Talk:David Flynn (composer)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on David Flynn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080807124726/http://www.daveflynn.com/songwriter.htm to http://www.daveflynn.com/songwriter.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080807124742/http://www.daveflynn.com/Irish.htm to http://www.daveflynn.com/Irish.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080321165221/http://www.daveflynn.com:80/Classical.htm to http://www.daveflynn.com/Classical.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110726190042/http://www.irishcomposerscollective.org/composers.html to http://www.irishcomposerscollective.org/composers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Merge has been completed

---

I propose to merge the content from the Irish Memory Orchestra article, to the #Irish Memory Orchestra compositions section of this article. And to redirect the former title to the latter section. I propose this because, while looking for sources to address the longstanding tags* in the Irish Memory Orchestra article, I could find none which deal with the orchestra directly/independent. All sources, including this dozen of so in the Irish Times, deal with both subjects together. As far as I can tell, the orchestra doesn't have notability independent of the composer. (* The orchestra article was tagged as lacking non-primary references in 2013, as needing "immediate attention" in 2018, and for notability in 2020. There are limited independent and comprehensive sources available to address these concerns. And multiple WP:MERGEREASONs apply.) Delighted to hear other thoughts/suggestions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Spleodrach (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per nom, and as someone who also tried to do some improvement in the fairly recent past, but ran into a brick wall of limited sources and no good independent analysis. 109.252.29.105 (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment/bump. OK. It's been a month. And, other than the above comments (which seem supportive of the merge proposal), there have been no other thoughts forthcoming. So, unless there are other thoughts in the meantime, I'll complete the merge/redirect this weekend. Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 Resolved As above, I have completed the merge/redirect. Closing thread. Guliolopez (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

PUFFERY and ATTRIBUTEPOV

Editors insistent on adding or restoring words like "famed", "acclaimed", "prominent", "important", "successful", "noteworthy", "renowned", "leading" or "ground-breaking" should perhaps consider:

1. The motivation for doing so. As per the WP:NPOV policy, editors are generally expected to edit from neutral point-of-view. A determination to add (or restore) words like the above doesn't indicate a neutral stance.
2. The means of doing so. As per the MOS:PUFFERY guidelines, regardless of the motivation, if the goal is to indicate relative importance (to distinguish Bob Dylan from "my mate Colm who wrote a song once"), terms which declare importance subjectively should be replaced with facts and attribution which demonstrate importance objectively.
3. The manner of attribution. As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:VER guidelines, if a subjective opinion is expressed, then it should be clear that it is someone's opinion. And whose opinion it is. With a clear and verifiable reference. That isn't extrapolated or interpretted.

Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)