Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV Problems with recording guideline

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This policy appears to be biased against classical recordings by raising the bar far beyond the standards for inclusion for recordings from other genres. This leaves an inexplicable gap in content within the encyclopedia and is not in keeping with the criteria at WP:N or WP:Notability (music). I advocate removing the criteria altogether and following the standards of notability for music. This is the most neutral position.4meter4 (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone suggest a wording for the section in question? It was introduced on 2 November 2011, so one solution would simply be to remove it again. After all, this is a guideline on style, not on notability. Another approach would be to have one sentence in the section "Recordings", below the See also line: For notability requirements of recordings, see WP:NALBUMS., and remove the backlink at that section. The section about how to title articles on recordings could probably stay. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the entire sub-section Notability of recordings should be removed from Recordings. These "criteria", which, unlike WP:NALBUM, are not an official an official guideline at all. The See also suggestion could be placed just below the Recordings heading with the other links after the removal. Voceditenore (talk) 11:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would still posit --- for most typical classical recordings what info could be added to them to make them proper articles? Info on the music itself should be in an article about the music (which would include what'd be the tracklist). Production stuff is unlikely to matter (there are cases where it does, but not for most). So you're left with effectively a compilation of reviews. The issue here is less about notability and more about feasibility. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply WhatamIdoing, my biggest problem with this, is even the concept that this wikiproject has the authority to impose notability policy at all per WP:CREEP, and that the consequences of such policies is leading to a significant gap in coverage in classical albums which are covered in other reference works. For example, The Metropolitan Opera Guide to Recorded Opera is a reference work for opera recordings. Discography lists simply don't cover critical reviews in the way that reference works like this do. There are other resources of this type, and if other kinds of reference works are covering this subject wikipedia should too (a foundational principal of WP:N). In short, this policy is not following three of the Five Pillars: 1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (by not allowing content contained in other reference works) 2. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view (by holding Classical Albums to a different standard leaving a coverage gap in this area through systemic bias) 3. Wikipedia has no firm rules (by imposing arbitrary standards created by a small group that are contrary to broadly supported policy and guidelines encyclopedia wide. WP:NALBUM is the policy, and an essay drafted by a WikiProject should never have been allowed to subvert that policy; nor is an essay the place or proper forum to propose said policy changes.4meter4 (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside from the rationale above, consider the Grammy Award winning album Joyce & Tony - Live From Wigmore Hall. The album contains some original arrangements by Antonio Pappano, it features multiple artists of note (both who earned the Grammy), and features multiple works by multiple composers, so it doesn't really fit well in the context of a composition article or composer article. Further writing repetitive material in both biographies would not be ideal, nor would providing too much info on the album in there biographies be ideal in order to not give the album and award win too much undue weight when considering the achievement in context to the rest of their highly successful and busy careers. The best place for discussing the music is in the album itself in the context of critical reviews. The fact that it won the highest prize awarded in recorded music makes it notable to the public at large, the history of recorded music, and makes it a likely subject someone would come to wikipedia to read about. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • 4meter4, this isn't a "notability policy" at all. We don't technically have any of those, but assuming you meant "notability guideline" (of which we have approximately a zillion), this isn't one of those, either. It's just one of many Wikipedia:WikiProject advice pages. This group (just like any individual editor) gets to give its advice, and others get to decide whether to accept that advice. Do you think that Joyce & Tony - Live From Wigmore Hall fits any of the criteria recommended on this advice page?
        (The "NPOV" analogy is interesting, but it doesn't hold up; NPOV only applies to individual articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is why I've been reluctant to chime in in support of this change, even though I've been watching this discussion, and agree with the spirit of the "Support" comments. As a non-enforceable essay, this page is pretty harmless, so as someone who's not a member of the WikiProject Classical music community, it feels a little mean-spirited of me to try to come in and force them to change their advice page.
        On the other hand, there's certainly a risk that someone linked to this page from a discussion might see the word "notability" and assume that it's an official notability guideline (that was my initial experience). The fact that it's currently linked to in a hatnote from WP:NALBUM might also confer some aura of official-ness. Colin M (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's a definite risk as we have seen in this current round of AFDs en mass with this essay cited as the reason for deletion in dozens of articles (some of them Grammy winners or nominees). At the very least, this essay should not have a hatnote at WP:NALBUM, and I suggest that the essay here should not hint that critical reviews alone can not lend notability, because they in fact do by the established policy per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. That's just blatantly lying stating otherwise. It would be fine writing an essay to encourage people to create discography pages over album pages and stating editorial reasons why, but the project certainly can't prohibit or stop people from creating album articles on notable topics (which was the purpose by the authors of this essay). The other thing to consider, is that sometimes the recording is notable as a recording for the history of recorded music beyond just the history of the work being recorded. Anything nominated or winning a Grammy Award, the most prestigious prize in recorded music, is a notable recording. It deserves an article. Raising the bar to three wins (I can't even name three major awards in recorded classical music that are competitive off the top of my head), is an impossible standard of achievement. 4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The point behind notability isn't about what "deserves" an article. The first point is whether we can write a whole article (one that says rather more about the album than "It won an award" or "Critic Carol liked it"), and the second point is whether writing a separate article is the best way to get information to readers. See WP:WHYN for a long expalnation.
            Were you aware that the recommendation is to meet (at least) one of the criteria listed, not all of them? If the album meets the first one, then it doesn't need to win any awards or make a significant musical or historical contribution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reviews are the only sources for 'Joyce & Tony - Live From Wigmore Hall.4meter4 (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Track listings, critical reception, and other content that can be gleaned from reviews are all a part of recommendations for album articles, and are included in albums which have reached featured article status and have appeared on the main page of wikipedia. This kind of content belongs in an article on the album and not in a discography. For more information take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and their policies.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, track listings are often quite pointless for classical albums. Two symphonies on a disc...."1. Allegro" doesn't tell anyone anything, and the article about the work would already have this info. It's especially egregious in the case of an opera or ballet or whatever where you might have 2+ discs of info that tell you nothing because, well, given it's a recording of said opera of course the tracklist will be aproximately like that. An album like the Joyce & Tony one you mention is different, for sure, as it seems just from the title to be be a concert recording of a recital, which is honestly more like a pop album in the first place (it might be a full on hardcore classical album, but even if it is, the structure would be the same in a sense). Critical reception is obvious, but...you can't make an article on JUST critical reception. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A page that consists largely of the name of an album, the names of the people (or groups) involved, and the track listing is not "a whole article". How many paragraphs, consisting of consecutive, grammatically complete sentences, do you think you could write about the albums that you want to include? How many independent sources do you think you could cite? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Classical music awards is largely for compositions and live performance, and not recordings. Additionally, many of these awards are regional, and not openly competitive to works outside of their set region. Finding three awards competitively available within a single region is difficult, thus making three wins practically impossible for many recorded artists.4meter4 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal and defer to WP:NALBUM, per Michael Bednarek.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosboot (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal Good grief, that bar is way too high, and it is in a place not meant to be a house for a notability standard. If there is any need to create criteria for art-music recordings specifically, such criteria can be added at NMUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chubbles, are you sure about that? The first recommendation is basically the GNG, which I don't think is too high for any subject. It may not be clear at a glance that you only have to meet one of the multiple options. For example, 4meter4 is concerned about a single award not being enough, but since there are other options, zero awards is sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. The GNG should, in general, be the most restrictive notability test for a subject-specific guideline, but the other requirements strike me as even more stringent. I doubt any recording would be able to reach the level of 2 or 3 without also meeting the GNG anyway, which would make them superfluous. Chubbles (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: an SNG can never be used to exclude a subject that meets GNG. An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult. This guideline is not lowering but raising the standard which it can and should not do.4meter4 (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The exact relationship between SNGs and the GNG is a matter of ongoing debate. I happen to disagree with User:Dodger67 when the question is about businesses, products, and living people, but to agree with his view when the question is about things like geographical features. But that's largely irrelevant, because this page isn't an SNG – or any other kind of guideline. It's just the opinion of one group of editors, and is in no way binding on anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's "basically the GNG", except that it doesn't count significant coverage in reliable secondary sources if that coverage is in the form of a critical review, because of... reasons. This is a pretty significant restriction - many articles on Wikipedia about albums, films, and other creative works cite no significant, independent RS coverage but reviews (including popular, mainstream creative works that most people would consider obviously notable). Not necessarily because other WP:SIGCOV doesn't exist, but reviews tend to be the easiest to find, and most of the other standard sections for such articles (plot summary, cast, track list, commercial performance) will tend to come from primary sources. Colin M (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pinging me. I have nothing to add to this conversation, other than saying that ever since the 2011 brouhahas (including the one over the so-called "Moonlight Sonata"), I've felt strongly that with relatively negligible overlap, classical and pop are different animals, and ought to have separate policies relating to them. My user page outlines some of my thinking at that time, before I gave up on worrying about classical music here.

Off-topic for this present discussion, but relevant to the Moonlight Sonata fight, I've also always thought that for a project calling itself an encyclopedia, the common name stricture is misguided; that correct official names should be used for most article titles, with as many redirects as might be useful for finding any article. Users might even learn something that way. (But I do have to say that Wikipedia is a far better project than Wictionary, which while it does have its uses, its contents are all either plagiarism or original research.)
I'm not sure whether User:Gerda Arendt has been pinged, but I suspect she may be interested in this discussion; perhaps User:Kleinzach as well. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support removal, per many, unfair to mention one ;) - Thanks for the ping, glad to see your sig! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal as it is a rogue opinion to rule out independent secondary sources such as reviews. It has been cited in recent AFDs and dismissed, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. Wikipedia has nine albums in the category "Sex Pistols Compilation ALbums", but the opera recordings category doesn't have a single entry from Barber, Beethoven, Bellini, Britten, Donizetti, Dvořák, Gluck, Handel, Janacek, Poulenc, Purcell, Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Saint-Saëns, Smetana, Tchaikovsky, Wagner or Weber.Niggle1892 (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal and defer to the wider ALBUMS and GNG standards. This “RS reviews are not good enough” is not consistent with...any standards for any mediums like this (Music in general, video games, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal

[edit]

I have proposed that this article not be put in a hatnote at WP:NALBUM. Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Proposal to permanently remove hatnote to Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings section in guideline

[edit]

I initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions. Please participate there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

[edit]

I am mystified as to why this small section of biographical articles has been deemed to be without infoboxes, given most other biographical articles now have them. It is particularly important we now have them because it has been decided that postnominal letters should be removed from the first line. Thus, the infobox is the only place where these important pieces of information (certainly for British and Commonwealth figures) can still be shown. I'm afraid that I fail to see why infoboxes seem so unpopular with members of this project when they are pretty much universal elsewhere. Claiming that consensus needs to be reached on each article seems to be going completely against what is now standard Wikipedia practice and, as I have said, is now resulting in the deletion of information. This really does need to be re-examined. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines&oldid=1260773711"