User talk:EddieHugh/Archive 2017

This is an archive of past discussions with User:EddieHugh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 2010

←

Archive 2015

Archive 2016

Archive 2017

Archive 2018

Archive 2019

Archive 2020

Hello,

in the sentence «The possible future United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union is widely known as Brexit» You removed the words possible and future. I do not understand why.

It is a future event. As a future event it is related to uncertainty. Is there anything which ensure the Brexit will start on march 2019?

So, it might be a good thing to clarify this is a future event. Could this future word be added in the article?

As it has some fuzzy or uncertain aspects, it might be more exact to clarify, that this is some kind of possibility, using the word possible or any other appropriate word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

With a contentious topic such as Brexit, it's best to look at the article's talk page before making changes to the lead (the opening, summarising part). Editors have usually discussed and (largely!) agreed on the wording, especially of the first sentence. On your specific question, Brexit is not the possible exit from the EU, it is an exit from the EU, whether or not it actually happens. Think about some other uses, e.g. "people were campaigning for Brexit"... they were not campaigning for "possibly exiting the EU"; they were campaigning for "exiting the EU". "Future" isn't really necessary, as the time of occurrence being later than now is obvious from the second sentence. As an idea, it also existed in the past, as outlined in the second paragraph. EddieHugh (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Effectively I missed this talk page, although on the one hand discussions on this topic date from last civil year (2016) and on the other hand the project word was not proposed on this talk page!

I understand that the word possible and future are not adequate enough. Nonetheless, I feels like there is something missing in this sentence. I would suggest to add a verb. For instance:

• The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, widely known as Brexit (portemanteau ...), is a project.

I assume that the project word contains both concepts: future and possible, even when it is not yet future or if it is not possible.

If it is related to political concepts I would suggest to add the word political such as:

• The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, widely known as Brexit (portemanteau ...), is a political project.

Such a sentence might be complete if not accurate enough, for instance:

• The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, widely known as Brexit (portemanteau ...), is a political project hardly promoted in United-Kingdom by british interest, to change political relationship between European Union and United Kingdom, for instance by treaty changes, with the aim of ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

(And for your point below): it's better to make suggestions on the relevant talk page instead of here. I don't think they'll get far, but that's the best place. EddieHugh (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but if you dont agree with it, I wont do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This, within the treaty terms, makes Treaties cease to apply by March 2019, unless other date commonly agreed.

It looks like you prefer the second sentence which stand that:

This, within the treaty terms, would put the UK on a course to leave the EU by March 2019.

I do not understand this second sentence: Article 50 seems to be quite formal while this second sentence might be quite informal.

What is better in the second sentence than in the first one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

See above on checking the talk page first. Only one treaty has been mentioned by that point; "Treaties" thus potentially confuses the reader. On "formal": again, the wording is clearer for the reader. "leave the EU" is unambiguous; "Treaties cease to apply" may be legally correct, but leaves the reader wondering if that is the same as withdrawing from the EU, which the opening sentence states is what Brexit is. EddieHugh (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for that, but I did not find in which section this question is dealt with within the talk page.

I I understand you, you would write

This, within the treaty terms, would put the UK on a course to leave the EU by March 2019.

Nonetheless, within the treaty terms, this makes Treaties cease to apply by March 2019, unless other date commonly agreed. So I wonder if the usage of the expression within the treaty terms, looks like rather inappropriate as it is used today.

If you want to be clearer for the reader I would suggest:

This, would put the UK on a course to leave the EU by March 2019.

For your preoccupation about the count of treaties, I am not so convinced as you are it is so important.

If The Treaties of the European Union are a set of international treaties between the European Union (EU) member states which sets out the EU's constitutional basis, I assume that those treaties the article deals with might be introduced with the notion of European Union, so I would suggest:

This, would put the UK on a course to leave the EU by March 2019 according to the treaty terms which makes the EU's constitutional basis set out by a set of international treaties between the European Union member states cease to apply to UK by March 2019, unless other date commonly agreed.

or

This, would put the UK on a course to leave the EU whose constitutional basis is set out by a set of international treaties between the European Union member states because the treaty terms makes those treaties cease to apply to UK (demander member state) by March 2019, unless other date commonly agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.100 (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to remind that it's better to initiate a discussion on talk page before deleting or altering a chunk of information from the lead in the article Poland. I've added two reliable sources; one is the official from the Economy of the European Union page; please have a look on both the source and Wikipedia article and see that Poland is in the eighth place. I've also included an additional source about Poland being one of the fastest growing economies as of 2016.

Regards - Oliszydlowski (TALK) 23:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

When the information is a) not in the source and b) wrong, the best thing to do is either add a Not in source tag or remove the info. I added a Not in source tag on 3 Jan. You removed it on 17 Jan, claiming (wrongly) that the information "is given". The new source that you added was for 2016 and lists 8 EU countries with a higher GDP than Poland's, hence my change to stating that Poland was 9th. You've now changed to a source on 2015 that does put Poland 8th. That's fine.... However, there is still no source for the growth statement. The "additional source" that you've added is the one that was already there, and it gives forecasts for 2016. Forecasts are predictions, not data: if I forecast today that Poland will have the world's biggest GDP tomorrow, and then it doesn't happen, you can't cite my forecast as evidence that Poland has or had the world's biggest GDP! I'll add a summary to the talk page anyway. EddieHugh (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

While I don't agree with Little Oliveoil that COI issues are irrelevant, I do agree that extensive discussion of contributors is not appropriate at article talk pages. Please focus on content at the article talk page. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned it once, then was asked by one of those involved to provide further details; thereafter, I was defending myself from criticism. I didn't think it warranted a COI noticeboard post and thought the new editor had had enough to deal with already without a CoI alert on her talk page. I raised it on the other editor's talk page. There's probably a hole in Wikipedia policy regarding the relationship in question, so how to deal with it is not clear. (Update: I see that you've responded on the latter editor's talk page already.) EddieHugh (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah just let it go altogether; the "defending yourself" thing is just dramah and there are a lot of problems to address. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw your edit and it makes sense. I don't know how to categorize jazz musicians. Or, I don't know what existing categories to use. There's nationality, instrument, genre, and gender. Broad to narrow. Jazz saxophonists, American jazz saxophonists, American jazz soprano saxophonists, Female American jazz soprano saxophonists... There's the record label category, hometown, home state, cause of death, awards, alumni. For biographies of musicians, which categories would you like to see used most?
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't care much for categories, especially the very broad ones such as Living people and Male jazz musicians, as I can't imagine anyone ever consulting such a category's page to find something. The principle is to include only the narrowest category, so if it's One-armed American jazz trumpeters, don't include American jazz trumpeters, or Jazz trumpeters, or Trumpeters, or One-armed trumpeters, etc, etc. If categories are your thing, then throw in as many as you want, following that rule. Direct answer to your question: year of birth, year of death, jazz [instrument played (e.g. pianist)] (or narrower – with nationality is ok), maybe record labels if the person recorded a few for them. That makes them close to a duplication of the infobox and lead, but maybe that's the idea. People add others eventually. (If you want to create Category: One-armed American jazz trumpeters, the only one I know of is Wingy Manone.) EddieHugh (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I can see looking for a list of female jazz singers, but I doubt I would look specifically for American female jazz singers. That wouldn't be the first thing to pop into my head. I never think, Hey, I'd like to listen to someone from Canada today. Melody Gardot is enamored with France, lives there, sometimes sings in French, but she's from Philadelphia. Diana Krall is from Canada. And so on. Categorizing, for me, has to do with what comes to mind first. I see this problem in leads. I've seen contributors try to cram every entry's accomplishments and abilities into the first sentence or two and the infobox, and thus confuse what the person is notable for. "He plays tenor sax but he also plays drums, keyboards, bass, flute, clarinet, as well as foghorn and kazoo. He has a PHD in music theory as well as astronomy and is studying to become a part-time podiatrist while teaching jazz guitar to starving children in Africa." Possibly they are trying to summarize in the first few sentence, or possibly they are bragging about someone they like, but that's not what a summary is, and jazz articles are usally so short that you don't need to summarize much if at all.
–Vmavanti (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

We are students writing an article on Alex Mercado as part of our class Academic Discourse and Writing at Tec de Monterrey. Since you are an experienced Wikipedian and have an interest in these kinds of topics, we would like to know if you could take a few moments to take a look at the article and give us feedback. Thank you for your time.--Rodrigo Orellán (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a good start for a first attempt. Some brief points:

• The main thing that stands out is the referencing. The method you've used (source in brackets) is possible, but unusual and not the most efficient. See WP:CITEFOOT on a better way.
• And be careful with sourcing: are you sure about the Down Beat information? I've searched for that review from 2014 and not found it. Maybe Down Beat is different in Spanish, but it's not in that form at Musiclife, which it should, according to a citation in the Career section.
• Main Venues section: lists like this aren't the best way of presenting information. If these are important, include (some of) them in the main text.
• There is a Down Beat review of his album Refraction. March 2016 p. 64. I can give you the text if you need it.
• Other things are about style or minor formatting matters.

I hope that's of some use. Let me know if you're looking for more comments/help. EddieHugh (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi hi. Would you mind weighing in on this RfC? It involves two revisions and which is more faithful to the source cited. Dan56 (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Replied there. EddieHugh (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Except for the infobox, which I added, the entry for Chiara Civello has been copied and pasted from the AllMusic entry. I'm not sure what to do. I was reading the maintenance template pages, which led me to the copyright pages, and then my head started to swim. Thanks for your help.
–Vmavanti (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

There are always too many pages saying slightly different things about what to do. I've cut the entire body as a copyright violation, added a notice on the talk page and that of the editor responsible (4 years ago) and asked User:Diannaa if the edit(s) needs to be removed permanently from the record. If it's a small violation, I just put it in quotation marks, with a ref. Where it's bigger, remove it; proper paraphrasing can be added later, if desired. EddieHugh (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi,
bassist/arranger Pino Presti and drummer Tullio De Piscopo toured with Mulligan in Europe in the 70s, including Olympia Theatre in Paris, International Music Festival in Mallorca, ecc. They have recorded with Mulligan in two albums, including the well known "Summit - Reunion Cumbre", described in the AllMusic review by Storm Roberts, as "A superb 1974 session recorded in Milan teams baritone-saxist Gerry Mulligan with the great guru of art-music tango. This is mostly dark and moody music, with a lot of tonal variety and a resolute refusal to fit into any of the handy pigeonholes: a one-off event, wholly successful".
http://www.allmusic.com/album/release/summit-reunion-cumbre-mr0002076326
Regards --CoolJazz5 (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

True, but the associated acts parts of the infobox is for "professional relationships with other musicians or bands that are significant and notable to this artist's career". With someone who had a multi-decade career and must have recorded with hundreds of people, it's necessary to be selective. One (largely subjective, I admit) way of selecting for someone as well known as Mulligan is to ask: "when I/we think 'Gerry Mulligan', do I/we also think 'Pino Presti' and 'Tullio De Piscopo'?" Maybe some people do, but not many, in comparison with 'Chet Baker', 'Miles Davis' and lots of others. I'd probably cut several of the others currently in the infobox if I were working seriously on it, but the two that I trimmed stood out as not being significant to Mulligan's career. EddieHugh (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Would you take a look at this mess? Cynthia Crane. Thanks. I didn't know what to do.
–Vmavanti (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Vmavanti: It looks like someone's Wikipedia scrapbook! The external link to her website should be kept. For everything else in External links I suggest either a) cut all of them, with an edit summary stating that such a long list is not appropriate and actual content should be created using them as sources, or b) remove all of them from the article and put them on the talk page, with a couple of sentences explaining why they were moved and that they could be used as a starting point for adding content to the article itself. I'd choose b), as some of them could be useful if someone wants to expand the article in a more appropriate way. EddieHugh (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks.
–Vmavanti (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I've wondered about this for a while. I see "Down Beat" used several ways. The Wikipedia page is titled "Down Beat" and adds that it is stylized "DOWNBEAT", which I'm not sure is always true, though the cover of the print magazine does have the title in all caps. On the pages of the magazine and on its web site, "DownBeat" is used. Sign of the times, probably, smashing words together. Which version do you think should be used? Given that the magazine today uses "DownBeat", do you think the Wikipedia page should be changed?
–Vmavanti (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Leaping in to dangerous territory here! I thought it had been discussed on the talk page, but it was a similar thing at Talk:AllMusic / Allmusic / ALLMUSIC. Currently Downbeat is a disambig page and entering 'DownBeat' automatically goes to that disambig page. This could be the reason for having it as 'Down Beat': I don't know if there's a way of bypassing the automatic conversion of a word-internal capital letter to lower case. But what should it be? Looking at old covers, I see: 'down' and 'beat' on separate lines, implying 'down beat'; 'DOWN' and 'BEAT' on separate lines, implying 'DOWN BEAT'; 'downbeat' itself; 'DOWN BEAT' itself; 'down beat'; and, now, 'DOWNBEAT'. Which means: almost everything except 'DownBeat' for the cover, but, as you report, they use that in the magazine itself, on their facebook page, etc. So it probably should be 'DownBeat'. EddieHugh (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you think should be done about the poll results on the Down Beat page? I added some recent results, though I haven't sourced them yet. When I was working, I realized everything else there is from the same dead link. At the magazine's web site, I and apparently anyone can download old issues in pdf format. The digital archive goes back to 2008, though some of the links are dead. I can source new poll results and some past results if there is a strong desire to keep a running record of Down Beat polls, either on that page or somewhere else. What do you think? The existing columns should probably be put into tables, but I'm not going to start working on anything without having settled whether it's worth the time. A magazine entry, I guess, ought to be about the magazine and not the magazine's poll results. But the polls are a handy way of finding out what people are listening to today, and therefore what entries might be worth editing, expanding, or adding.
–Vmavanti (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I added one or two a while back. My thinking is that if a list is easy to find somewhere else and recreating it here would take a lot of time, then just point people towards that other source. I don't remember seeing Down Beat lists for lifetime achievement or album of the year on their website, but there is a hall of fame one. Poll results can be split off into a separate article (actually classed as a List) if required. Doing only album of the year instead of 1st-3rd makes sense to me. ..I've found this list of albums of the year back to 1965, and another version here, which might be accurate. So it's your choice; I say choose something and do it well, and let me know if you'd like help. EddieHugh (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for any personal stuff. It's a topic that can get people's backs up. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Should these pages be merged or edited somehow? Quite a few similarities.

• Juno Award for Traditional Jazz Album of the Year
• Juno Award for Contemporary Jazz Album of the Year
  –Vmavanti (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If there are only those two relevant Juno awards, then a merger looks sensible, although picking a new title could be a challenge. (See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for the fiddly steps for proposing it.) Otherwise, create a new article for the parts that are repeated across the current two articles. EddieHugh (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you know of a reliable source for release dates for albums and the labels that released them? Often I encounter conflicting data. I thought this kind of data would be easy to get and relatively reliable, but problems exist. I'm surprised at how much AllMusic gets wrong: dates, labels, musicians' names, songwriters. You name it and they'll get it wrong. I could use Discogs, but that information comes from everyone and is therefore not a legitimate source for Wikipedia, and in fact I've seen errors in Discogs. The musician's web site seems like an obviously reliable source, but often the site's discography is incomplete and lists albums with the labels that are currently distributing them, rather than the labels that issued them in the beginning. I know that retail sites can't be used, though I occasionally look at Amazon for verification, but Amazon, too, has incorrect data. Other problems arise: this label bought that label, or this one distributes that one, which is different for imports, and so on. What seems like simple information turns out to be more difficult to locate than it ought to be. I thought there might be some kind of business or legal source or site where this information could be found with something closer to certainty or reliability. Any ideas? As always, thanks for your help.
–Vmavanti (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all of that! I usually don't bother with release dates. For releases in the internet era, it's usually possible to get at least the year, unless it's a 'minor' release, just by standard searching skills. I haven't tried Lord's discography, as I can't justify paying for it & I've heard of lots of inaccuracies in that too. jazzdiscography.com is good and includes a release year as well as labels, but is for selected musicians (and labels) only. Current, independent record labels usually have dates on their websites, but I imagine you're thinking of older stuff. You could try asking what User:DISEman uses, because he's done a few thousand! Let me know if you get any other good sources. EddieHugh (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree with the issues you raise regarding release dates - both Allmusic and Discogs have their innacuracies - Stuff from the post-internet world is more reliable but I always check to see if there is a copyright date on an image of the first known release (e.g record label or cover) at least then I can get the year right. This actually came up recently when I created Extemporaneous (album) which almost EVERY source states as a 1978 release BUT the label number and discography details places it as being released at least after 1990 due to the recording dates on albums released on the label with lower catalog numbers... Oh and also sometimes a google search under books will turn up a reference to the album in a trade magazine like Cashbox or Billboard which details that the album has been released that month - or even details on the copyright entry for songs that give an approximate year. DISEman (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Jazz discography on CD-ROM
–Vmavanti (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow to the price as well. That's Lord's, the one I mentioned above. EddieHugh (talk) 08:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd be willing to try it for month.
–Vmavanti (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you say a little more about the citation error on Money Jungle? Should I bother correcting citation errors at all? Sometimes I use the Wikiproject cleanup list for suggestions. That's where I found this one, under citation errors. I happened to find a pdf for that article that mentions Don DeMicheal's review of three albums. Possibly someone read that issue of Downbeat (June 2013), then article which mentions DeMicheal's reviews from the 1963 issue in order to source the 1963 issue. It's not a v. good way to source things. For one thing, you're not getting all the information from the original source, just a passing mention in the later source. The way I was taught, whether it applies to WP I don't know, is to cite the source where I found the information. So for me, that's the 2013 pdf. If I were to cite a review, I would source the review, not source a passing remark about the review.
–Vmavanti (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

What is the citation error? "someone" was possibly me, as I wrote most of that... On Wikipedia, the sourcing approach you mention is the approved one, but seeing a digital version of the original is usually taken to be sufficient to state that original as being the source, especially when there isn't really a URL that can be given. What I do (and, if I was responsible for the MJ one, I would have done it for that) is, for some magazines, use Google Books to find the original info. They often have only a "snippet" view, but by manipulating things a bit (I can go into details if you're interested), it's often possible to get the entire page of text, albeit one piece at a time. EddieHugh (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Reference 17 should show up on your browser with an error in red letters "missing or empty title". You need the title of the article. What if you sourced it using the Google Books URL you mentioned? What would happen? Do you use the "cite web" template from the drop-down menu when you write citations?
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I see; thanks. Something must have changed since the GAR. I've added the title, but now am not confident about the page number. I don't use the Google Books URL, because what can be extracted from the snippet items is changeable and possibly not accessible via a specific URL anyway. I'd use Cite Journal, I think it is. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT summarises it: "'Say where you read it' follows the practice in academic writing of citing sources directly only if you have read the source yourself", but also "The advice to 'say where you read it' does not mean that you have to give credit to any sources, search engines, websites, library catalogs, archives, etc., that led you to Smith's book. If you have read Smith's book yourself, that's all you have to cite. You do not need to specify how you obtained and read Smith's book [...] it does not matter whether you read the book using an online service like Google Books". I think that User:Dan56 uses snippet in Google Books and has got several music articles to Featured Article, so he might be able to comment on what the consensus on citing standards is. EddieHugh (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Cite web can be used for "any resource accessible through a URL."
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time trying to chip away at the Cleanup listing for WikiProject Jazz. I thought I was making progress, but that might be impossible. Does someone run or maintain or monitor this page? I know that bots somehow comb through and compile information that shows up there. Or does a person do it? I wonder if anyone but me looks at it. Sometimes there are entries that don't belong because they aren't jazz. There's one today, the song "Maneater" by Hall & Oates. For a while I thought if the word "jazz" appeared anywhere in an article, then the article, if it needed work, would appear on the Wikiproject Cleanup page. But now I'm not sure. What's "Maneater" doing there?
–Vmavanti (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That cleanup page is produced automatically, based on various tags that have been added to an article or its talk page. As far as I know, things will be listed on that cleanup page if the article's talk page has been linked to the jazz project (with {{WikiProject Jazz}} or similar. There are lots of articles that shouldn't be linked to the jazz project. These occur either because periodically there's an attempt to add class ratings to jazz articles and a bot is run that also adds the jazz project to talk pages based on I know what criteria, or someone's added links to the jazz project manually. "Maneater" was the latter, based on the edit history. I delete lots of these, when I come across them, as well as adding class and importance rankings periodically. Like you, though, this feels like fighting against the tide, hence the bots and their imperfections. Don't hold back from deleting links to the project if something obviously isn't jazz. EddieHugh (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's July 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		File:60C0074BA4FF-1 Джемма Халид.jpg "Women in dance" "Women in music" "Women from India"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Should the Kevin Eubanks page be deleted since there's already a page about the Tonight Show Band?

• Kevin Eubanks and the Tonight Show Band
• Tonight Show Band
  –Vmavanti (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible merge? It's the usual story for a stand-alone article: if there's enough available to make a separate article and it's sufficiently different from the 'parent' article, then it can be kept as a separate one. If not, then keeping it as a section of the parent is preferable. EddieHugh (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the Wikiproject Jazz template from the Jakko Jakszyk and Judith Durham pages because I thought they were not jazz musicians. My edits were reverted yesterday. I've never heard of either one. The former has played guitar for King Crimson, which is definitely not jazz. I haven't researched Durham enough yet, but I'm not aware of her being a jazz vocalist, and I keep a long spreadsheet of female jazz vocalists on my computer. Her name has never come up. If you want to take a look, go ahead, if not, that's fine. I posted to the Jakszyk Talk page.
–Vmavanti (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You have a good case with Jakszyk: it's the common, 'plays / influenced by a blend of jazz, pop, rock, soul, funk, etc' that gets people to add 'jazz' to the infobox or categories. I don't know Durham either. I usually just search for the word 'jazz' in the article and judge from that... she seems to have recorded a few things classed as jazz; whether that's standards sung straight or actual jazz, well, then we're getting into 'what is jazz' territory, which, I suggest, isn't worth pursuing on Wikipedia. If some people want to label something as 'jazz' when to me it's borderline, then I just leave it – there are better things to do. If it's just lazy attribution – jazzy=jazz; jazz standards=jazz; big band backing=jazz – then I'll cut that pollution. I'm both tolerant and intolerant. EddieHugh (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the link provided, also the most important banks and largest stock markets in the world. New York is the global financial centre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The linked index (IFCD Index) appears to have been abandoned in 2014, so the Global Financial Centres Index is the relevant one; it puts London at 1. Anyway, what matters is the source given, which states "the financial capital of the world". If you're questioning the accuracy of the source, the correct action is to add a 'dubious' tag, not delete the information without good justification. EddieHugh (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes well, I have sources that say New York is the financial centre of the world and they have it at number one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

With ignorants and friends.Picuslor (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I started working on the big band entry and I'd like your opinion on a couple subjects. First, in infoboxes, what background should be used for big band bandleaders? Non vocal instrumentalist or non performing personnel? Usually I see the former but I have seen a few examples of the latter that could be changed. I've always been a little troubled by the imprecision of the term "non-performing." A lyricist or a record producer is non-performing if they don't sing or play an instrument, and thus don't record or perform at all publicly. Big band bandleaders, probably all of them, can play instruments and have performed. Maybe not as soloists. As the leader of a big band, that's performing, right? A conductor of a symphony is a performer, right?

Second, categories. More imprecision. I know you don't care much for them, and I don't either, but I see a place for some of them. Let's a say a reader wants a list of big bands or big-band leaders (conductors). That would be handy way, for example, to find new music. There are two categories that have been populated: Big band bandleaders and jazz bandleaders. You see the difference. Or the problem. Many or most jazz musicians become leaders of bands, i.e. trios, quartets. Not all of them are leaders of big bands. I'm including jazz orchestras with big bands because I'm not sure there's a difference. So you have these two categories which can overlap. I can see a difference, but I'm not sure every reader does. I've been putting big band bandleaders under that category instead of jazz bandleaders, despite the overlap. I haven't deleted any.
–Vmavanti (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

This might not answer your Qs, so follow up as needed. On big band itself, the infobox is music genre. I think I've seen this listed as a genre in some musicians' infoboxes, but to me it's not a style of music. Maybe there isn't another infobox, in which case I'd support removing it altogether. For leaders, I'd go for non-vocal if they aren't vocalists. Cab Calloway has solo_singer; the others I've looked at get non_vocal_instrumentalist (even Gil Evans, who's the closest I can think of to a leader who didn't play – did anyone not play/sing at all?). Billy Strayhorn gets non_performing_personnel, which complicates things: maybe the logic is that someone overwhelmingly known for things other than performing will get non_performing_personnel; otherwise, non_vocal_instrumentalist. How does that sound?

Category:Jazz bandleaders looks useless: the great majority of people with a normal career length will be a bandleader at some point. Category:Big band bandleaders is more useful, for the reason you give, but I'd ask what qualifies someone for that category... one performance? One recording? But ignore my quibbling; just populating Category:Big band bandleaders is good. EddieHugh (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been reading about big bands and scratching my head about how to write about them. The lines are so blurry. Problems of definition, overlap, muddy waters. Put simply, what do you think the big band entry should say? What should it be about? What shouldn't it be about? You made an important, useful distinction between big bands and big band music. I deleted the infobox because this article (as it existed before me) is about more than a form of music. Some people talk about big band music as though it only existed from the 1920s to the 40s. They use "swing", "swing music", and "swing era" interchangeably with big band and big band music. If I talk about big band music, I would end up talking about the history of jazz, which of course I don't want to do. But it's also more than number of instruments. Right? I don't think swing should be relegated to an era. It seems to stretch beyond that. If you don't consider big band a genre, do you consider swing a genre? I don't know. I need to read more. Do you think this article should go to the present or should it end at 1950 with Glenn Miller? Big bands exist today, but there are different kinds. There are many potential topics that threaten to make the article unwieldy, as so many Wikipedia articles already are. I'm a fan of brevity and concision. I would like say what needs to be said and nothing more. I know that others will come along and make changes, but if possible I want to leave a good foundation that keeps things from getting out of hand. I'm reading Gioia's book, and it's an interesting book, but he's all over the place.
–Vmavanti (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't come across even a mediocre article on any generic ensemble. Musical ensemble and others are examples of what I wouldn't want to do: 2-member bands; 3-member bands... women. I suppose for me a big band is, well, a large ensemble. And the term tends to be used for ensembles that play jazz, or that play compositions that are associated with jazz (American songbook, for instance), as well as having an instrumentation that's lighter on strings than a typical orchestra in classical music. There are no neat cut off points for any of these things. A dash of snobbery – jazz has a band; classical has an orchestra – is also mixed in. Maybe the early big bands (or early ones that are well known) mostly played swing, hence the linking of 'big band' with a style. There'd have to be history in the article to cover this; description of the music played and instrumentation, not just lists of which bands were popular, would improve quality. Composition and arrangement are important, too; the balance of ensemble and soloist(s)... My suggestion is to list the headings that you want to have, put them in a logical sequence, then try to add material from sources to each of them. Once that's started, a better sense of what directions the article's going in usually develops. EddieHugh (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

What specifically do you find lacking in music ensemble articles? What you think of the big band article as it exists now? I wrote a little bit last week. The text beginning with the header 1930s and ending with 1990s to the present is unsourced. I added the part before it. The Big Band Arrangements section is mostly unsourced. I added the last paragraph. I'm assuming articles are supposed to have inline citations and not simply the name of a book at the bottom of the article implying "I read this." In many contexts, that would get you fired or sued or both. I'll take the responsibility, but how much of what exists now do you think is worthwhile? I'm looking only for an honest opinion, not someone to do it for me. I have plenty of my own ideas, but I'm not married to my work. Thanks for your help.
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The passage of some time hasn't helped me get anything definite together on big band. The approach of well-informed editors writing things from their own perspective and then adding a few Notes at the bottom is still encountered, but it's not good enough these days – inline citations are required (I prefer the inline-for-every-sentence method). The current article is mostly history. It needs to start with what a big band is, instead of history. Some of the current history section is a fine overview – brief descriptions of the music and personnel and changes over time – but it drifts into a broader history of jazz at times instead of keeping to the big band topic itself. I favour a more international perspective too: not a separate section, but built in to the main structure. The Radio and movies section is just history II, so could be integrated into the main history sections. Final comment: when there's almost no inline citing, the options are... try to find some that fit, or get rid of all of it and start again. EddieHugh (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to have every sentence sourced but not with a footnote on each line. The way I was taught, long ago, was that a footnote at the end of a paragraph accounts for the whole paragraph. The addition of other sources to the same paragraph changes things, but I still don't like to see every sentence end in a citation. But I don't see that often. Quite the opposite. Often I come upon long sections of text that lack inline citations.

My first interest is America. If it were up to me, there would be a separate Wikipedia for the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia. Someone will else will have to globalize the entry if that's what they want.

It's difficult to avoid drifting into the entire history of jazz. I've been trying to avoid that. But covering big bands means covering the big band era, the swing era from 1920 to 1950, more or less. What do you mean when you distinguish between history and what a big band is? Existing material which I didn't add goes past those decades to the present in discussing different kinds of big bands. Do you want to see that? I might say something about Maria Schneider, Gordon Goodwin, or other contemporary bands, including WDR, which doesn't have its own page. I plan to add more about Benny Goodman, Duke Ellington, and Glenn Miller and stop there. It's a historical approach that comes naturally to me and naturally to an encyclopedia. There's a lot of ground to cover, and I've tried to write concisely for many reasons. I dislike long entries. I dislike sitting at the computer and scrolling through long stretches of text. I try to make a point, then move on. It's tough here, of course, because of the subject. It's always a good idea to keep the audience in mind, and we live in a time of short-attention spans. Everyone, it seems, is pressed for time. Perhaps emoji are signs that we are devolving to hieroglyphics. Too often on Wikipedia I see an indiscriminate accumulation of detail that does little more than provide material for Jeopardy and bar bets. Not that I have any against either, but there's a time and place. I put it all in my usual pedestrian prose on the assumption that some brilliant writer will come along and add mellifluous phrasing and airtight structure.
–Vmavanti (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I mean that the current article jumps straight into History of big bands without stating what big bands are (the lead does, but that should summarise the main text). i.e., structure it as define/describe first, then go into other aspects. More on different kinds of big bands is desirable. Stop at Goodman, Ellington, Miller... Dangerous! Miller (was) stopped in 1944, but the others continued with big bands for decades after that... You're right: it's difficult to know where to stop. I've mostly done biographies, which have a natural start and finish point. I began to take on the jazz article itself some time ago, but that's too big. One idea I had was to look at what other encyclopaedias have done on the same topic. EddieHugh (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of pages like this: Autumn in New York, As Time Goes By. However they started, they wind up an excuse for people to play Jeopardy and turn the article into a grocery list. I see many pages like this, with these lists, and to top it off a trivia section. Should they exist? Should each song in the list be sourced? Should the list exist at all? I can see an interest in certain songs. But many of these entries are so bad and have accumulated junk. Someone slaps a maintenance template on it, then someone like me comes along, wanting to clean it up but befuddled about what to do or where to start. It's like when someone goes to an accountant and dumps a box of paper, receipts, scraps, gum wrappers, and lint onto his desk and says, "Here, figure out my finances."
–Vmavanti (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

They're junk (that is, the lists are; the articles themselves are needed). Occasionally a lot of effort has been put in and some/all of the content is salvageable: 'Round Midnight (song) has a list of recordings of it by Monk; perhaps that could be kept somewhere, perhaps as a List article. I've created a few articles on compositions and have included the first recording, best known one(s) and sometimes some info on when it became more popular. As you point out, though, people come along and dump more versions in, turning an article that should be about a composition into a pointless list. I'd say that if a particular recording is genuinely of note (e.g., chart appearance, it made the song well known, 1st vocal version, changed how it was performed by later musicians) then mention it in the text; otherwise, cut cut cut. "Autumn in New York" must have been recorded thousands of times; listing them all / a near-random selection based on being by someone's favourite should be discouraged. EddieHugh (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

On the Wikiproject cleanup list, there are nineteen articles listed as having citations without titles. I've looked at them and scratched my head and worked on several without much success. Most of them come from old newspapers and magazines that I don't have access to. Any ideas how to handle these? Thanks.
–Vmavanti (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Possibilities that I know of:

• use a different template, see Help:CS1_errors#citation_missing_title
• don't use a template; change to the plain "ref" system (but mixing citation methods is generally not approved of)
• put in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request
• depending on the source, having a Wikipedia subscription to a newspaper archive could help. The sign-up system has changed, so I'm not sure how it works now, but it's here. EddieHugh (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I know you don't care much for lists, but I think readers might like to have a list of big bands. What we have now is a List of big bands and the category.

There are articles about bandleader and articles about their bands, sometimes both, sometimes one, making it difficult to have comprehensive list. Someone like Clark Terry led a big band for a short time, so there probably wouldn't be an article about his band, and there might not be a Big Band category at the bottom of his page. You see the problem. I've avoided categories since an administrator upbraided me for incorrectly editing his articles about New Jersey, specifically Rudy Van Gelder. So far, the most incendiary reaction I've gotten on Wikipedia, though being called a racist by saxophonist Robert Stewart is not far behind.
–Vmavanti (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That's not pleasant. I had a hack at the Stewart article recently; it's still bad, but the worst of the exaggeration has gone. You've confused me with "I think readers might like to have a list of big bands", given that there is a list of big bands. Do you mean a list of big band leaders? EddieHugh (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you know of any sensible, higher level, diplomatic administrators who can address the complaints by Mr Stewart? I've been under the impression that Amazon and CDbaby can't be used as sources. Ever. Isn't that correct?
–Vmavanti (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There may be some sort of emergency in which they could be used; I don't know 100% for sure. But choice of source is a minor matter in comparison with others regarding the article. I suggest contacting Ritchie333, who is an administrator with experience in music. Let me know if you need back up (although I'll probably notice anyway!). EddieHugh (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

EVIDENCE of collusion manifest indeed. I'll find a neutral administrator to deal with you two if the article about me isn't left alone and will use the obvious bias -& obsession of you two here as evidence. I have copied this talk page to my computer. Professor Reason

Professor Reason (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

You've got me: it's all true! We are biased... in favour of producing articles that are neutral, properly sourced and follow the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. It's not an obsession, but our actions are based on supporting and applying these fundamentals. EddieHugh (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Over 100 source citations by me is evidence supreme. You chopped up verbatim quotes for your personal reasons - biases, not for factual or neutral purposes. You fool no one sir, so please just don't read the article if you dislike the writing there. I promise to forget about you as well. Thanks Professor Reason (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Picking just a single example, you think that it's fine to change a source from "Stewart is at heart a lyrical and melodic improviser" to "This recording was also well received by jazz critics; one even described Stewart as 'the most lyrical and melodic saxophone improviser of his generation'". I don't think that it's fine and neither does Wikipedia policy. EddieHugh (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I changed that one word to "one" rather than "the" as was relayed in my edit summary. You removed whole paragraphs & chopped up verbatim quotes as the edit history shows. So, I've solicited a neutral administrator of whom I relayed the following:

Hello Wikipedia Administrator,

I've been trying for days now to reason with an editor. He's obsessed with removing my actual fact history as one of the premier saxophonist in jazz. Two previous editors approved my article Robert Stewart (saxophonist) almost a year ago now. EddieHugh has come and attempted to delete most of my actual fact history with over 100 citations in the article as evidence. My talk page is filled with my attempts to reason with him and resolve without issue. But, I need the help of an authority as soon as possible. I sincerely thank you for your time. Professor Reason (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Wish this didn't have to be this way for the record. Professor Reason (talk) 01:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing in the source to justify "one of the most" or "the most", and you've repeatedly reinserted it as a direct quote. That's wrong. I'm not going to repeat here all of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that you have broken, even after being told about them and showing that you understand them. When an editor chooses to ignore them, despite consensus, there are three possible outcomes: a) argue successfully for changes to the policies so that they match what you want; b) abide by the policies; or c) get blocked. You've shown no inclination to abide by policy and a) is not likely. I too wish it wasn't the way it is, especially because it doesn't have to be, but your actions are your choice. EddieHugh (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Vmavanti, on sourcing, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources has: "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available." So, they're not 100% forbidden, but they're only for basic information about a product, if anything. EddieHugh (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Another autobiography?? Arlen Roth article is quite promotional. Or was. There's a red link "Arlenroth" in the View History, but that's not a certainty. Regardless, maybe you can take a look. I worked on it last night but the time was getting late. Thanks.
–Vmavanti (talk) 05:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Starting another conspiracy? All (almost all? I haven't checked every one) of the edits by that user are to the Arlen Roth article or involve adding something about AR to another article. The info is probably true, but unsourced. This upload that he did shows that it is him: "asked my daughter to take this picture with my camera"... No COI notification on the article's talk page. Do you want to put a link to Wikipedia:Autobiography on his user talk page? EddieHugh (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I put an autobiography link on his Talk Page.
–Vmavanti (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

How should long discographies as sideman be handled? Deodato has 1,866 credits at AllMusic. Dave Grusin has 2,477. Do you want me to choose what I think are the most important, which I sometimes know, sometimes not. Do you want me to pick a few by the major acts? Draw names out of a hat? How should I cut down the territory? I find long pages at Wikipedia overwhelming and discouraging to the reader.
–Vmavanti (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean when creating a table/list of them? If that, then the ultimate goal is to include everything. If it's a prose summary as part of a biography, then I look for patterns, long relationships and anything unusual, and mention those to try to impose some order while highlighting some interesting things. EddieHugh (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Brexit shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Seriously? You jump in with an undiscussed revert of another editor's changes, then revert him again without discussion, and warn me about reverting without consensus?? Specifically which of my explained and/or talk page discussed edits are you referring to? EddieHugh (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I've read the documentation over and over and still am unclear about how to resolve vandalism from an IP address user. I know I'm supposed to warn them, but I'm not sure how. I ended up creating some page and putting a template of some kind, but I'm not sure that was right. Would you contact the proper administrator to put an end to obvious, juvenile vandalism at Paul Murphy (musician)? This idiot has been doing it since November 10. Thanks.
–Vmavanti (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Finding policy on anything usually involves going round in circles, getting ever more confused. IP or registered is just the same, as far as I know. Just pick one of the templates at WP:WARNVAND, picking a more serious one if it happens again. If it happens again, you warn again, then it happens again, post at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and the IP will be blocked. I've added a middling one, as yours won't have been seen yet. EddieHugh (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. Would you take a look at the Randy Napoleon page? My edits keep getting reverted by someone who is obviously a fan and wants to a have a long section of cheerleading about their favorite musician, i.e. many quotes from reviews saying how great Randy Napoleon is. My favorite is the one in untranslated Hungarian.
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I started a section on the talk page. It looks like lots was dumped on the page but that it's being changed. Not enough though yet, and there are now 4 bits of non-English! Wait and see. EddieHugh (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I am reverting your removal of the reference to the disenfranchised in the referendum result table. This is a valid statistic with direct relevance to the result of the referendum. It may be unusual, but undemocratic totalitarian states excepted, it is unusual for western democracies to disenfranchise their citizens, wherever they live and for however long.Lkingscott (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote there, you should raise the matter on that article's talk page if you want it to be kept. Finding a more WP:NPOV way of presenting the information (eg, in the Eligibility section, not in the table of results) is a possible way forward. EddieHugh (talk) 11:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree otherwise I would not have reverted the reversion. By putting the disenfranchised together with the other results shows most clearly the potential scale that the referendum was affected. If the information is added elsewhere, the results would need to be copied in order to show the possible scale of bias that the disenfranchisement may have caused. This would unnecessarily enlarge the page and also unnecessarily duplicate information.Lkingscott (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:EddieHugh. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 2010

←

Archive 2015

Archive 2016

Archive 2017

Archive 2018

Archive 2019

Archive 2020