Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:17, 16 April 2012

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81

FA status in Piano music of Gabriel Fauré

Does this article deserve FA status? Please see this comment. Best wishes, Gidip (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that FA articles must be beyond improvement? Please tell me that this post is an April Fools Day prank... Though I fear not. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It was a featured article six weeks ago (Feb 13th). Read the info in the talk template. Peer reviewed in November, candidate reviewed in December. It seems a moot point to discuss it now. As MistyMorn says, you can always keep improving it.DavidRF (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to associate myself with Ssilvers's considerations on the article's talk page—way more constructive than my rather tetchy remarks above. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Since I play this repertoire, I took a look at the article. I find the method of quote mining from Nectoux and others unhelpful in describing pieces. Whatever happened to paraphrase? Moreover some of these pieces have been analysed musically: any analysis of that form is at present totally absent from the article. I looked in particular at the later works, like the preludes, the later barcaroles and the 11th and 13th nocturne. What I read was not particularly helpful compared with the sources. And whatever happened to Norman Charles Suckling as a source? Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Omaha needs our help

After a long hiatus, I'm once again trying to cobble together an article about an Edison recording artist, and in the process I came across evidence of a performance for the Tuesday Morning Musical Club Concert Series, now "Tuesday Musical," in Omaha, Nebraska. Checking to see whether that organization had a Misplaced Pages entry, I found that not only does it not, but that classical music receives no coverage in the section on music in the city's article Omaha, Nebraska, the "main article" about Music of Omaha, the article Culture of Omaha, Nebraska, or the article about Music of Nebraska, although each goes on at great length about every conceivable flavor of popular music. Now, surely there must be at least some classical music activity worth mentioning in that city and its environs aside from the rather sketchy article about the Omaha Symphony Orchestra (which, by the by, cross references some of those other articles that make no mention of classical music); after all, the Tuesday thing, if you credit its Web site "about us" description, has been active since 1911 or before and brought in artists of the caliber of Bauer, Feuermann, Louise Homer, Ashkenazy, Milnes, Fodor.... I don't know enough about the area to recitify the situation, but somebody closer to Omaha really ought to have a look. Drhoehl (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a native of Omaha, I can assure you it needs more help than all editors on Misplaced Pages combined can give it. As I recall, polka music was about the only important genre in my youth. OK, OK, kidding aside—my grandfather played cello on the Omaha Symphony, I have a sister who played violin in that orchestra for a couple of seasons, and my own musical education started in that city. Two relevant Misplaced Pages articles to add to the ones you mention are ARTSaha! and Opera Omaha, though this latter one is in need of much attention.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Marian Anderson

An infobox has been added to this article, which had a hidden comment at that top requesting talk page consensus first. I have restored (twice) the prior version. I have opened a discussion at the article's talk page. Kablammo (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no, here we go again: enter the metadata crowd, stage left. Expect vast quantities of pixels to be spilled in short order; see, for example, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Infoboxes_RfC

Thank you for dealing with this so patiently, Kablammo. The infobox you removed was particularly worthy of excision; it explains to us that Marian Anderson was 115 years old when she was born, that Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is located in the US, and that contralto is a sort of musical instrument. Opus33 (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please also see my comment about the box here: Samuel Barber. --Kleinzach 08:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The typo regarding her birth date/ age is easily remedied was already fixed, and does not require the complete removal if the infobox to resolve. Misplaced Pages is a global service, and it is wrong to assume that all of our readers will know what Philadelphia is, let alone that it is in the USA. Nowhere did the infobox claim that "contralto is a sort of musical instrument". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. That would be the RfC which concluded with the note that "Infoboxes are not to be… removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive" (and, before you say it, no-one is systematically adding them). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

More

Mentioned above, but not so easy to find: the everlasting topic of infoboxes is discussed again on the above and Samuel Barber, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm not even going to bother with this. There's no way the infobox issue can be resolved as long as Andy's involved. To him, consensus cannot exist as long as he disagrees with something. I fear another RfC may be the only way to end this. Centy – reply • contribs – 18:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Because you didn't get the result you wanted at the last RfC? Your dishonest ad hominem has no place here, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

To quote myself from the RfC: "Just giving up caring on this issue. The whole embarrassing colour of the bikeshed story has made me just take the attitude: so be it." Centy – reply • contribs – 14:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

When WP:AGF is or is not applicable

Assume good faith is a fundamental guideline on WP, but it does not apply in all and every situation. We can only assume good faith when there are at least some reasonable grounds for doing so. Considering past info box arguments which damaged this and the other CM projects, deterring and driving away contributors (as shown by sharp declines in activity), and are well-documented not only in the archives but also the related ArbCom block, AGF is simply not appropriate here — unfortunately we have assume the worst. --Kleinzach 08:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation alert

As usual, trying to put together a new article proves to be a COW (can of worm). Still working on my Edison artist, and in the process just discovered that the "History" section, at least, of Schubert Club directly cribs from the organization's Web site: http://www.schubert.org/history/. The article hasn't yet been tagged with this project's banner, but I'd say it falls within the porject's scope. What's the next step--delete the offending text? Slap on a copyvio banner? Refer the matter elsewhere? All guidance deeply appreciated! Drhoehl (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If there are clear copyright violations, be bold and remove them. If this is the bulk of the article, try to leave a meaningful stub behind. Make sure your edit summaries are clear why you are removing the text. Magic♪piano 12:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the second time this has happened with this article. This is plagiarism in the form of laziness... an article about an organization copying from the organization's own "about" webpage. Its still unacceptable and the prose ends up having a "promotional" tone to it which isn't good either.DavidRF (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. I reverted all the edits of the anon who copy/pasted from the official site. I then re-added the categories and external links -- because those were fine. A more motivated editor could perhaps put more content back -- re-writing the text and adding citations.DavidRF (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)