Talk:Tōru Takemitsu

Error in 2.1 "Influence of Traditional Japanese Music"

Regarding this example and corresponding image:

[[1]]

2.1: Influence of Traditional Japanese Music Example 2: Opening of Toru Takemitsu - Litany - In Memory of Michael Vyner

It says: Opening bars of Litany—In Memory of Michael Vyner, i Adagio, for solo piano (1950/1989). Another early example of Takemitsu's incorporation of traditional Japanese music in his writing, shown here in the use of the Japanese in scale in the upper melodic line of the right hand part.

However, C - Db - F - G - Bb is not a mode of the In scale. If it were, it would be C - Db - F - Gb (!) - Bb. The description needs to be changed, as well as the image... unfortunately this means the entire analysis is incorrect, so a different example needs to be found altogether.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasOickle (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Independent?

In "He composed several hundred independent works of music" what does the word "independent" mean? 31.48.245.8 (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hidden comments

Discussion continued from User talk:Graham11 § Hidden notes on musician pages

The problem with hidden comments along the lines of "Don't add an infobox because a WikiProject doesn't like them" is that it has a chilling effect on editors who don't understand that Wikiprojects have no standing to demand that an infobox may not be added. The decision on having an infobox or not is a matter for consensus on each article, and that is policy. If there has already been a discussion on a particular article, and a consensus reached not to have an infobox, then it is helpful to have an html comment drawing the editor's attention to that (possibly archived) discussion, and I'd be very much in favour of maintaining such notes. That is, however, not the situation here, as I can find no previous discussion of an infobox on this article. It is not acceptable to have a note which effectively prevents any consensus from being discussed, as if the matter were already settled by fiat of a single editor or Wikiproject. We build this encyclopedia by allowing people to edit, not forbidding it for no good reason. --RexxS (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

First we were told that failure to have a hidden comment made it hard for editors to know not to add an infobox. Now you say that the hidden comment has a "chilling effect." The fact is that you just want to have a pile of code at the top of every article containing redundant infobox information, even in these arts biographies, usually riddled with errors and always emphasizing unimportant factoids at the expense key information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Help:Hidden text gives examples of where hidden text is appropriate, and where it is not. One of the examples of inappropriate use is: ::*Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing policy against that edit.

• • When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus.

Your constant replacement of hidden comments designed simply to exert the authority of a Wikiproject over other editors is in blatant breach of that policy. OWNership, pure and simple. --RexxS (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you've got this wrong RexxS; I feel that too much time is wasted talking about the same things over and over again. A factual note, such as this, saves all the ensued drama which would, inevitably, disrupt the article. I think it's a bit strong accusing people of ownership. Cassianto^Talk 21:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I also think too much time is wasted on the not very important question of whether a given article should have an infobox or not. You'll be aware that I don't make a habit of adding infoboxes to articles willy-nilly; 90% of my infobox additions were when I saw that Andy had created an article but was unable to add an infobox to it, so I added one whenever I felt able. But when another editor comes along and makes a good-faith edit that they feel is improving the article - be it adding an infobox or removing an inappropriate hidden comment - then is reverted with no better reason than "I like it that way", I feel obliged to stand up for their right to edit.

Now that's what I feel is happening here. Graham11 isn't an infobox-warrior; he was merely following a policy that tells us not to use hidden comments to prohibit a certain edit in the absence of any contrary policy or even any existing consensus. Of course, if there is a previous discussion and an established consensus, then I'm more than happy to see a link to it - that really would be a factual note. But nobody can realistically assert that adding an infobox to an article where it's never been discussed would be disruptive, surely? I do understand that many of the principal contributors to these articles have a defined view on infoboxes, but even so they are not entitled to impose that view on others, no matter how inconvenient it is to explain their position to others who feel differently. Our guidance on WP:STEWARDSHIP talks about such a "core group", but still requires them to allow editing, even if they revert such edits, as long as their reversion "is supported by an edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit". Adding these comments to articles where nobody has raised the question of an infobox is, IMHO, stepping well beyond the bounds of STEWARDSHIP. --RexxS (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll happily check my diffs, but I don't think I've accused Graham11 of being an IB warrior; nor have I used the edit summary "I like it that way". Frankly, I couldn't give a shit what the hidden comment says, we've seen them ignored in the past, and we will see them being ignored in the future. I'm confident that no amount of hidden comments are going to deter someone from adding an infobox if they so wished. That is when the whole WP:BRD process starts, presumably. Cassianto^Talk 21:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No need to check. I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I was accusing you of calling Graham11 anything. I was merely trying to establish that he has no background in the infobox-wars and "no dog in the race", if you will. I'm sure he was simply trying to follow our policy on hidden comments. Do you really feel that the notice would never discourage a new editor - or one unfamiliar with infobox controversy - from adding an infobox? In all sincerity, I think that it would do that, and moreover, I think that's its very purpose. I respect your difference of opinion on that, of course. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem RexxS. So this is the problem:

• Scenario 1 - An editor visits an article, sees no hidden comment, adds an infobox, it gets reverted, and they enter a discussion on the articles talk page. That discussion, as with all IB discussions, ends up with mud-slinging, roll-arounds, name calling and blocks.

• Scenario 2 - An editor visits an article, goes to add an infobox, sees an appropriately written hidden comment asking them to form a consensus around adding an IB, and leaves them with the option of either discussing the matter or walking away.

A pro with Scenario 2 is that it negates all concerned from entering a dramah-fest and the article remains stable. It also prevents everything from happening that we don't want to happen. Another pro, and because curiosity killed the cat, is that the new editor, having read the appropriately written hidden comment, could possibly go away, find out why IB's are not used on composer articles and learn something new about each side of the discussion. I think I know what I'd choose. Cassianto^Talk 07:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I definitely didn't expect my edits to lead to all of this. So I don't have the background knowledge of all the history of this issue so bear with me here.

Firstly, allow me to explain what I removed and why. I removed hidden comments that either:

1. outright prohibited the addition of an infobox; or
2. directed editors to seek an explicit consensus on the talk page before adding an infobox, provided that there was no record of a previous consensus on the matter having been reached on the talk page.

This was done in accordance with WP:HIDDEN which lists the following as "[i]nappropriate uses for hidden text":

• Asserting ownership of an article
• Telling others not to edit an article, period
• Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing policy against that edit.
  • When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus.

As an aside, given that I don't feel I have sufficient background on the issue of infoboxes in biographies of composers, I don't have terribly strong feelings on the matter one way or the other. RexxS is correct when he or she assumes that these edits were made purely because the hidden text is inappropriate.

Regarding those hidden comments that met the first criterion, I sincerely hope that there is no disagreement about the fact that they display what is blatantly an ownership attitude. Even if a consensus had been reached on the article's talk page, consensus can change, and we should not have hidden comments that presume otherwise.

With respect to the other hidden comments I removed, my understanding is that they were placed in relation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers § Biographical infoboxes (a WikiProject advice page – or advice section in this case, I suppose) and the RfC held by the WikiProject in 2010. WP:ADVICEPAGE says the following:

[P]rojects 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 not contain an infobox, […] 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.

In essence, a WikiProject advice page is not an enforceable policy but is rather an opinion presented by a group of editors much like an essay (a fact which is also noted in WP:ADVICEPAGE). On the RfC, the conclusions reached included:

• Wikiproject Composers does not recommend the use of biographical infoboxes for classical composer articles.
• WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.

Therefore, in the absence of a consensus having been reached on the article's talk page, I see no reason why WP:BOLD – and WP:HIDDEN, for that matter – do not apply. Graham (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOLD, of course, is only the first part of the WP:BRD cycle. As for WP:HIDDEN, do you believe this is either a guideline or a policy? If so, I believe you will find you are mistaken.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You're the one who's mistaken, Jerome. The relevant section of our Manual of Style, is Wikipedia:Manual of Style #Invisible comments, and that defers to a main article, which is, of course, Help:Hidden text. WP:HIDDEN enjoys the status and project-wide consensus of any part of our Manual of Style, and editors breach it at their peril. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOLD, of course, is only the first part of the WP:BRD cycle.

I fear that you have misunderstood my point, Jerome Kohl. Of course WP:BOLD is the beginning of WP:BRD – that was my very point – which is why if you object to someone adding an infobox, the proper course of action is to revert it and discuss the matter on the talk page. That we should actively discourage editors from being bold through the use of hidden comments when the subject hasn't even been discussed is irreconcilable with WP:BOLD. Graham (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Layout cleanup

This article has a few MOS:LAYOUT problems (that were there in the FA-approved version):

• The "Listening" section with external links. Should be removed or moved under External links per WP:EL.
• The "Further reading" section that includes subsections "General references" and "Other references". If these works are not used as references for information contained in the article, don't call them references. WP:FURTHER: "This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content."
• MOS:PSEUDOHEAD semicolon markup in the "Further reading" and "Notable compositions" sections.

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toru Takemitsu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208224219/http://home.sprintmail.com/~emrichards/nuss.html to http://home.sprintmail.com/~emrichards/nuss.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toru Takemitsu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606213159/http://www.shogakukan.co.jp/takemitsu/ to http://www.shogakukan.co.jp/takemitsu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)