Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43

Looking For Help!

Hello Everyone on the WikiProject Composers

I hope all of you are doing wonderful dorin these quite bizarre times we're living. I'm new in WP and I'm looking for help to make the best contributions to WP adding articles about successful composer. To explain a little, classical music—as I know you know—is a very complex field when it comes to race. As Dr. Ewall has pointed out in his most recent research, there is an ubiquitous structure in the field of white predominance and power that has created a frame powerful enough to displace and deny the participation of women, composers of color, and non cysgender non heternormative artists. As a lover of classical music I would like to contribute to this issue with research and articles about composers of color and women composers of color that have been incredibly successful despite this white-frame. Part of this issue is that this frame has permeated inside every single aspect that we know of classical music, one of them being the WP:Composers parameters, giving editors a strict and white-frame standards to accept or deny an article. This, obviously is no editor's fault nor responsability, but once the issue is raised up, and all of us become educated in the matter, then change should be enacted. For example, the parameters established by WP unconsciously established a frame that can be achieve in a streamline manner by white composers. This presents a conflict for successful and noteworthy composers of color. One example is my recent article for Puerto Rican composer Draft:Iván Enrique Rodríguez. The article is currently awaiting review but it was originaly rejected, first because it needed editing, but then the editor decided not to approve it and leave it for others to review as they believed it didn't matched the WP:Composer paramenters. That said, despite all the historic and racist detractors, that compsoer has achieved a noteworthy career. I plan to keep adding artists like this, but I ask of your help and of the editors here to come by my article and make it better if you can, and even accept it if you have the power to do so. This will begin a snowball effect that, in the classical music worls, will be more important than just an article in a platform. Given our current research dependency on the internet, this will begin an equalizing movement in the field, plus educational and encyclopedic information that will permeate in academia for the diversity and inclusion of those that have been negated based on consious and unconsious racism.

I really hope I can count on your help!!!!

Blessings! MahlerLover (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@MahlerLover: Well firstly, I found the study from Dr. Ewell that you shared quite educating and enjoyable. I will admit that I am mostly unfamiliar with these “Composer criteria” as I don’t normally create new articles for modern composers. That being said, there is more to the decision over an article’s inclusion than those criteria, I would advise you to read through wikipedia:Notability. In doing so you may find it hard to rationalize that I Iván Enrique Rodríguez has received “significant coverage”. To that point, I think your use of his article rejection as an example of systematic bias is an unfit one, there are numerous issues with the article. Just looking at the current article, not the former revisions, there are no references for the “partial list of works” (which should probably be called “selected list of works), the are no references for his marriage (and frankly the fact that you know that information, seemingly without a reference - makes me suspect you may have a close connection with the subject) the references for his “vocality against systematic racism” are an article written by the subject and one from the subject’s website (not secondary sources), almost half the education section is unreferenced and the other half is from a blog (not a reliable source) that doesn’t cover almost any of the information there, some of the awards are unsourced (others seemed to be sourced above) and are in the opposite order etc. Besides this, the article is on a composer who is still a student and seems to have been active for maybe 7 years, receiving his first major commission in what seems like 2 years ago. This being said, I would not be surprised if in 2 or 3 years this composer would have notability beyond any doubt, but at the moment the article’s issues, along with the concern for notability make his inclusion on WP unlikely — and frankly, I’m somewhat baffled that you would attempt to draw connections to systematic bias when in this specific case, the connections are vague and would benefit from further explanation. In any case, you seem to be tangling two rather different concerns. There is no doubt as to the racial disparity and bias in virtually every aspect of contemporary classical music (composition, theory, musicology, performance etc.) but the composer criteria, from a first glance, seem appropriately broad, and if anything I would say they allow too much inclusion. Once agin though, giving more specific concerns would help, but since we base our entries off what the reliable sources deem as notable, if reliable sources have little information on a subject, (even as a result of systematic bias) there’s little we can do about that. Aza24 (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I think Aza24's suspicion that the OP may have a close connection with the subject seems correct: see Draft talk:Iván Enrique Rodríguez#Hello! I Count With Your Help. To the issue: Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Rodríguez does not seem to me to meet WP:NOTABLE. Er.....that's it. If an editor has problems with WP guidelines, this talkpage is not the place to take them up. I see that User:MahlerLover has published his article anyway, despite his urgent call for our assistance. (Iván Enrique Rodríguez). It has no reliable secondary sources, which is a key element for WP bios, and seems to me to be a simple attempt at promo/publicity and a candidate for deletion.--Smerus (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Aza24:, @Michael Bednarek:, and @Smerus:, First of all, thank you for your comments. I want to believe you're having good intentions when you write all of this. All your responses, in all honesty, does not surprize me at all. More so coming from the Composers Wikipoject—as I know you all must be music aficionados, music historians, musicologists or professional musicians and are all part of the established frame. To address all of your concearns:

  1. No, I do not have any connection with the subject.
    • The information I know about the subject, I know out of research, TV interviews in Puerto Rico, Podcast interviews and what I believed were secondary sources, which aparently were not.
  2. The call I made was not an Urgent call for assitance but rather a camaraderie message as I thought, given where we are today in equality issues, people in the artistic and academic artistic world (which usually tend to lean towards a more equal-rights-for-all mentality), would understand and move toward the changing tide. I am deeply sorry, I was wrong.
  3. I is not for promotional intentions, and this is where I can almost assume most of the commenst come from white folks...
    • I am sure, given the foregudment you've addressed this entry with, there will be no evidence I could provide that would satify your desires. That said, I would love to express my intentions as I believe they should be heard (even if they end up not being).
    • I can start with today's NYTimes article The Few, the Proud, the White: The Marine Corps Balks at Promoting Generals of Color. This article surmises pretty well the different standard to which white people hold non-white people in the different fields. In addition to that, as I presented earlier, Dr. Ewall most recent research, if read carefuly, will reveal to you the reasons why these changes should be made and why I wanted to beging my project on composers of color (that, given the reckoning in music, I understand why would it receive detractors). In addition to that, Dr. Ewall presents more of his research in layman terms in his blog Confronting Racism and Sexism in American Music Theory. So, to answer Aza24's bafflement over my comment earlier:
      • The standards that this community, and frankly all communities, come from the white frame.(Please refer to Dr. Ewall's article on White Frame)
      • The white frame is inherently, consiously, and unconsioulsy designed to advance white people and diminish, distract, or divalue any other non-white contributor.
      • When you present your reasons of why this non-white composer should not be accepted or it can't be recognize despite their achievements
        • White-frame is ignored because, the white frame is ontologically the obstacle and it is invisible to the white eyes or it creates threat to the white reader unless they subject has proven far beyond what they need to prove to create inevitability in the argument.
      • All the composers, such as Awilda Villarini, John Gerardo Rivera Pico, Alfonso Fuente, Juan José Aguayo, etc.) that I have researched to be included will face the same issue as they are composers of color and will shake the white-frame's mentality on what a composer should be.
      • The achievements presented for Rodríguez, after beeing seen thorugh the eyes of a person of color that has experienced the detractors, are most definitely note worthy, given the evidence provided in the article. I understand that for a white composers or a white reader that might seem preposterous but, I honestly don't pretend to convince anyone.

To continue with the assessment of righting great wrongs, that was never the intention. I honestly believe Rodríguez and the other composers should be heard, read, and most definitley recorded in WP, but I threw some camaradery posts as I was sure these same arguments you're presenting would be presented. I appologize again, I though the community was further along.

I understand where all of you are coming from and you can recommend to delete the article, cancel me (as we hear so much in the media today), of whatever you need to do. I believe on what I researched, I know we need a change and I am sure Rodríguez as well as the other composers that I have researched, should be here. But I can't force anyone to see through the eyes of who they opress (even when they don't know they are doing so. As I read today on a meme (from all places) "Racism exists even if you don't consider yourself a racist, White priviledge exists even if you don't perceive it"

I truly and honestly appreciate all of your comments. I would never put in doubt your intentions to make WP the greatest place it can be. But I also believe my side of the story should be put here even if unheard, of even if your minds are unchangeably made up against it. I am sure I'll receive backlash from you for this and I'm sure you'll tell me how can I possibly link this to racism or I don't have sources or that that is not the case as non of you are focsing on racial matters, just pure unbiased content, and to that I would respond, "Read Dr. Ewell with an open mind." But for this case, I won't argue anything more as listening is not done to respond but to understand. You can do as you deem necesarry, I think I am giving up for now... Perhaps this is not the place...

Again, thank you so much and I honesly hope I didn't offended you. And if I did I appologye deeply and with all honesty. I wish you the best. MahlerLover (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:TLDR – I stopped at "noteworthy" which isn't considered at Wikipedia; WP:NOTABILITY, as supported by independent and reputable sources, is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Michael Bednarek: I know and I expected, given the White Frame, for it to not be seen as important. Don’t worry. I don’t know if you live in the US, but I do, so I’m totally used to be taken as unimportant or as a second class citizen. I don’t blame you as you’re probably white and oblivious to the facts. I do appreciate the few comments that were made with constructive intentions. I wish you well. And please excuse my use of “noteworthy.” I meant with that that given fairness and objectives considering ALL elements in question, it qualifies under WP:NOTABILITY, independent and reputable. MahlerLover (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

What every it is that the OP is proposing, they stop with personal attacks and general assumptions. "I don’t blame you as you’re probably white and oblivious to the facts." and "and this is where I can almost assume most of the commenst come from white folks..." – what makes you think people responding are "white"? I do not fall into the category of "white" and I shouldn't have to say that for you to to assume that I'm not "oblivious to the facts". Your need to insert race into this conversation as a weapon against the responders is unproductive and helps no one. Aza24 (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi @MahlerLover:. I think you bring up a great point about equity in the world of classical music; there are not many non-white male "classical" composers in the world, and those who do exist often get far less credit than they are due. However, though I support your intentions fully, I'm not sure that what you intend to do here in WikiProject Composers is possible, nor am I entirely clear on what your plan is. There are notability guidelines specific to musicians, but all issues of notability stem to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which state that all articles have to be based on reliable, independent sources. Now, if you're suggesting that there is likely a bias against non-white male composers in that less information is available on them in the world at large, I agree with you, and I think it's a problem that needs addressing. However, here at Wikipedia, there's nothing we can do about that. As Wikipedia is a tertiary source and cannot contain original research, its foundation is the use of reputable, independent sources, and to change this guideline would undermine the project on the whole. I believe we should try to increase the diversity of composer articles on Wikipedia, but we can only do so to an extent to which existing secondary sources allow us. What changes are you specifically proposing be made? Noahfgodard (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Noahfgodard:, First of all, thanks for being so kind and understanding with your comment. I know once the white frame is challenged and, with it those who wholeheartedly believe in it without any ill intentions, responses tend to feel ‘’ad hominem’’ which is not the case as, there is no such thing as “inserting race” in the argument, when the whole system is a racialized system in the first place. So @Aza24: please forgive me if you understood the argument as attacking you or myself as assuming something about you. I intentionally used a generalized-non-all-encomapsing term because I do know not everyone against the needed change in classical music and how classical music is seen is white. My uncle is a wonderful example as he is not white but he was definitely a assimilationist.

Anyhow, dear Noahfgodard, I appreciate your kindness immensely. I know its long but I copied bellow part of Dr. Ewall’s paper. It is focused on music theory, but I’m sure you can connect and see the parallel with what we’re talking about. I please ask you to read it carefully to see what he recommends. That makes clear how, in this case, we deem sources useful or not, based on the internalized and, sadly Racialized system. This is a complex matter, and I don’t intend to offend anyone. I keep apologizing constantly. But there are truths that should be spoken about. Let me know what you think...

7. Speaking with the White Racial Frame

[7.1] In order to create awareness of the difficult issues surrounding our white frame, we must be mindful of, and push back against, the language of the white racial frame and white privilege. There are many standard racialized ways that the white frame addresses racial problems in music theory. We must not allow such racialized positions to go unchallenged. In the following points I alert the reader to the most basic tropes.

[7.2] “If music theory is so flawed, what would you have us replace it with?” This is a deceptive tactic. By switching immediately to a discussion of alternatives, the white frame seeks to change the subject. First there must be a reckoning with respect to the white racial frame, and a rigorous analysis of its effects. Further, no one person should be responsible to offer an alternative to centuries of white racial framing.

[7.3] “We would love to have another [insert nonwhite person type here] music theorist, but we just don’t see any really qualified candidates.” This white racial frame credo accomplishes two goals: it makes the person feel righteous for seeming open minded and interested in racial diversity, yet it maintains the status quo. There is an unspoken second part to this statement: “ . . . qualified candidates, who conform to my white racial frame views of what music theory is and should be.” Also, beware of the usage of editorial “we” in cases like this. If appropriate, insist that your interlocutor speak only for themself.

[7.4] “We will judge the qualifications of this candidate (or dissertation, article, proposal, etc.) based solely on the merits of the case—race has nothing to do with it.” This brings up what Patricia Matthew (2016, 8) calls the “false meritocracy” of academia or what Bonilla-Silva ([2003] 2018, 60ff) calls “A Meritocratic Way of Defending White Privilege.” This statement also makes the white racial frame feel righteous—after all, they will only look at the candidates’ merits, and nothing else. But, as Matthew writes, “There has yet to be a denial of tenure that begins, ‘We are denying Candidate X tenure because she is Hispanic’ or ‘Because Professor X is Black, we’d rather not grant him a lifetime appointment’” (14), which is a beautiful way of saying that the “merits” of any candidate are more about how they are defined and interpreted, and not that objective. Ask yourself why these “merits” have, with remarkable consistency, yielded and benefitted whites (and males) above all others. For example, one study from Matthew’s book, on tenure cases at the University of Southern California from 1998 to 2012, showed that, of 106 Assistant Professors going up for tenure at USC in the social sciences and humanities, 91% of white male professors received tenure while only 55% of all others did (269–75). Clearly, the white males were not 91/55 times more meritorious than their nonwhite-nonmale counterparts. Also, these false meritocracies represent perfect examples of colorblind racism in their avoidance of racial terminology and how they make invisible this particular mechanism that produces racial inequality (Bonilla-Silva [2003] 2018, 18). Finally, I point out that how music theory deals with this false meritocracy relates to the white frame mistaken belief that the best scholarship in music theory rises to the top of the field in meritocratic fashion, irrespective of the author’s race.

[7.5] “But that’s not really music theory, is it?” Who gets to decide what music theory is? Since the beginnings of American music theory, it has been white (and male) persons. It stands to reason that, if you hear this saying, you are hearing someone critique something that does not conform to music theory’s white racial frame. You are also listening to someone who likely believes that they hold the key to defining music theory, which they do not.

[7.6] “This theoretical concept (or analytical method/device, a composer’s music, a theory journal’s focus) has nothing to do with race whatsoever.” The short retort to this statement should always be, “no, actually, it has quite a bit to do with race.” And it always has.

[7.7] “I do not see race.” Stephen Colbert, during Colbert Report days, would use this line as a trope when he had people of color on his show as guests, and follow it up with a joke: “I don’t see race: people tell me I’m white because I have a late-night talk show,” or “I don’t see race: people tell me I’m white because I listen to a lot of rap.” The beauty of Colbert is how he realizes the ridiculousness of saying “I do not see race.”

[7.8] “I’d love to help you out [with this antiracist position], but music theory is just not quite ready for it. I agree with you [person promoting antiracism], but I have to think of the field first.” In response to this sentiment Martin Luther King coined the phrase, “the fierce urgency of now.” MahlerLover (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@MahlerLover: When Aza24 used the phrase "inserting race", I think they were referring to your unfair comments toward User:Michael Bednarek; both Aza and I have explained that we agree with your point that there is an inherent racial and gender bias in the contemporary classical music world. However, we have also both explained that there is nothing we can do on Wikipedia beyond what we can do with existing sources. I appreciate your sharing of the article, but while it brings up many ideological points, you have yet to provide any explanation for the changes you would like to see made on Wikipedia. If an article on a non-white male composer can be written based on reliable, independent sources, then I absolutely hope it is written, and I would be glad to contribute. However, we cannot allow for flexibility in this rule for the sake of diversity. Whether sufficient evidence on a composer exists is far beyond our control. Noahfgodard (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Again @Noahfgodard: thanks for your explanation. My point is that, as an academic myself, and as a POC, I know I’m held to a different standard when it comes to publishing what WP (and frankly the generalized White Frame environment) deems as reliable sources. So, we have to move to means of publishing that are are challenged here because, the original system for the creation of sources was initially racilized. Therefore, when it comes to sources that bring to evidence the life and career of POC, they have to be seen and understood differently. Noahfgodard, us POC are not wanted anywhere... and the very few that achieve creating sources under the White Frame, do so with immense challenge and obstacles. Hence I believe that seeing and accepting usable evidence for articles in WP has to be addressed differently, through the looking glass of “perhaps is not Cambridge Press or JSTOR, but everything said is traceable and provable,” because the door for us to access the “secondary source” or “independent source” under the frame of WP is significantly smaller than for those who access white privilege.

I really hope I made sense with my response. And again, I apologize if I said anything hurtful. You know, text is so impersonal also. If you would see my face talking you would know I intend no hurt nor unfairness. :) MahlerLover (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@MahlerLover: I understand and respect your perspective, but I think you somewhat misinterpret what I mean. An "independent", "secondary" source does not have to be Cambridge Press or JSTOR, but it cannot be a composer's website. The most important thing here is that these concepts in themselves are, at least conceptually, objective. Whether or not the topic of an article is connected to a source is not a perspective that can be biased based on race (or any other factor); either is is or is not. This is not to say that editors cannot and do not show racial bias at times, but notability is a fairly concrete concept most of the time. And no worries; I believe you meant no harm. Noahfgodard (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I speak Spanish, have no involvement that I can recall with this WikiProject, and am frequently asked to review Spanish-language articles, including Spanish-language music articles. I was asked to look in here, and what I find is not good. Presented as an issue of systemic bias about composers, what I see instead is a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy and guideline to an extent that borders on disruptive editing. The draft at Iván Enrique Rodríguez was declined by DGG on very good reasons apart from the alleged notability issue raised here, and yet the OP moved this very poor article to mainspace themselves, anyway. It has numerous problems, including that the first three Spanish-language sources I checked do not verify the text cited. I think the racial and gender bias issues raised here are a red herring, and not the point at all. MahlerLover needs a better understanding of WP:P&G if they intend to claim this bias exists in the notability guidelines. I don't even know what to suggest about cleaning up the mess at the Rodriguez article, except that perhaps MahlerLover would be better served to spend time at es.Wikipedia to learn more about Wikipedia. What I usually find when new editors make these kinds of arguments is that they just aren't using sources correctly, and I can usually establish notability by searching the Spanish language literature, but I'm unwilling to take on improvements to an article that was declined at AFC and moved to mainspace anyway. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Userbox?

Is there currently a userbox for this project? Noahfgodard (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No, as far as I'm aware. Feel free to make one :) Aza24 (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
This user is a member of
WikiProject Composers.
Pretty straightforward, but how does that look for a start? Noahfgodard (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I choose Beethoven mostly for the popularity/recognizability of that painting, but let me know if you have any other suggestions for images. Noahfgodard (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
In terms of recognizability, I would agree Beethoven is our best bet – looks good to me! We can add it to the project page in due time if no others have any issues with it. Aza24 (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Nice idea. Maybe we could change the composer annually according to anniversaries....--Smerus (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
That would be cool - and easy to do since it looks like the Choral Wiki keeps nice lists of anniversaries. Their list for 2021 shows the 50th anniversary for Stravinsky, 100th for Saint-Saëns and 500ths for Josquin! Aza24 (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Nice! - kosboot (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Great idea(s)! I've hosted the userbox at Template:User WPComposers, and it now has a parameter that automatically puts users into the member category (thanks for the idea, Aza24). I think Stravinsky would be a great option for next year, both because he has a fairly iconic look, and because, well ... he's Stravinsky, after all. Noahfgodard (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
On another note - for the time being, I set the color to that of the WikiProject Classical Music userbox, but it would be nice to have a different color to identify this project. That being said, I have very little eye for such things, so if anyone would like to pick a color, that would be much apprecited. Noahfgodard (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD

List of historical sites associated with Ludwig van Beethoven up for deletion here. Aza24 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I hope this is a suitable place to raise this point, and I'll gladly shift it elsewhere if wanted. My question is about having two different navboxes in the same article. Two years ago we discussed the matter in respect of one particular composer (Charles Lecocq), here, and I'm finding the same problem with similar pages on operas and operéttes by Messager. Having two competing navboxes on a page doesn't seem to me any more satisfactory for Messager than for Lecocq, but I don't want to barge in and upset anyone and so I am asking for thoughts here on standardising on the horizontal navbox at the foot of the page – as agreed for Lecocq articles – for articles on operas by Messager and others, when both forms of navbox are available. Most grateful for people's views. Tim riley talk 09:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thanks for bringing this up. I actually noticed the same issue recently on The Gospel According to the Other Mary (and other operas by Adams), and I agree that the competing navboxes seem somewhat confusing. I'd be in support of standardizing the horizontal navbox at the bottom. Noahfgodard (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I support to consistently use the horizontal navboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in having them both a navbox on the right top and horizontal at the bottom. I don't have strong feelings about a lot of the articles but it is very important to me that the right navbox for Handel works Template:Handel, used for about 50 articles on his operas and about 30 articles on his oratorios as well as other works is kept. It unifies the articles on Handel works with the same image of the composer and makes the articles into a series, which is how I think of them. Same for Template:Meyerbeer operas. I have spent years writing or re-writing and maintaining the articles on these two composers and if the unifying template is removed I would consider it undermining my efforts, I would not accept it. If it is really insisted "but we can't have two navboxes in an article" then I would remove the horizontal one at the bottom.Smeat75 (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Template:Offenbach operas is also very useful and I would not support it being removed. This should be discussed on an individual basis per composer, not in an attempt to make a general rule which will lead to conflicts.Smeat75 (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Offenbach's master works, Orphee Aux Enfers and The Tales of Hoffmann, come without that template. I believe that in any composition, having a lead image related to the work (example) is preferable to one of the composer, which is a second choice when no other is availabe (example). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
And I do not try to remove the images from those two articles and replace them with the template. We have managed to avoid conflicts over these matters, a proposal like this starts them up again.Smeat75 (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I just looked at one more, and must say that in Les deux aveugles, the image from the cover would be more to the point of the title than the image of the composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Dreamspy, Jack1956, SchroCat and Ssilvers: you were kind enough to comment at the discussion two years ago, and any thoughts you may have would be most welcome here, including any on the immediately preceding suggestion by Smeat75 that we should not worry about consistency and proceed composer by composer. (I'd prefer an across the board consistency myself, but others may disagree.) Tim riley talk 13:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need a universal rule on this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Somebody tried to take the Handel and Meyerbeer opera templates out of their articles in December, I had to fight to keep them and would do so again. I don't think a discussion here can force such a change and I wouldn't accept it. Smeat75 (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
That was in the context of a failed AfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 December 7#Template:Adams operas. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
As was the case two years ago, I support the text-only box at the bottom of the page to prevent the page being cluttered with navboxes. Jack1956 (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The horizontal navbox at the bottom of the page is all that is needed. The other navbox is redundant, and, moreover, bulky, taking up valuable space that should be devote to images or other information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Per WP:ADVICEPAGE "However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional essay." This discussion has no power to enforce anything and I will not accept "it is agreed to remove all composer side nav boxes and only keep the horizontal ones at the bottom."Smeat75 (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Gosh! That's the rest of us told good and proper! Without at all prejudging the outcome of this (I thought) unconfrontational discussion would it be out of order to ask Smeat75 which WP forum s/he would recognise and abide by in the hypothetical event of a consensus from which s/he demurred? Tim riley talk 23:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
To be enforceable it would have to go through the steps given in WP:PROPOSAL, per above. Even if it did though I wouldn't abide by it, I won't abide by it, you'd have to get rid of me.Smeat75 (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think having a nav box at the top provides any additional use. This phenomenon with opera nav boxes, as far as I know, seems to be with only operas, and I'm not aware of any novels, paintings, sculptures or such that have a similar format (While the argument of "don't do this because no one else does it" is not exactly high praised, it is something to note) I also agree with Gerda that the reproducing of the same image of the composer does nothing to benefit the reader, and while I recognize that the nav box's image can be changed in each article, that then raises an additional question over what the nav box brings in the first place. In my mind what unifies the Handel operas is the nav box at the bottom at the category: Category:Operas by George Frideric Handel. Either way I find Smeat's arguments completely unfair, threatening to leave the site if such a change is made is in no way representative or the collaborative encyclopedia that is Wikipedia. Also, going through the proposal process seems like an extreme choice and I wouldn't be surprised if someone told whoever started the proposal to come back to the project page. An RFC seems like the appropriate decision if more "thorough consensus" is needed. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't threaten to leave the site. I said you'd have to get rid of me, throw me out. The navbox at the bottom is more or less invisible, the Handel template at the top is prominent and unifies about 90 articles, most of which I am the major contributor to, not that that counts for anything here.Smeat75 (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in sideboxes for Messager, Meyerbeer etc. providing links to other operas by the composers, when the navboxes at the bottom are rarely apparent to the reader. It would be interesting to know the realive click-rate between the two types.--Smerus (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

If they caused harm, we'd remove them. They cause no harm, but - imho - also not much good. I confess that I don't care much for navboxes, at all, and rarely use them unless I want to edit a bunch of similar articles, but why divert a readers interest to other related things at the top when such reader wants to know firstly about the topic s/he came for? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
ps: DYK that for at least a year here, I saw these side navboxes in opera articles, but only saw an image? It just didn't occur to me that "Show" was meant to be clicked on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I have long wondered if all the effort on navboxes is wasted. But certainly bottom navboxes are unlikely to be harmful. It's also probably true that side-boxes are more likely to clutter articles, as are a number of other apparatus - and are correspondingly more likely to be clicked. If we were a different type of website, it would be possible to measure the clicks, and page impressions, and see if we were selling stuff, or conveying the ideology we wanted. But we don't have an agenda - we are equally happy if a reader gets information about Smetana and leaves, or if they follow a wiki-rabbit-hole for hours, regardless of the direction it goes. So this appears to be a moot question, not simply because we don't have any data, and because we don't understand the trade-offs but because we don't have an explicit aim, except for motherhood and apple pie sentiments. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC).

  • Bottom horizontal composer navboxes for opera articles are highly preferable in my view. They are in line with the practice on the rest of Wikipedia (e.g. novels, plays, paintings, etc.) and provide freedom to format the upper right hand corner with more informative images and/or infoboxes. Having both in one article is not ideal. Nor is it a disaster. Generally, the horizontal composer navboxes contain many more structured links than simply a list of operas and selected vocal works. Compare Template:George Frideric Handel to Template:Handel. They should always be present at the foot of articles, even if part of their content is duplicated by a clunky vertical navbox at the top. However, it's probably not worth the effort to make a decision to completely deprecate the vertical navboxes, especially when there are one or two editors prepared to fight to the death to retain them. If there are opera articles by three composers (out of those by scores of other composers) with both navboxes, they stand out as an anomaly and generally are more visually boring, but so be it. Having said all that, be aware that the mobile phone version of Wikipedia displays neither navbox [1]. Nor does it display authority controls, portal bars, etc. It does however, display stand-alone images and infoboxes where present [2], [3]. Voceditenore (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd say the above reflects a majority view, but not a consensus, that we should standardise on horizontal navboxes at the foot of the page. May I therefore suggest that we should do so except where an editor objects to it, in which case consensus for that page (or perhaps that composer) should be sought? Does that sound sensible? Tim riley talk 10:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No, implementing such guidance would imho need a fairly strong consensus (meaning: a "majority view" is likely not sufficient). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't you think that one "oppose" (no more) indicates a "fairly strong consensus"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't object to Tim's wording but point out again that this discussion cannot enforce anything.Smeat75 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The consensus does seem fairly strong, and with Tim's wording the ones which Smeat seems to be mainly against (Handel and Meyerbeer – but please correct me if I'm wrong Smeat) would not be changed. Seems like a win win. Aza24 (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds quite reasonable to me. Noahfgodard (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Again, don't feel this needs to be a rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – stating my opinion a bit more clearly in response to "Don't you think that one "oppose" (no more) indicates a "fairly strong consensus"?" – a few years ago there was some rather annoying trouble over the Schubert stage works nav box, and making the above proposal a rule (written or unwritten), may re-ignite some editors' animosity against this and similar boxes. A firm no across the entire collection of ideas proposed here as far as I'm concerned. Forgive me for not having voiced my opinion on this matter earlier. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Tim, I think the approach you have articulated is a very sensible one and the one that most of us already follow. Having said that, I would avoid codifying it in the project's guidelines. It is not worth the acrimony that would probably result. In any case, it is part of a larger problem with the use of these sidebars in the lead, or even their use at all. There is currently a discussion about this here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and it may eventually end up as a full-blown RfC. I'd also like to point out (again) that roughly 50% of page views to articles on composers' works are from the mobile version of Wikipedia and neither the sidebar nor the embedded image will be visible. Thus the "unifying template" and the importance of displaying the composer's portrait in the lead of each article about their works will be completely lost on half of the people who read the article. This is what readers using the mobile platform see when they access Handel's Rinaldo, i.e. nothing. A possible solution for those who insist on keeping the sidebar on "their" articles would be to extract the image from it and place that in the lead above the sidebar, although I suspect even that would go over like a lead balloon. Voceditenore (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I support the top navboxes (with the composer's image) and oppose their mass deletion. Softlavender (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Fanny Mendelssohn peer review

I've put Fanny Mendelssohn up for peer review as I think it could be not far off GA quality....all comments welcome.--Smerus (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

LGBT composers vs LGBT classical composers, IP editing strangeness?

Not sure if this is the right place exactly or not, but figure if it should be if it isn't.

Last night an IP moved a couple handfuls of composers from the LGBT composers category to the LGBT classical composers category. I'm not familiar with the consensus on what the difference between these two categories are.

Expert discussion on music would consider "classical" a specific style and/or era around the 1700s. However many of the composers in the LGBT classical composers category are living today or would, in expert discussion, be considered 20th century. Music stores might put them all in a rack together though, so perhaps this is how it's done on Wikipedia. I could find no particular distinction between the head category of composers vs classical composers. For example Noel Coward, Hans Werner Henze, Pauline Oliveros, and Francis Poulenc are "composers" while Eve Beglarian, John Cage, Henry Cowell, Julius Eastman, and Andrew Norman are "classical composers."

Mostly I'm just curious to know what the distinction is. My concern, which isn't too severe, is that the categories aren't doing an effective job of grouping like with like. TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

See the article classical music which states upfront that, while there is a classical period, "classical music" generally refers to a genre which not only includes the classical period (roughly 1750-1827) but including living contemporary composers. - kosboot (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Got it, record shop clerk rules it is. :) TheMusicExperimental (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works for an RfC that could impact a large number of classical music-related articles. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Chopin

Please note there is an RfC at Talk:Frédéric Chopin#RFC: Chopin and Sexuality.--Smerus (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to requested move

Please see Talk:Lully#Requested move 18 January 2021. Aza24 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_January_18#Category:Trecento_composers_etc.

Prooposal to rename all "Trecento" or "foocentro" categories to the numbers. Please comment there. Johnbod (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Mary Francine Whittle, a composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Image and media discussion on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach

See an image and media discussion at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Excessive images and files; life summary? Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NCOMPOSER question

Hello. Coming here after dabbling around in CAT:NN. I noticed that WP:NCOMPOSER seems quite a bit stricter in its inclusion criteria than WP:NACTOR/WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NFILMMAKER, etc. I interpret the actor and director/author cases as qualifying if the subject has developed a large body of notable works. This "body of work" criteria seems absent from NCOMPOSER. Should it be added?

I might guess that given Criteria 1 (single notable composition), developing a body of work is getting too restrictive for traditional composers. I came looking from a film composer side of the house, where I could potentially see contributing compositions to multiple notable films, but not necessarily having one that stands out with multiple reviews that might qualify for its own page on the score alone. Perhaps you could lump them in with WP:FILMMAKER, but I wanted to bring this to your attention in case others felt an additional criteria might be warranted to be a little more consistent. -2pou (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

2pou I could see the argument for film composers, but would veer against it for others. If a composer writes hundreds of works but not a single one is performed, is that really noteworthy? Aza24 (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Chopin: NPOV discussion

To notify that the issue of NPOV in the article Frédéric Chopin has been raised here. Comments are invited.--Smerus (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

To add to this WikiProject page

To add to this WikiProject page: a very easy-to-find link to a section for requested articles. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You could just go to List of composers by name and translate the red links. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Need help in getting composer page approved for publication

Hi all!

So happy to have found this project. I'm hoping you can help regarding an article I wrote. A few weeks ago I completed my first Wikipedia article and had it reviewed with additional updates from a few Wiki contributors. At the time, one of them nominated the article for proposed deletion (and rightfully so) due to missing references, a few outdated links, and a few minor concerns in the content. All the original comments were spot on, so I went back and fixed the article, adding more relevant references, updating links, and making sure the article follows all the guidelines. Sadly before I had time to go back and update the Talk Page to get the page re-reviewed, the page got deleted. The page in question is for Composer David Bawiec. Here's a snapshot of what the page looked like before it got deleted. I followed up on the original conversation with one of the original users on their talk pages and provided a little more context in hopes of getting the page un-deleted and approved for publication. Ultimately, they referred me to you as composers are out of their expertise, so I hope you can help.

The original conversation regarding deletion centered around concerns of notoriety. To clarify, I believe the article's subject (David Bawiec) can easily claim notability under multiple criteria following WP:MUSIC:

Criteria for musicians and ensembles

He has won a Telly Award, two AVA digital awards, and a BroadwayWorld Award.


He has written a song for the John Wick film franchise, which has made appearances not only in the film but is also featured on the soundtrack album.



Additionally, he can claim notability under two criteria within the:

Criteria for composers and lyricists

He worked on the french Musical "Raiponce et le Prince Aventurier", which opened in Paris in 2014 at the l'Espace Pierre Cardin theatre, further moving for a second season at the Théâtre de la Porte-Saint-Martin in 2015. The show was nominated for a Molière Award (the French equivalent of the Tony Award) in the Best Musical - Young Audience category. Additionally, he's composed the music for SIGNing the Song, a musical that has had multiple runs in dozens of cities and venues across the USA.


He is a winner of the Johnny Mercer Songwriter’s Project.



I would love to hear your thoughts on the above. Since all of the above is verifiable through the references used in the article, I hope this is enough to prove the subject is notable by Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks!
Wcmartinezii (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wcmartinezii, unfortunately none of your evidence satisfies any of the requirements. #9 and #4 are not major competition or awards, they don't even have Wikipedia pages themselves. The French Wikipedia article for the show you mention says he did the orchestrations, meaning he did not "write" the musical. And I don't think a single song on the John Wick series is enough to make up for this (especially since it seems he co-wrote the work). Aza24 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think I agree. The musicals sound the best shot, but his role is a bit unclear - what does "worked on the french Musical "Raiponce et le Prince Aventurier"" mean exactly. Do we have articles on these? Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Aza24 and Johnbod, thanks for the great feedback! Yes, you're correct in that he orchestrated the music on the french musical. So I see how that one may be a tough one to use. Having said that, he did write music for the musicals "SIGNing the Song" and "You Have Changed My Life". "SIGNing the Song" has had a bunch of runs at various notable theatres, the last ones at the Colony Theatre in CA and the Rockwell. Here are a few independent articles that mention his music composition on the shows: [BroadwayWorld] [StageSceneLA] [BW Rockwell] [Rockwell]. Additionally his show "You Have Changed My Life" is a touring show that's been touring for 3 years and seems to be resuming with post-covid dates being added to the schedule. So I'm curious if these two may be the smarter route to go? Would love to hear your input. Thanks a bunch! Wcmartinezii (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Els Aarne needs some work

If anyone has a chance to add a source or two to this stub, that would be helpful.4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

Isobel Waller-Bridge 18,958 631 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Coin945: I presume this is for the soundtrack to Black Mirror, the only popular article I see linked on their page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Just as likely linked from Fleabag or sister Phoebe. Davidships (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Redirect check?

Hi all! During an overhaul I moved "George Lewis (trombonist)" to George E. Lewis (wild that he was listed as the former!), but I haven't done piles of work with redirects / disambiguation pages; I know bots will take care of the big stuff, but if anyone knows of priority cleanup I should be doing myself, please let me know! // Knifegames (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Advice on Witold Lutosławski?

Hi all, I've been cleaning up Witold Lutosławski, because (for some reason) 100+ references were removed a few years back and the article in general was in pretty bad shape. I didn't add too much content—mostly I was sourcing or re-sourcing stuff, working with images and such, though I did add a small legacy section. Aside from the some missing references in the Awards and honours section, does anyone have any advice on what else I could do to hopefully preserve the article's FA status? Aza24 (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the majority of the article is based on Grove. Perhaps try the Internet Archive and JSTOR. - kosboot (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
You mean Grove's use in the legacy section? Yes, if so—otherwise the article is mostly from the Bodman Rae and Stucky books. Are there any gaps in content per-say? Aza24 (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Input needed at category deletion discussions

Category:Jewish composers and Category:Catholic composers are up for deletion. All opinions welcome at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 27.4meter4 (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Category:Composers by ethnicity

I just created this category today because it struck me as a missing gap in related category trees. There probably could be more sub-categories than this. Hope this is helpful. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Mikis Theodorakis †

By any measure Mikis Theodorakis was a leading composer (leaving aside his eminence in other fields). His death has been nominated for home page RD here, but is being ignored, ostensibly due to lack of citations for his extensive musical output. I have drawn attention to the general sourcing already there

List of works based on the research of Asteris Koutoulas, published in O Mousikos Theodorakis (Asteris Koutoulas: O Mousikos Theodorakis / Theodorakis the Musician (in Greek). Nea Synora - A. A. Livani, 1998. ISBN 960-236-916-7) - looks as RS as they come.

Can anyone on the project come his assistance? Davidships (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Gabriel Fauré Talk page

Can anyone address the issues raised here? Thanks for any help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Whitty

Project members may wish to comment.4meter4 (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Árpád Doppler

Árpád Doppler's page has no sources and I cannot find any significant coverage. I will be nominating it for deletion based on the current state, but I wanted to mark it here for project member's to comment and maybe make the page better! FiddleheadLady (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Bradley Joseph

I have nominated Bradley Joseph for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Josquin des Prez Featured article review

I have nominated Josquin des Prez for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Florence Price discography

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Florence Price § Discography. Peaceray (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Peaceray (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Liszt Pupils

I've noticed that Bernhard Stavenhagen is not on the list of Liszt's pupils. His Wikipedia page says that he is!Bernhard Stavenhagen

Ptoye (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Katherine Hoover

Contemporary classical music composer

Please, where can I find an interested wiki-pert to advise refinements for the Katherine Hoover article?

Thank you, AjAirFlex (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Bartłomiej Pękiel

Prompted by his inclusion in a BBC Radio 3 programme, I found Bartłomiej Pękiel interesting; but it may be that the substantive content is a bit iffy as a translation of the referenced page (quite a reasonable translation, it seems, from comparing it with what Google Translate makes of it) - and the only contribution to WP:en made by that editor. But the WP:pl and WP:de have other references, including Grove Online - a suppose that the Sadie quote is all that book has. Sorry I cannot dothis, but thought that I would draw it your attention. Davidships (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have had a go at this, clearing in the process what was a blatant copyright infringement.--Smerus (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel § Split proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel § Split proposal. --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 13:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Dmitri Shostakovich at FAR

I've listed Dmitri Shostakovich at FAR. Wretchskull (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works by Gaetano Chierici

Given that similar kinds of lists occur with composers, project members may wish to comment here. All opinions welcome.4meter4 (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC at Charles-Valentin Alkan

This discussion - on "ableist language" and MoS guidelines - may be of interest to editors--Smerus (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Andreyev

Project members may wish to comment here.4meter4 (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move needing eyes

Comments from others would be most welcome at Talk:Dufay#Requested move 23 August 2022. – Aza24 (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avi Berman

Project members may wish to comment here.4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Josquin des Prez

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Josquin des Prez/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

John Philip Sousa

At the bottom of his article is a huge long list of dissertations, none of which are cited in the article. Can someone cull this list, and also the lists above, if possible? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Claude Debussy and Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky infobox RfCs

There are open RFCs proceeding at both these articles to propose infoboxes (thiogh the fact that the RfC on the Tchaikovsky page has not yet closed has not prevented the proposer inserting one).--Smerus (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Artemy Vedel

This Ukrainian composer has been up for a pre-FA peer review for several weeks now, without any responses. Is anyone able to take a look? Amitchell125 (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

All sorted, the article is now at FA. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Re: John Serry Sr. - questionable editing and deletions of the article's text on this biography require a review by a more experienced editor in the project to remove warning templates at the top of the page.

Ciao members of the WikiProject Jazz: Perhaps when time permits a more seasoned and experienced editor who has additional expert knowledge of the evolution of Classical music within the United States during the 1930's - 1950's era could review 1) the multiple deletions of text and compositions and 2)the questionable doubts raised regarding the relevance of sourcing documentation provided in the article John Serry Sr -- both of which have been executed and posted by User:Eddiehugh. A review of the persistent dismissal of multiple established reference source citations provided in the article and the removal of text from the article without first posting templates calling for additional citations to be provided within the body of the article which would enable other editors to review these requests prior to initiating these deletions unilaterally suggests that he lacks the experience required to undertake a comprehensive reorganization of this mature article. Kindly note that the article dates back to 2005 and has been reviewed by several editorial teams within the Classical Music Project, the Jazz music Project, the Biography Project, the Latin Music Project, the Composers Project and the New York City Project. Members of each of these projects have graded the article at a level of either C or B and have not raised serious questions regarding the reference sources utilized within the article or the specific narrative of the article as a whole. In addition, the article has been translated into several languages including French, German, Spanish German and Italian and has not been cited in any of these countries for questionable sourcing or improper text. These observations suggest that User:EddieHugh might benefit from additional guidance related to the proper collaborative editorial procedure which is the hallmark on Wikipedia and that the warning templates posted at the top of the page by him can by removed upon completion of a review. Thanks again for your assistance.160.72.81.182 (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)MPL

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Archive_42&oldid=1136581760"