Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz/Archives/2019 1

Warren Vaché
Your help would be appreciated in clearing up the incoming links to new disambiguation page Warren Vaché. I have fixed the most obvious links and I suspect that the rest pertain to the more famous Warren Vaché Jr., but I don't know the topic well enough to avoid guessing. Thanks, Certes (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with Jazz Age Page
I am working on the Jazz Age page right now, and I would appreciate any guidance and/or help with editing some of the sections. I have posted in the Jazz Age talk page some of my suggestions for improvement, and I have started implementing some of the changes already. One of my main goals is to make the Jazz Age page more consistent and cohesive with the Jazz Age section in the Jazz page. Please let me know your thoughts on the proposed changes, or if you think I should consider something else while working on the page. Thanks! Srob21 (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Additional Portals
The WikiProject Jazz page has a boxed link to the Portal:Jazz page. Following up on an article on the latest Signpost, I noticed that several additional relevant portals have been created recently, for example Portal:Louis Armstrong, Portal:Duke Ellington, Portal:Benny_Goodman, Portal:Dizzy Gillespie, Portal:Charlie_Parker. (Portal:Miles Davis predated this expansion.) AllyD (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Portal:Benny Goodman has been nominated for deletion again. Members of this project may be interested in improving the portal or contributing at its MfD. Certes (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Chick Corea
I have tried to edit Template:Chick Corea by adding the albums' recording & release dates and adding artists, who have recorded more than one record with Chick Corea.

The template seems to accept only 20 groups (to |group20 = with Wayne Shorter) and now the groups 21-23 (|group21 = with others |group22 = Compilations |group23 = Soundtracks) are not visible so what should be done with this problem?

Jukka Tarvonen (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably remove all of the sideman recordings, or put them all together. There's a Chick Corea discography anyway, so I don't see much value in putting the same information in a different format (a template). I think that Philip Cross does a lot with musician templates, so he might be the best person to comment on what's normally included. EddieHugh (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Joe Loughmuller
Would someone from the project please mind having a look at the newly created article Joe Loughmuller? It appears to have been created as a WP:MEMORIAL because neither he nor the band he played in appear to be notable, but it probably needs someone who knows more about jazz than me to cast their eye over it. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Eartha Kitt
Is Eartha Kitt in scope for this project? See this edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Guidance on what articles within the WikiProject
does a huge amount of useful clean-up in this project. This includes sometimes removing articles from the Project's purview. This is sometimes appropriate and useful, but it can also be contentious. I've recently disputed Vmavanti's actions at Soft Heap, Sade (band) and Gilad Atzmon. Further input welcomed on all three! This is not new. I've seen at least three discussions along similar lines before here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jazz/Archives/2018_1; Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jazz/Archives/2017_1; Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jazz/Archives/2017_1. Pinging everyone in those earlier discussions: hi all!

Vmavanti has a conservative view of what should be included. However, the Project says up front:


 * This WikiProject does not aim to:
 * Act in an exclusionary way toward any particular styles of jazz or any jazz musicians.

So Vmavanti's objections to smooth jazz, like Sade, or to jazz fusion, like Soft Heap, appear to me to be inconsistent with the Project's stated aims. Vmavanti, and forgive me if I'm misinterpreting this, also appears to put less weight on reliable sources and more on personal expert opinion than appears to me to be consistent with standard Wikipedia policy. At both Talk:Soft Heap and Talk:Sade (band), s/he privileges his/her knowledge as an expert over reliable sources. S/he also feels personal ownership, as with comments at Talk:Soft Heap and Talk:Gilad Atzmon.

So, to forestall future debates and to save Vmavanti and the rest of us time, might I test the waters and see if there is support for, or disagreement with, two propositions that could, hopefully, clarify matters.

RS decides, not OR
1. If disputed, inclusion in the WikiProject should be decided by reliable sources and not original research.

Agree
 * Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagree

Scope
2. The WikiProject includes jazz sub-genres and fusion genres, as listed on the jazz article (e.g. avant-garde jazz, jazz fusion, smooth jazz).

Agree
 * Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagree

General discussion
... or suggestions for alternative wordings. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to note, more Vmavanti/what-is-jazz disputes at Talk:London Warsaw New York and Talk:Lisa Ono. Again, reliable sources say one thing, Vmavanti says another. Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You have mischaracterized my position repeatedly. There's an Oxford debate rule in which a person must restate the opposing position before stating his own. I find that a sober, sane, useful rule which many people on Wikipedia ought to consider. I'm not going to spend my time knocking down straw men or trading insults.


 * Labeling my views "conservative" is a clunky, obvious tactic that has nothing to do with the facts. A while back some editors tried a similar tactic, demonizing my position by calling it "purist" because I refused to accept their opinions, their criteria, their desire (I want, I want, I want) to see Steely Dan classified jazz. They never argued their case; they simply tried to demonize me—always the act of the desperate and ignorant. Even if Steely Dan wasn't jazz, they wanted me to include it in the project anyway. It's easy to volunteer others for work.


 * Bondegezou has failed to consider how many articles I have edited which in other quarters would automatically be dismissed as "not jazz". As I have said before, this is because of ignorance. He is using terms incorrectly. Perhaps, like other fans of progressive rock, he is letting his bias get in the way and trying to elevate it into the realm of jazz, which today is given an elevated seriousness and reverence previously reserved for classical music and religion. So when I say "not jazz" it sounds like a put down. But nothing could be further from the truth. I certainly don't mean it that way. I don't elevate music of any kind to the level of religion. I am a stickler for clear thinking over fuzziness.


 * I have at my disposal a nice collection of books. What I say comes from those sources. And I do mean sources, plural. Bondegezou has a nice habit of saying "sources" (plural) when he really means AllMusic alone (singular), thus inflating and expanding the one into the many, the particular into the vague and abstract. He did this when he accused me of "going against the editing community" because he found one debate I had with a fan of Frank Zappa. On Earth, where I live, we do it differently. One means one, and in this case one source, AllMusic, has proven controversial on Wikipedia, something I had to learn the hard way and still struggle with because no definitive solution has ever been given. Bondegezou fails to address this controversy.


 * Let's distinguish between a passing reference and more thorough analysis, as in the documentation's discussion of notability.


 * Let's remember that sources are the creation of human beings and therefore fallible. There's no such thing as a source that is correct 100 percent of the time. Wikipedia encourages us to use "sources" (plural) and then to debate how those sources are being used and then try to reach a consensus. A sticky matter. That process ought to be slow and deliberate—not rushed, slapdash, and emotional. Music isn't geometry. I resist any attempt to turn any human, subjective construct into an objective, mathematical one. Beware the terrible simplifiers. One ought to be nuanced in one's points, not curt, dismissive, and exaggerated.


 * No jazz source that I have seen has called Sade a jazz singer, not even a smooth jazz singer. Bondegezou has failed to address the ambiguity of the term smooth jazz and others. I have seen "avant" used three different ways: 1) avant-garde jazz, often incorrectly identified as the same as free jazz; 2) avant rock; 3) avant music. Elsewhere Bondegezou has said bossa nova is a subdivision of jazz. It is not. It is its own genre. Some bossa nova musicians have played jazz. Some jazz musicians have played bossa nova. Some have mixed the two. They are not the same thing. Just because a person has performed bossa nova does not mean they should be included in the jazz project.


 * And so I come back to the same point I have repeatedly made, the one no one wants to hear. There is a difference between "jazz" and "jazzy". Under the latter term we find various jazz hybrid forms invented by people trying to sell records. I'm not selling or promoting. I'm not a fan (short for fanatic) or a cheerleader of any person, cause, or movement. I have no banners on my user page, no associations, no chest-thumping trophy rooms, no Us versus Them lines in the sand as though life and every subject in it were simply a football game in which one merely had to choose sides. I have been amused by the proliferation of terms which get their meaning through inflation, i.e. sprung into being by touching the hem of the great goddess Jazz. More literally (without lovey dovey hyphens): jazzlike, jazzy, jazz influenced, jazz inspired, jazz inflected, jazz rap, jazz rock, acid jazz, jazz hands, jazzercise, Microsoft Jazz.

–Vmavanti (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Given all this ambiguity, I recommend we take one subject at a time. This debate started at the Talk page for Soft Heap. On his own authority, against my objections, Bondegezou moved that specific debate here and inflated it to include all subjects and all people, his hope being, I guess, to expose me as a freethinking radical with no regard for the rules, women, children, or baby seals. I recommend we return to the Soft Heap Talk page to start discussing the practical, single matter of whether it's OK for me to remove the Wikiproject Jazz template from the Soft Heap article.


 * As linked to by Bondegezou, above, this has been discussed before. Suggestions were made then, but not followed up on.
 * "inclusion in the WikiProject should be decided by reliable sources and not original research"... I agree, but stress that we also have to consider the proportion of RSs that assert something. For example, there's a vast quantity of sources on Miles Davis, most of which label him as a jazz musician: he's in. There's a vast quantity of sources on David Bowie, almost none of which label him as a jazz musician: he's out. Some sources say that Bowie's Blackstar album was, at least in part, jazz: that could be in, but even if it were to be in, that wouldn't be enough for Bowie himself to be in. The Sade (band) infobox states that it is a smooth jazz band; that's supported by one citation, nothing in the article itself, and a debated number of sources on the talk page. What proportion of sources explicitly states 'this is a jazz band' or 'this band plays jazz'? What proportion should be necessary for it to be in? It's hard to answer either of these questions.
 * 'jazzy', 'influenced by jazz', 'combines elements of jazz with x, y and z' aren't good enough, in my view: articles with the strongest claim to jazz being based on such phrases should be out.
 * "The WikiProject includes jazz sub-genres and fusion genres"... I'm tempted to move away from this, but not sufficiently tempted. But perhaps we need to be stricter in enforcing the points above. If sources say that someone plays jazz and describes jazz examples, fine. If sources say that someone plays smooth jazz and then describes only 'jazziness', 'a jazzy vibe' etc, then I'd question including that. More remote labels such as 'acid jazz' and 'pop-jazz' with no descriptions of what's unquestionably jazz about the music are things that I'd question even more. EddieHugh (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In summary, for a person (adapt the wording for a band/album, etc.): a good proportion of RS should state explicitly that the person is a jazz musician and, if RS describe the music, the descriptions should support that statement. EddieHugh (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for concrete proposals. I agree that we should consider the proportion of RSs, as with editing generally on Wikipedia.
 * I agree that "jazzy", "influenced by jazz" and the like are not saying something is jazz. RSs saying those sorts of things alone should not pass muster.
 * Wikipedia's own articles describe jazz as a diverse genre that encompasses many sub-genres and fusion genres. (Vmavanti complains that bossa nova is not a subdivision of jazz, but read the Wikipedia article on jazz and it describes bossa nova as a jazz fusion genre.) It seems to me sensible for WikiProject Jazz to follow what we say in the articles we write! The current Project page wording also seems to cast a wide net.
 * Given the number of disputes, I think it would be helpful to further clarify what the Project seeks to do. Ultimately, what WikiProject Jazz wants to cover is up to WikiProject Jazz as a community. I wanted to kickstart that discussion. If there's a consensus for a different definition/approach to what I suggested, that's fine with me. Unfortunately, this discussion has only attracted three voices, which doesn't get us very far. If there's no further input, I guess we just have to stick with what the Project page says ("This WikiProject does not aim to: Act in an exclusionary way toward any particular styles of jazz or any jazz musicians.") as the existing consensus and interpret that as best we can as we discuss articles on a case-by-case basis. Bondegezou (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Article on Clora Bryant
I have been looking at the article on Clora Bryant and it is down as stub class  - I wonder whether it might be long enough for start class. Vorbee (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Vorbee, it looks like a solid Start to me. The references need to be sorted out, but the sourced content seems fine. You can look at WikiProject Composers/Assessment and WikiProject Biography/Assessment for examples of articles that are assessed at the various levels. There's no need to ask here: use your judgement and change the assessment as required... someone will let you know if you're badly wrong! EddieHugh (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Matt Lavelle troll edits
Hello guys,

The real Matt Lavelle here. A Wikipedia entry was started about me several years ago, I believe by Eric Devin. Ever since I have tried to edit the page for accuracy. Someone repeatedly adds opinion based wording or uses my creative writing as a source seemingly in an attempt to belittle me. It often goes unnoticed or may be intentional by one of your editors. Can you please police the page or just remove the page entirely.

The additions or changes may be humorous, but I don't think that's the intention or prime directive of the site.

Mdlsota666 is the "editor" 2604:2000:1483:4101:4167:E988:29C9:C027 (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Matt

Source: Matt Lavelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1483:4101:4167:E988:29C9:C027 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Mdlsota666 (talk · contribs) as a likely sockpuppet of Mdlsota (talk · contribs), whom I've blocked because of WP:HNE. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)