Talk:Ernie Wilkins
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
It can probably be improved as he sounds like a significant person.--T. Anthony 08:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Every Day I Have the Blues edit
Have removed the following unreferenced item, pending appropriate ref.:
he wrote songs like Every Day I Have The Blues.
Although Count Basie did a famous version of this song on Count Basie Swings, Joe Williams Sings, it's normally credited to Memphis Slim. Wilkins is credited on the album, but maybe as arranger? Can anyone sort this one out? Cheers, --Technopat (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Restored deleted releases with Wilkins as arranger with Harry James edit
Looks like on July 27, 2017 User:Vmavanti deleted all of Wilkins' releases as arranger with Harry James, stating "can't use discogs as source." I'm not aware of a Wikipedia policy that states content is to be deleted because it cites discogs. Three of the deleted entries have Wikilinks, and most of the discogs citations are backed by either photos showing the credits or references to The Jazz Discography. I've restored the content, and per WP:RVREASONS it should not be deleted without discussion here on the talk page prior to removal.Bubbatex (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Discogs.com is user generated. That means anyone in the public can contribute, which means the data is unreliable. Other examples: YouTube, IMDb, Facebook, Twitter, RateYourMusic, MusicBrainz, Flickr, MySpace, fan sites, blogs, forums.
- Identifying Reliable Sources > WP:USERGENERATED
- "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums, the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), the Comic Book Database (CBDB.com), content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites. In particular, a wikilink is not a reliable source."
–Vmavanti (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)- These two sources verify the Capitol releases:
- These two sources verify the MGM and Sheffield Lab releases:
- If, as WP:USERGENERATED states, a wikilink, in particular, is not a reliable source, can you help me understand why all of the other Wilkins-as-arranger releases were not deleted, since wikilinks are their only form of citation?
–Bubbatex (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)- I can delete more, if you want. I can always find something. Wordpress pages, for example, are usually blogs. There aren't many discographies which have an arranger discography separate from a recording discography. It seems unnecessary unless a person is mainly an arranger the way another person might be classified mainly a lyricist or mainly a record producer. Try to keep the main thing the main thing. Many jazz musicians record, compose, arrange, produce, and perform. There's little point in trying to document everything that everyone does. Generally a person's solo discography is most important, and jazz musicians also work a lot as sideman, but I don't know enough about Wilkins to say how much arranging was part of his occupation.
- I can't speak for everyone, but for the discographies I add, I use sources. Many people don't—but they probably should. I don't put a footnote on every line. I add a citation at the bottom that accounts for the whole thing, if the source has information about it. I use AllMusic most of the time, though there are usually mistakes in it. That's just how it goes. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources. If you mean, "Why do the other kids in the class get to do it, but I don't," my usual response is, "Pay attention to your work, not the other kids'." You will certainly find flaws on other pages. What can I say? I'm working as fast as I can, for no pay. The idea isn't to verify discogs. You want to find reliable sources to use instead, which it looks like you are trying to do. On this point the documentation strikes me as clear and sensible. User generated sites are more likely to have mistakes, change more often, are harder to hold accountable, and have less of a legal and business structure in place. Although discographies present special problems, I continue to steer people away from using discogs.com as a source, regardless of whether it's accurate in a given situation. I would rather see less information that is well sourced than a lot of information that is poorly sourced. Quality over quantity. If you can't find reliable sources for the data, then don't add the data. If the documentation said, "You can use discogs.com sometimes," that would be arbitrary, use of it would be arbitrary, and there would be all kinds of conflict and inconsistency.
–Vmavanti (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I can't speak for everyone, but for the discographies I add, I use sources. Many people don't—but they probably should. I don't put a footnote on every line. I add a citation at the bottom that accounts for the whole thing, if the source has information about it. I use AllMusic most of the time, though there are usually mistakes in it. That's just how it goes. Wikipedia is only as good as its sources. If you mean, "Why do the other kids in the class get to do it, but I don't," my usual response is, "Pay attention to your work, not the other kids'." You will certainly find flaws on other pages. What can I say? I'm working as fast as I can, for no pay. The idea isn't to verify discogs. You want to find reliable sources to use instead, which it looks like you are trying to do. On this point the documentation strikes me as clear and sensible. User generated sites are more likely to have mistakes, change more often, are harder to hold accountable, and have less of a legal and business structure in place. Although discographies present special problems, I continue to steer people away from using discogs.com as a source, regardless of whether it's accurate in a given situation. I would rather see less information that is well sourced than a lot of information that is poorly sourced. Quality over quantity. If you can't find reliable sources for the data, then don't add the data. If the documentation said, "You can use discogs.com sometimes," that would be arbitrary, use of it would be arbitrary, and there would be all kinds of conflict and inconsistency.
- I agree the discogs entries can often times be sketchy, but I checked each of these, and all have images of the front and back covers, and most all have images of the labels, and the information substantiates the Wilkins contributions. The beauty of Wikipedia is that if, over time, editors find better sources for citations, they will add them - perhaps you are up to the challenge. Bottom line, these are legitimate releases that constitute an important part of the Wilkins catalog of arrangements. Anyone coming to Wikipedia who is researching or interested in Wilkins' work would not benefit by their removal.
–Bubbatex (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree the discogs entries can often times be sketchy, but I checked each of these, and all have images of the front and back covers, and most all have images of the labels, and the information substantiates the Wilkins contributions. The beauty of Wikipedia is that if, over time, editors find better sources for citations, they will add them - perhaps you are up to the challenge. Bottom line, these are legitimate releases that constitute an important part of the Wilkins catalog of arrangements. Anyone coming to Wikipedia who is researching or interested in Wilkins' work would not benefit by their removal.
- Discog.com's inaccuracy isn't the point. The point is that the content is user generated, which means it's a source we can't use. The documentation is clear. It can be tough to accept, but it's clear. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the person who made the rule. For the time being, it's not open to debate.
–Vmavanti (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Discog.com's inaccuracy isn't the point. The point is that the content is user generated, which means it's a source we can't use. The documentation is clear. It can be tough to accept, but it's clear. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the person who made the rule. For the time being, it's not open to debate.
- Vmavanti, you and I have reached an impasse. We'll let the Wikipedia community decide. I've restored the Ernie Wilkins arranger credits, and I've opened an RfC for input below. No one should make any changes to this section of the article until the RfC closes and a consensus is reached.
–Bubbatex (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Vmavanti, you and I have reached an impasse. We'll let the Wikipedia community decide. I've restored the Ernie Wilkins arranger credits, and I've opened an RfC for input below. No one should make any changes to this section of the article until the RfC closes and a consensus is reached.
RfC regarding retention or deletion of Ernie Wilkins' composer/arranger section edit
The consensus is to retain the "As composer/arranger" section for now and tag it with {{Refimprove section}}.
Editors recommended sourcing the section with reliable sources rather than deleting it. Several months is a reasonable period of time to give editors time to source the section. If the section is not sourced several months after this RfC close, there is no prejudice against revisiting whether unsourced entries should be deleted.
If the section is not sourced after several months, a request to remove unsourced entries in the section likely will be successful per the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Here is guidance from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations, which says:
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the article's "As composer/arranger" section be deleted or retained? Bubbatex (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retain - The Wilkins releases as composer and arranger for the likes of Count Basie, Dizzy Gillespie, Harry James and others are legitimate releases that define the core of his contributions to jazz. Anyone coming to Wikipedia who is researching or interested in Wilkins' work would not benefit from their removal.Bubbatex (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Which isn't the point. As I've said more than once, Discogs.com is a user-generated web site and according to WP documentation should not be used. Bubbatex knows this, but he has been unable to respond with anything more than "I want it my way." A show of hands won't change the facts.
–Vmavanti (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC) - Firstly, Wilkins' work as an arranger should not be in doubt, noting Joachim-Ernst Berendt's "The Jazz Book" (UK 1976 edition): "... 'Drum Suite', written by Manny Albam and Ernie Wilkins, two of the leading arrangers of modern jazz" (p294) So an "As composer/arranger" section seems appropriate. Secondly, there is the question of content and sourcing. I agree about Discogs being WP:UGC but at most that surely merits an "Unreliable sources" tag inviting improvement? Wholesale deletion is a significantly larger step, especially when individual line items are verifiable (two examples: "Big Bags" in this Scott Yanow review; "Trane Whistle" confirmed in the Credits tab but not the article text). If something can be verified and referenced to a reliable source, then that is preferable to wholesale removal. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Source (summoned by bot) I do not see, in all that discussion above, an argument that he didn't compose and arrange that substantial list of works. So it looks to me like this is substantially accurate, and useful, information, badly sourced. Go and look for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Retain & Resource Per above. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
The 30-day RfC period has expired and the bot has removed the RfC template and its publication on the Media/Arts/Architecture RfC category page. There is a clear consensus around the following points: 1) Wilkins' status as a jazz composer/arranger is not in doubt, and the list of his compositions and arrangements is substantially accurate and should be retained. 2) The list is badly sourced and the sourcing needs improvement, but this does not warrant the list's deletion. To help address item 2, I've added a "Refimprove" tag to the top of the list to encourage editors to improve the sourcing, and I've added "non-Discogs" sources to all of the Harry James entries. If anyone disagrees with my understanding of the results of the RfC, I'll be happy to visit Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure and request that an uninvolved editor write a closing summary of the discussion. Many thanks to everyone who participated in the RfC! Bubbatex (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- Not exactly a fair fight, was it? I haven't changed my mind. I would do the same. It's another subjective area of Wikipedia that some improperly sourced information gets deleted while other information is allowed to remain. The situation would be different if this were a controversial topic. Maybe "the earth is flat" would be allowed to stay so long as there is a refimprove tag.
–Vmavanti (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.