article  --Jubilee♫ clipman  11:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Adding legality and notability to the list, of course --Jubilee♫ clipman  15:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think about it for maybe three seconds, you'd understand why editorial tags are absolutely needed on the article page and not the talk page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a newcomer to this discussion. I am not a member of any clique or gang and, working mainly alone, have developed a number of music articles (Monteverdi operas, Smetana biography, The Bartered Bride, Agrippina et al). I try to produce high-quality work consistent with the best standards of the music and opera projects. On occasion I have encountered unwelcoming attitudes from editors with evident ownership problems, but usually the opera and music communities have been supportive and helpful - for example, see my request, above, re Mahler recordings. I am unpersuaded about the need for infoboxes or the claim that readers generally want them; I have often been confused by the way infoboxes present information, and their positioning alongside the lead which contains, or ought to contain, the same information seems to me to be unnecessary duplication. If the consensus for music articles turns towards infoboxes I will go along, but on the whole I'd rather it didn't. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is relevent, but we do appear to have forgotten about something here. I have better things to do than sit around waiting for you lot to decide the best way forward in order to avoid repeats of Buzzzsherman v Kleinzach (where this all began, if you recall). I'll leave you all alone now. Thanks for your time --Jubilee♫ clipman 17:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the best way forward is to drop this discussion and leave things as they were. It's been fruitless and time consuming, and any actual change that emerges from it would almost certainly lower article quality (IMHO).  Opus33 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Belated Kudos to Folantin, BTW --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, Jubilee, you seem to have developed a bit of a ringmaster complex. For every comment made, you post two or three replies. I appreciate your attempts at intermediation, but I don't think every single comment requires you to provide an editorial interpretation or a reply. This is compounded by your rather serious misreading of my initial comment. Let the discussion take its course; if you have other things you are interested in, tant mieux. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Opus33 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am wary of allegations of ownership against a whole project. When it comes to various cleanup tags the Wikipedia community expect projects to take the lead in dealing with the issues. Therefore a sort do ownership is being imposed on the projects. When changes are made across a range of articles in a project that require ongoing maintenace, then the project can collectively decide whether they are willing to invest the effort into mnaintaining these items. I would put some infoboxes into the category. If, say, we had "associated acts" and "genre" in the infobox for a composer-conductor, then we might have to make changes to the infobox whenever they accepted another Principal Guest Conductorship or wrote their first opera or whatever. We as a project are entitled to say that we can't be bothered to maintain the box, therefore it is best not having a box orsimplifying it drastically and if outsiders want to impose the insertion of such a box and aren't prepared to do the month to month maintenance, then WP:OWN or no WP:OWN I think we should tell them where to go. Of course, this is not to sya that somememebrs of the project aren't the most diplomatic of people.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "I don't want to maintain the boxes" and "shame on you for even thinking about putting a box into one of OUR articles", which is how it often came across. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mahler 150
I am working on the Gustav Mahler biography, and associated Mahler aticles, bearing in mind the composer's forthcoming 150th birthday (7 July) Can anyone assist in adding to or replacing the single existing soundfile, a brave but not very authentic version of the trombone solo from Symphony No. 3? It will be difficult because of the scarcity of old Mahler recordings, but perhaps somewhere, somehow...? Another possibility is the creation of non-free short samples. Any suggestions welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you tried Archive.org? They seem to have a lot of public domain .ogg files for Mahler. See, for example, this and this and more here. Don't know about the quality, haven't listened to 'em. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Resurrection stream is not bad, actually. No worse than a great many other mp3/ogg/etc files I have heard.  Not CD quality, by any means, but you'd hardly expect that for most public domain releases on the internet, anyway --Jubilee♫ clipman  19:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you both, very much; It seems there may be quite a bit to choose from. I may need advice about how to create Wikipedia soudfiles from these sources, but that can come later when I've done more work on the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for the RfC
I would like to add the text recently added to my sandbox into the RfC: User:Jubileeclipman/Sandbox. Any comments or refinements before I proceed? I will stand back for the next week or so, BTW, and get on with my work on behalf of Denise Amber Lee's family, as requested at WT:BIOG and linked above. I feel that is, perhaps, somewhat more pressing at the moment. Indeed, any and all help would be appreciated. Thank you --Jubilee♫ clipman 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC) [Text slightly updated --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)]
 * I'd suggest that you post it directly on the RfC to keep all comments and suggestions in one place. I'd also suggest quite strongly, that you tweak it until you're satisfied with it before posting it there. Changes to the original text once discussion starts make it impossible for discussants to know what subsequent comments are referring to. The RfC still has 2 weeks to run. There's plenty of time to discuss your proposal there. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Voceditenore. Now that I review it myself, I see a lot of mindless rambling in the text so the word "tweak" is probably not quite as strong a word as might have been chosen... ;-)
 * I apologise to the project for my recent behaviour which was quite inexcusable.
 * Independant of that (and as explained above), I probably will be tied up for a while, anyway, so I will not be around quite so much. I might not even be online at all for a short while soon, in fact, as I have some important RL stuff to attend to.  Hence, I will almost certainly just overhaul the text, post it over and leave it for everyone else to comment upon and make counter-proposals to.  Two weeks is indeed plenty of time to discuss all of the issues.  I might suggest that Eusebeus' comments (now I fully understand them) are extremely pertinent to the RfC, insofaras the Infobox Issue appears indeed to have arisen (every time, perhaps?) precisely because of other editors' perceptions of our group of projects.  That is also something to fully address either here—outside of the RfC to avoid tangential arguments—or over there—if it is indeed an integral part of it.  Anyway, I clearly need to look at other's perception of myself, too...  Ringmaster would not be my profession of choice!  Cheers  --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, I just changed the link above to point to my live sandbox rather that to a permalink. Only permalinked it in case it was randomly vandalised but I guess the likelyhood is pretty slim now I think of it!  Cheers  --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have finished ah... "tweaking" my View by Jubileeclipman. I'll look it over again before posting it later tonight. Any further edits that might be useful? --Jubilee♫ clipman 20:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Now posted. Cheers --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Media samples within articles
Whilst reading some of the longer articles recently, for example Joseph Haydn and Antonio Vivaldi, I've greatly enjoyed playing the media samples whilst reading. However, I often only remember/discover the existence of the samples once I arrive at the very end of the article, where they are usually listed. Frequently, there are no media files embedded at all, and one has navigate to commons and find the appropriate category in order to find them all.

E.g. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart has no audio samples embedded. At commons, there is an incomplete index at Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, however 90 files are listed at commons:Category:Ogg files of music by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. There is a further index at Index of works by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart on Commons, that notes (using *s) which files have been rated as Featured-quality previously (more than a dozen).

I found this project's guideline at WikiProject Composers/Guidelines for using sound excerpts, but it only has 2 edits in the history. I primarily want to encourage you all to re-check and update that, and also to remind everyone to use the available files a bit more frequently. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a six minute symphonic serenade is worth a million. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We, perhaps, should have extra pages to list all sound files of music by each composer, especially where there are a great many for one particular composer. Where there are only one or two then those should all be in the article perhaps?  (I only saw and commented on this because it edit-conflicted with my addition below, BTW!  I am not trying to tame Quiddity!)--Jubilee♫ clipman  22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the page Commons:Category:Compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart provide such a list?
 * As to embedding sound files into composers' biographies: I think such sound files are much better placed in articles about the works. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's already a commons category box at the bottom of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. I don't think there's anything to do here.  The commons category pages can be a bit awkward because the filenames are truncated to make room for the applets.  The truncation often leaves all the names looking the same at first glance (see ).  You can hover over the link to get the full text, but I've often found that annoying.  That's an issue to take up at the commons though and not here.DavidRF (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Quiddity that sound files should be used liberally in articles, and embedded within articles, not just at the end. There is a problem with licensing, however. There are often no free recordings available to illustrate an article. I have used recordings from the Isabella Gardner museum archive, but because these recordings have a creative commons license with a non-commercial use clause, they cannot be included in the commons. Likewise, there are often good recordings on YouTube that are posted by the performers themselves (posts of commercial recordings are usually copyvios, though the artists don't complain), but these, too, cannot be included in the commons. I solved the problem by creating an infobox format with an external link to the recording, which I used at Chamber music and at Death and the Maiden Quartet. It would be nice if Quiddity could make a template for this, rather than the rather complicated formatting that I use. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One already exists. Use External media for this. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)