Talk:List of gamelan ensembles in the United States

Comment moved from article

This comment was moved from the article.

HISTORY OF GAMELAN ENSEMBLES IN THE UNITED STATES (suggest as separate article?)

-- 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed links

Kindly restore the removed references (which are essential to a properly encyclopedic article) prior to such removals. Such prior discussion is only reasonable, and I request the removing editor do so when requested by other long-time editors. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They are not acceptable references. They are WP:SPAM. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani‎ for discussion of similar problems. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They are not spam. They are useful links to the organizations mentioned on this list. They also help document the information listed, and are a resource for those maintaining the page. I don't see any reason to delete them. If you'd like to turn them into references, I'd have no objection. Deleting them, makes it much harder to turn them into references and serves no purpose. I don't see what the RFC has to do with this. Why do you think they are unacceptable? BTW, there is an entire community of Gamelan organizations and academics that use this page. Let's resolve this before making any more changes. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Why do you think they are unacceptable?" Besides WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:NOTLINK? We don't add external links to articles in order to "help document the information listed" We provide reliable sources to verify any information that might be contested. Wikipedia is not a venue to provide Gamelan organizations and academics a list of links, nor any other information that fails WP:NOT. If you're unfamiliar with these policies and guidelines, and disagree with my interpretation and application of them, I suggest starting a discussion on a relevant noticeboard or talk page. As is already pointed out in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani‎, Badagnani‎ does not respect these policies and guidelines despite multiple dispute resolution approaches, including WP:THIRD, WP:RSN, and RfCs. --Ronz (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. These were not added as spam. I added the large majority of them myself, so I was not doing it for the benefit of a single organization (though I will admit that I do belong to 3 of the organizations listed). The entire list has a single reliable third party source for the information that is listed. So what is served by removing the external links? I see it as a way to make the list less useful and less easy to maintain while adding no benefit. I've read the policies about link spam, and I don't think they apply to this article. I see this as blind adherence to policies which loose sight of the reason the policies were created. The information is verifiable and nobody is spamming. What is the problem that you think you are solving here? I just don't get it, and I've been around Wikipedia for half a decade, and an admin for several years. I don't see what Badagnani has to do with this page.

Please discuss this without throwing Wiki-abbreviations around. It is unreasonable to expect people to read pages and pages of guidelines to understand why you think they apply here. And after all, they are just guidelines and we should ignore all rules when they go against the pillars of Wikipedia. So explain to me how this list, as it is, is harmful and contrary to the pillars of Wikipedia. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"These were not added as spam." No one said they were. However, I believe that they are best described as spam, specifically links that are promotional in nature rather than reliable, independent sources used for verification or to indicate notability. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We use the best sources possible at all Wikipedia articles, and the removed links, which are the best available, and which serve as sources about each gamelan ensemble, should be restored promptly pending thoughtful and considered discussion. Please refrain from attacking other editors in your posts (as above, "Badagnani does not..."). If it is preferred that the sources be formatted in some other manner, please do so rather than deleting the references. Badagnani (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. Badagnani's problems are documented in his RfC/U in detail, and are relevant to the disruptions he is causing here with this article. Hence, I bring them up. --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

More removed links

Please undo this edit pending thoughtful, considered discussion. All these removed references provide sources and proof of these gamelan ensembles, and are thus crucial to a properly referenced article on this subject. Badagnani (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, if you are providing references, at the very least wrap them in <ref> and </ref> tags instead of using external links on top of the name. Furthermore, while I don't consider it spam, I agree with Ronz in that they are rather... inappropriate external links for content. Some of them are just blatant advertising while others link to sites that don't seem very "professional" for Wikipedia. In addition, it seems half of the content is non-notable. Just offering an opinion here. Eugene2x►^talk 23:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There are various ways of doing references, but if references are not to an individual editor's liking, that is not a good reason for eliminating all of those references prior to thoughtful, deliberate, and careful discussion. This is a list of gamelan ensembles in the United States and all of the groups listed are notable, and no editors are using Wikipedia for advertising, but simply to document the gamelan ensembles in the United States in the most thorough and encyclopedic manner possible. Badagnani (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What a mess of an article/list - the links in the names are not WP:MOS and the general list like this should have refs, not embedded links in the article. Hasnt anyone seen this as an embarrassing example of what lists should not be ? SatuSuro 03:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Eventually, we're going to start discussing the real problems here: whether we can find some way to turn this into a maintainable list, or should it just be deleted as an article without any encyclopedic content. --Ronz (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedic has several definitions. I see Wikipedia as a very broad source of verifiable knowledge and information. Others appear to see it as an on-line version of traditional paper encyclopedias. I think far to much useful, verifiable information is being deleted from the project, and by doing so, you are discouraging the very same community that built this wonderful resource (of which I include myself). I do not understand why. You may choose to nominate this for deletion. I've already copied it to my own privately run wiki. If it gets deleted here, I'll just add an external link to the Gamelan outside Indonesia page. What does Wikipedia gain by that course of events? It gets one less useful, verifiable page, while promoting bad will. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh - further up you identified yourself as the adder of the links - all you had to do was to follow normal WP MOS and had them as refs - the links in the main text like that are not what wikipedia is about - a simple procedure of abiding by some simple rule regarding the placement of external links would really help the page SatuSuro 13:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference format is great, and we can work together to convert references to whatever format any editor wishes (such as the "reflist" format). That's much better than blanking such references wholesale and without prior discussion, then going on to another article, and really helps to promote and foster our project's collaborative spirit. Badagnani (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I created a featured list (it was even picked as a featured list of the month) that uses external links the same way (See: List of longest suspension bridge spans). In that list, each bridge has an external reference that points to the website of the bridge -- usually the transportation agency that built the bridge. It also has links to third party sites that can be used to confirm the listings. In that case, and this case, neither is spam because there is only one possible external link that could be added to each entry. The real choice is whether to have the one external link or not for each entry. If the guideline is remove them in this case the guideline is wrong. Guidelines are descriptive, and not prescriptive. This and other lists (including the featured one already mentioned) have existed happily on this site for many years. I have yet to hear a single argument that explains what is harmful about these lists, and why they are contrary to the pillars of Wikipedia. I wish those looking to remove spam focussed their efforts on pages where the "spam" is actually harmful. Again, I ask, what is harmful about this page? I'm happy to talk about reformatting it, and would not revert any attempts to do so. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What's harmful? The page uses external links to promote sites, in violation of WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. The page appears to promote non-notable subjects for unencyclopdic use, violating WP:N and WP:NOT. The links are not references, are verifying absolutely nothing in some cases, and fail WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB.

Sam has already offered to take this project of his to an off-Wikipedia venue. I think that is a good idea given all the problems here. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep article and references. The above proposal has no merit. Badagnani (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No merit? Does his well-thought out proposal have no merit simply because you have a grudge against him? We're all trying to be as neutral as possible here, but the comment you just posted above is absurd.

Ah well, no point criticizing his actions further as it doesn't really amount to anything but threats. I stand firm on the point that this article needs a bit of cleanup with its internal links and use references for the few parts that warrant any external linking. Eugene2x►^talk 02:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of links

The summary removal of a great many references, without consensus, as in this edit, is not constructive, and was reverted. The references verify the existence and other details of each group, and are thus essential to the article. I am not certain how the blanking editor found this article (most likely by following my contributions, as s/he has found so many other articles I have begun over the past few weeks, which is against WP policy, and I ask in all sincerity that s/he stop doing this); your interest in improving it is highly valued, but, as with other articles, this editor has had a problem with removing huge numbers of references without first seeking consensus to do so, even after being asked by long-time editors. We either aim to have the most thorough and encyclopedic article on this subject or we don't (we do), and the wholesale, summary blanking of references does not assist our users in having the best article possible on this subject. Please stop. Badagnani (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you both please take your disagreements with each other somewhere else? There clearly is not consensus here. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 18:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are not references. If you would like to provide actual references (that are not blatantly advertising/homepage of the group), then go ahead and make them references (not external links as you are doing right now). Until then, your edits are considered to be adding spam, and quite a few admins have already commented about this issue. Eugene2x►^talk 19:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I strongly recommend that Badagnani read WP:BRD and WP:DRNC. You should discuss when adding dubious information, not when removing, especially when an editor is trying to have an article comply with a policy or guideline. Eugene2x►^talk 19:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding links to a list is not a black and white decision

I hope everyone can stop fighting about this and try to have a reasoned discussion. There is no clear policy that addresses this. There are some guidelines that may or may not apply, and reasoned discussion is necessary to determine if they do apply here.

• First, the policies about linkspam were designed to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a magnet for spam, and not as a reason to remove useful links from an article or list. If each entry has only one possible link, then there is no danger of this list becoming a spam magnet. I don't think there has been any abuse caused by spammers on this page. I personally added a large marjority of the links, and I am only affiliated with three of the institutions mentioned.
• Second, Wikipedia guidelines and practices have been fairly schizophrenic when it comes to links like this. We do not have any problem with adding a link to the homepage of a corporation in the article about the corporation. If it is alright to add a single link to an article about one institution, why is it problematic to add links to all the institutions mentioned in a list. I created, and worked on bringing List of longest suspension bridge spans to featured status, and most of the bridges listed there have links to the homepages of the bridges listed. This is a useful feature of lists. There is a gray area of notability, where things that might not warrant their own article would never-the-less be included on a comprehensive list. If each of these gamelan organizations had their own article, there would be no problem with having each article linked to their homepages. Why is it a problem if they are collected here?
• Third, I find it objectionable to liberally apply a guideline to delete useful, verifiable information simply by using the rationale of pointing to a Wikipedia guideline. My reading of those guidelines lead to a different conclusion. I also object to the use of essays to justify a deletion. Wikipedia will fail if guidelines get codified into laws that are inflexibly applied. I have yet to see any discussion on this talk page that explains how the links on this list are damaging to the pillars of Wikipedia. Short of that, I will continue to object to their deletion.
• Fourth, if there is some way that these links could remain as references, perhaps we could all be happy? If so, please don't delete them, but instead, reformat them.
• Fifth, I think this battle is being fought mostly by people who have never been on this page before and have no interest in the subject. Please settle your battles elsewhere. This page, (and others like it) has lived happily on Wikipedia for several years, was linked to by WP:DYK without an objection.
• Sixth, This page is a resource for the entire academic Gamelan community. I don't see how it is helps anyone by removing the links. It doesn't help Wikipedia and it makes the page less useful, less verifiable and harder to maintain. It is also alienating to people (like me) who have put a great deal of work into Wikipedia.

-- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with the above reasoned and thoughtful discussion. We do aim to have the most thorough and encyclopedic article possible, and the references do verify the existence of the various gamelan ensembles, their current directors, the Indonesian names of the ensembles, the date the ensemble was established, the particular type of gamelan, etc. Badagnani (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like what has been admitted here is that this article is a directory. In that case, it should be deleted. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a list, not a directory. It's best to actually familiarize oneself with the policy before invoking it. The "not a directory" page summarizes six things a WP article should not be, and this article represents none of those six, and is in fact similar in scope to most other list articles. Badagnani (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you claim it is not a directory, then would you care to explain this section? Eugene2x►^talk 20:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Time for deletion?

The article doesn't have a single independent reliable source, but is just a directory in violation of WP:NOTDIR. If no independent, reliable sources can be found, then this article should not exist in Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The American Gamelan Institute is a reliable source. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The distinctions between lists and directories aer murky and certainly not clear cut. When this list began, the AGI was the only reliable source for this information in one place. Over time, this list has become more up to date than the AGI list. That is the nature of Wikis, and can be seen as a benefit or a problem. This list has not become a magnet for mis-information, so where's the harm? The same thing has happened with List of longest suspension bridge spans. In that case, the reliable sources used to create the page, have over time become filled with obsolete information. Do you really think we should be deleting Wikipedia pages because they have matured into being the authoritative source of verifiable information? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess we could see if AGI is considered a reliable source before we AfD this article then. --Ronz (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's important to do one's research before making huge deletions from an article. In this case, the American Gamelan Institute is an authoritative source--in fact, the authoritative source--on this subject. It's best to spend a bit of time when editing a new article, getting to know the subject and regular editors, etc., as I do, for example, when editing botany-related articles (a subject that is not my main specialty), dropping lines at various botany-related discussion pages to ask for advice, etc. In the future, let's discuss with care and thoroughness prior to such huge changes being made, especially when requested to do so by regular, long-time editors on a given article's Discussion page. Badagnani (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Advertisements

In case anyone has missed my edit summaries:

I believe the link and material about the Indonesian Performing Arts Association of Minnesota is nothing more than an advertisement: [1]

Same goes with the link and material about The Cabot School: [2]

Same goes with any direct links to American Gamelan Institute: [3] --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've created the version 17:02, 2 April 2009 that includes the other linkspam, but not the promotional material mentioned in this section. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that version. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In the future, let's discuss in such a manner before huge numbers of links are summarily removed. It's much more in keeping with our project's collegial and collaborative ethos. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Notes

The claim that the notes are references of some sort seems to be a rationalization for keeping the links regardless of what they link to. From what I can tell, the links were simply copied to be used as official sites. I'll remove them if no one can explain some other use for them that I'm unable to see. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would object strongly to the links being removed. Obviously one article on one of the sites would contain one external link without anyone quibbling, so it is not surprising that a list article with n sites should contain up to n links. Occuli (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask if anyone objected. I asked if anyone had any rationale for keeping them.

Articles on notable topics should have external links to their official sites. Non-notable information should not include external links to official sites about that information per WP:ELNO, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read the above discussion, carefully, before continuing to post or ask questions here. The references verify the existence of the ensembles, as well as their dates of establishment, gamelan type (i.e., Balinese or Javanese), Indonesian name, current director, etc. As such, they are not only highly valuable but essential to having the best and most encyclopedic article on this subject. Badagnani (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that the links are all references is simply incorrect. They are not highly valuable. They certainly are not essential.

If someone wants to actually check them all and revise them so that they all actually verify information in this article, please do so. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We may all do so, in a collaborative and productive fashion, working together to create the best (and best-sourced) article on this subject possible. It's wonderful that you now appear to wish this as well rather than insistently removing text and references, or attempting to delete the article entirely from our encyclopedia. On to a more positive, collegial form of editing! Badagnani (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please leave out the side comments, Badagnani. It really isn't very helpful in this discussion... GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Because we now have a few real sources, I've removed the links to official sites that were formatted as if they were sources even though it's clear that they are not sources and were not added to be sources. --Ronz (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sam agrees they are not references, but would like them to be in anyways, "We can do both -- references and links to websites. Why do you insist on hobbling this list!" [4]. I'm glad we agree they are not references. Given that they are not references, we shouldn't format them as references, nor should they be in the article at all. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

They are essential references and should remain in the article, as we do use the best sources available at Wikipedia, in an effort to build the best possible and most encyclopedic articles for our users. We must be reasonable in everything we do, and the insistent blanking of a massive number of essential references does not enhance this article for our users. Badagnani (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, Kindly speak for yourself. My position is more nuanced than your take on it. I was responding to your comment that "Now that we're adding real sources, removed the links to official sites which are not sources and were not added as sources". My response, which was very much constrained in the edit summary, is that even if you think they are not references, they could and should still remain in this list. I happen to agree that they can be used as references to verify information which is non-controversial and not disputed. I don't see any reason why they cannot be used to confirm the existence of a group and the basic facts about it. Anyone who wrote an article for publication about a group would be using the same information. I've never heard of a website being created for a make-believe or misrepresented Gamelan group, nor could I imagine why anyone would want to do so. Adding the external link as a reference makes the source of the information transparent. This is the idea behind the guidelines about citations and references. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 05:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your position. I've asked for them to be verified. I'm removing them because no one is doing so, and the only legitimate rationale for keeping them is they might, someday, be used to verify some, unspecified, non-controversial information. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying my postion: We do not place links into articles because they might be used as references in the future. The links in question were added as official sites, violating multiple policies and guidelines, in order to create a diretory of gamelans, which has been freely admitted by at least one of the editors involved in creating article, in violation of WP:NOTDIR. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a list of gamelan ensembles. A comparison of gamelan ensembles. NOTDIR is being far too strictly interpreted - this is not a mere directory - it contains details that make it more than a mere directory.

Official links are perfectly allowed as references to non-controversial information. Also, this and they are being discussed elsewhere - please stop deleting them whilst we discuss them. There is no rush - some patience and compromise would be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Official links are perfectly allowed as references to non-controversial information" You are missing my position here: They are not references now. They weren't references when they were added. Saying they will be references in the future is not an argument for keeping them in the article now. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority are references. If you would like to dispute individual references then go for it. But you are disputing the entire set of official sites based on the notion that it is somehow "spam". A link to a University music department is not spam. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Kindly read all above discussion before commenting further. The references are indeed references, and are central to providing the best, most encyclopedic article on this subject for our users. Badagnani (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"The vast majority are references." WP:PROVEIT. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

University of Arizona link confirms the style of play and origin of instrument, Fine Stream Gamelan link confirms (and adds details) about the style of play and origin of instrument and origin of group, etc, etc, etc. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is why I had asked that the discussion page, as well as the article itself, be thoroughly read before commenting further here, because if that were done by all editors commenting here, such questions wouldn't need to be asked. As mentioned at least five times on this page, the references are essential in thoroughly documenting each ensemble, its Indonesian name, type (i.e., Javanese or Balinese), current director, date of establishment, institutional affiliation, etc. Many of the references are highly trustworthy, being from the various educational institutions (primarily universities and colleges) at which the gamelan ensembles are based. Badagnani (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Massive removal of references

Kindly refrain from doing this again. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of links to official sites

No. These are not references, and others agree. You've been in this situation before where you are unable to distinguish inappropriate links from real, reliable sources, as documented in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani.

--Ronz (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2009

Again, kindly refrain from the massive, summary, and wholesale removal of references from this, or any other article. Badagnani (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe I made it clear. No. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It really is important that we edit together with one another, in the collegial and collaborative manner intended by our founders. The insistent, massive removal of references, apparently without taking the time to learn about this subject, simply is not in line with our founding ethos. Badagnani (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting this talk page. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

List of official sites moved to talk

Moved from the article for reference. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Arizona State University Gamelan
2. Fine Stream Gamelan
3. Harvey Mudd American Gamelan
4. UC Davis Gamelan Ensemble
5. Center for World Music
6. Bali and Beyond
7. Onepeoplevoice
8. Gamelan-X
9. Gamelan Gadung Kasturi
10. ShadowLight Productions
11. Gamelan Kori Mas
12. Gamelan Sekar Jaya
13. Pusaka Sunda
14. Gamelan Sinar Surya
15. Monkey C
16. Gamelan Swarasanti
17. Gamelan Anak Swarasanti
18. Gamelan Tunas Mekar
19. Gamelan Mitra Kusuma
20. Friends of the Gamelan
21. Gamelan at the Consulate General of Indonesia
22. Central Javanese Gamelan: The University of Chicago
23. Gamelan Wrhatnala of Boyds
24. Boston Village Gamelan
25. Gamelan Galak Tika
26. Gamelan Si Betty
27. Kyai Telega Madu
28. Sumunar Gamelan and Dance Ensemble
29. Gamelan Lipur Sih
30. Gamelan Sleeping Fox
31. Gamelan Encantada
32. CSF Gamelan
33. Dharmaswara
34. Gamelan Kusuma Laras
35. Tamara and the Shadow Theatre of Java / Srikandi Gamelan Orchestra
36. Gamelan Lila Muni - University of Rochester
37. Gamelan Nyai Saraswati
38. Gamelan Degung Leuwi Asih
39. Gamelan Sari Pandhawa
40. Kyai Tunjung Mulya
41. Iron City Gamelan
42. Kyai Tirta Rukmi
43. Gamelan Semara Santi
44. Gamelan Ensemble Bucknell University
45. Kyahi Rosowibowo
46. Space City Gamelan
47. Sweet River of Understanding
48. Gamelan Pacifica
49. Gamelan Wrhatnala Gunung Blue Ridge
50. Chandra Wyoga

Unnecessary to remove or move; they are essential references for this article (as mentioned above numerous times), as they verify details such as the gamelan ensemble's date of establishment, current director, Indonesian name, and type (i.e., Javanese or Balinese). It's best to spend time with an article, learning about the subject and conversing with editors with expertise in the subject, before making huge edits; in this case, a familiarity with the subject of gamelan ensembles in the United States will make it clear that these references really are essential to providing the best, most encyclopedic article on this subject for our users (which should be foremost in our minds). Badagnani (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's true that they aren't really references and if they are to be in the article it would have to be in an EL section, but it seems silly to edit-war about it while there is an active AfD that will probably be successful. Dlabtot (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm unable to see what Gamelan Puspa Warna at the Center for Wolrd Music verifies, other than the name. [5] --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  The main page verifies the name and director's name. http://www.centerforworldmusic.org/puspaw/his1.html and http://www.centerforworldmusic.org/puspaw/his2.html verifies a lot more, and provides additional information. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  We use references to verify what is actually in the article. If all we're verifying is the name, I see no need for the reference. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Bali and Beyond alone verifies nothing. I'm guessing Quiddity is referering to subpages, but it's not clear if anything is verified rather than just providing additional information that is not in the article. [6] --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  Regarding http://www.balibeyond.com/ it is a framed site with informative subpages. Would you insist upon referencing each subpage, or would you prefer a single link to the main page? http://www.balibeyond.com/gamelanmusic.html and http://www.balibeyond.com/residencies.html and http://www.balibeyond.com/ib.html verify dates and names and styles, and additional information. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, we should be following the applicable policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  Then please try to help us correct the links to the appropriate subpages, instead of deleting them. You deleting, me checking and fixing/restoring, you rechecking, me verifying at talk, just quadruples the amount of work that has to be done. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  Given that these links fail multiple policies and guidelines, I think it's a waste of time. I've started multiple discussions on this talk page about these problems. I'm happy to wait a bit longer for replies. --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Working together to build the best, most thorough article possible on a given subject is never a "waste of time." Our collaborative endeavor is of great importance and does often take a bit of time, which is well worthwhile. Badagnani (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard

A discussion has been started on the use of the linkspa as references here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Official_sites_for_confirmation_of_existence_and_basic_details --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion archived here. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

List of official sites that might be useful as primary refs

1. Arizona State University Gamelan "confirms the style of play and origin of instrument" [7] --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Fine Stream Gamelan "confirms (and adds details) about the style of play and origin of instrument and origin of group" [8] --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Notes" section and WP:SELFPUB

I currently count 14 real references, plus the 50 official sites identified above. Now that the sites are listed here on this talk page, can we remove them so it's easier to see what we have referenced from third parties, as required by WP:SELFPUB? I'd hope that anyone that doesn't want this article deleted wouldn't impede such basic work as verifying the information. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the references should certainly not be removed as they are all essential to providing the best, most encyclopedic article on this subject for our readers (verifying each gamelan's type, Indonesian name, current director, date of establishment, etc.). This has been mentioned above at least two or three times. Badagnani (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The controlling policies and guidelines are WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:EL. Your assertions about what is 'essential' are irrelevant - no matter how many times you repeat them. Dlabtot (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I'm going to tag the two listed above as self-published, and remove the rest. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly in SELFPUB do you think that these links violate? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB #1 and #5. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding #5, it is not primarily based on such sources. They are merely confirming the details. The article is primarily based on the 3 main references.

Regarding #1, how do you interpret "unduly self-serving"? They are not confirming anything controversial or disputed. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My response is the RfC below. The links were added and maintained to be official sites, so they are by definition, "unduly self-serving". The majority of references are self-published, so the article is indeed based mostly upon such sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The references are essential to providing the best, most encyclopedic article on this subject, as they verify the various aspects of each group mentioned above, and thus should not be removed. Badagnani (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Tags

The tags you keep adding at the top:

1. Please point out the "advertisement"-like writing, so that we can correct it to your satisfaction.
2. The notability for the-list-as-a-whole is established by the 2 secondary source listings (University and Embassy) we use as reference. Also the rarity of the individual instruments is notable. Plus, it is a sublist from the other gamelan articles.
3. The notability for the individual items in the list is not relevant, because as established, items within an article are not covered by notability: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles."
4. It is not reliant upon a single source anymore, nor does it even appear to be.
5. It is not an example farm, because these are not "examples" - it is all of them.

Hence, I don't understand why you keep readding these tags. From our perspective re-adding them just appears to be antagonistic. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I do think the notability and linkfarm tags are relevant. Notability hasn't been established and there is a huge list of links that don't conform to our policies. Dlabtot (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Advert tag: This tag links to WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV, so it's a bit misleading, but I prefer it over a simple NPOV tag in cases like this. While WP:SOAP applies, other sections of WP:NOT apply as well, such as WP:NOTLINK and WP:NOTDIR. The article was built from one source, a directory, so it's inherently promotional and problematic per WP:NOT until it is properly sourced by independent, reliable sources. Alternatively, it could consist only of notable gamelans.

Notability tag: A few references about gamelan ensembles across the US would suffice. Articles about individual gamelans don't help much for the notability of the topic.

Single source tag. The overwhelming majority of entries have no independent references, so I assume they are referenced by the original directory from which the article was derived.

Examplefarm, linkfarm, directory - these describe exactly what this article is. Take your pick on how we best identify it. --Ronz (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the references are essential, as they verify many things about each gamelan: its existence, its name (both English and often also in Indonesian), the city where it is based, its style (i.e., Balinese or Indonesian) and often its current director and date of establishment. A list of gamelan ensembles in the United States should include all gamelans, as this article does, as every item in a Wikipedia list does not have to have its own WP article. These things have actually been mentioned at least four or five times above, so it really is important that all editors commenting here read all the discussion here prior to commenting further. That will allow all of us to contribute to Wikipedia in a very productive and fruitful manner, rather than repeat ourselves many times. Badagnani (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

1. There are 3 main sources listed. Not 1 any more.
2. Notability is derived from the pages it is a split from, and the 3 main sources.
3. SELFPUB has been addressed already. The facts these references are confirming (not establishing. confirming.) satisfy all the requirements in WP:SELFPUB.
4. Directory was addressed in the AfD closing. What you call a linkfarm and keep trying to delete, we call references and try to improve. Would you like to help? or continue to take two steps back, 3 steps forward? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

The key phrase for all citation/reference/notability issues is highlighted in WP:BURDEN. It refers to "material challenged or likely to be challenged". I'll repeat for the umpteenth time that nobody has challenged the veracity of of ANY of the information in this list. WP:BURDEN is not applicable. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm challenging the links. They were added as official sites. Saying that they are now references does not change this. Some verify absolutely nothing in the article. If someone wants to assert that they are indeed references, the person needs to actually check that the links verify something. --Ronz (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Why not give it a rest until the AfD is finished? Do you folks just like fighting or what? Dlabtot (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very clear: all the links were added with great care by those editors who have edited this page intensively and with seriousness over a period of years. Each link verifies the existence of the gamelan and the city where it is located, its type (i.e., Balinese or Javanese), and usually also its current director, its Indonesian name, and the date it was established. I believe this has also been mentioned at least three times above, so it would be best if all users commenting here read all the above discussion before commenting further. Badagnani (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, in spite of what I said above, I can't keep from replying to this comment. The existence of something is totally irrelevant to the question of whether it should be included in Wikipedia. Our criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not: "Does it exist?". Our criteria for listing things on Wikipedia is not: "Do they exist?". Dlabtot (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I never add things to Wikipedia for the sole reason that they exist. I have worked at Wikipedia for years in an effort to assist in building the best encyclopedia possible for our users. Deleting an article documenting in a comprehensive manner the gamelans in the United States--one of the first and most important world music ensembles to enter the American musical landscape, was not added to Wikipedia for the reason that it exists, and the implication that it was is very mistaken, and should not be again reiterated (as it has several times). Badagnani (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any comment about what you 'never' do. All I know is that you are arguing for inclusion of these links on this page because each one "verifies the existence of the gamelan and the city where it is located". The only problem is, who cares? The existence of things, as you seem to acknowledge, is irrelevant to whether or not they should be included in WP. Dlabtot (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In regard to the accusations of fighting: While I cannot answer for others, I think the article might be salvageable, if only editors would let me continue to cut through what SatuSuro correctly calls "a mess". --Ronz (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question of "who cares" about the tradition of gamelans and their tradition in the United States, as those editors who have regularly contributed to this article (and now you, as well) know, the gamelan was the first world music ensemble to be added to the American musical landscape, originally in the nascent ethnomusicology programs in the music departments of American colleges and universities, and later spreading to various communities, and is thus of signal importance to an understanding of world music, a topic that we do endeavor to document in a thorough manner for our encyclopedia, which truly is the best in the world. Let's work together to do that. A scan of our own articles on gamelan music verify that it is one of the most important and prevalent world music ensembles in the United States, so it would probably be a good idea if editors wishing to comment here first read those articles with care, to familiarize themselves with this musical tradition, and its importance in the United States. Badagnani (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No one ever said "Who cares about gamelan music" so any comments based on this false and dishonest premise are entirely invalid.

I did say words equivalent to "Who cares that non-notable things exist", however, so if you want to respond to that point, please go ahead. Dlabtot (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The question "who cares that non-notable things exist" has no significance in this context because, as editors who have worked hard to build this article (and, now you as well) know, the tradition of gamelans and their position in the United States musical landscape is one of great notability in the fields of world music/ethnomusicology, for the aforementioned reasons. Let's now get on to the process of building the best encyclopedia possible; I'm looking forward very much to doing that. Badagnani (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Must we continue to explain to you? Yes, the topic is notable, but no, none of the gamelans are notable. Wikipedia does not include things for the sole reason of existence. You exist - why not have an article about you? GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not true that none of the gamelans are notable. Several have performed in major venues and recorded CDs. Only two have articles as of now, but several other could. Offhand, I'd say it probably would not be difficult to write articles about the Boston Village Gamelan, Shadowlight productions, Gamelan X, Gamelan Galak Tika, Pusaka Sunda and Gamelan Si Betty. There are probably others, these are just the ones that I have direct knowledge of. A person (or gamelan ensemble) may not be worthy of an article, but still be worth mentioning on a list. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Links to official sites

Again, I'd like to remove them as a step toward cleaning up this article. The links are currently listed on this talk page. Their inclusion violates multiple policies and guidelines. We have no consensus to include them, despite the discussion here, in the AfD, and in WP:RSN. I'd hoped that editors would at least check that they verify something, but no one appears to want to do so. At this point, perhaps everyone just expects the article will be deleted per the AfD? --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to expect, but since the AfD should close later today, we can just see at that point. If the article is retained, references will need to conform to WP:RS and External Links will have to conform to WP:EL. Dlabtot (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The references should not be removed, as they are essential to supporting and verifying the information in the article. Let's work together to make it the best possible article on this subject, anywhere. Badagnani (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To add to grid

Can someone please add spaces in the table for current director and year of establishment, as well as make the columns sortable, per the helpful comment at the AFD? Badagnani (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Making it sortable would be pretty tough, considering the current formatting. You can't have cells spanning multiple rows in a sortable table. Director and year of establishment are useful info, I agree, but the table is already getting cramped. Would they fit? — Gwalla | Talk 18:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC - Using official sites as sources

Official sites of the individual gamelans are being used as sources. Of the 75 current notes, over 50 are to official sites. A previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Official_sites_for_confirmation_of_existence_and_basic_details produced no clear consensus. --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Related discussion on this talk page:

• Talk:List_of_gamelan_ensembles_in_the_United_States#Removed_links
• Talk:List_of_gamelan_ensembles_in_the_United_States#More_removed_links
• Talk:List_of_gamelan_ensembles_in_the_United_States#Removal_of_links
• Talk:List_of_gamelan_ensembles_in_the_United_States#Adding_links_to_a_list_is_not_a_black_and_white_decision
• Talk:List_of_gamelan_ensembles_in_the_United_States#Notes
• Talk:List_of_gamelan_ensembles_in_the_United_States#Massive_removal_of_references
• Talk:List_of_gamelan_ensembles_in_the_United_States#List_of_official_sites_moved_to_talk
• Talk:List_of_gamelan_ensembles_in_the_United_States#List_of_official_sites_that_might_be_useful_as_primary_refs
• Talk:List_of_gamelan_ensembles_in_the_United_States#.22Notes.22_section_and_WP:SELFPUB
• Talk:List_of_gamelan_ensembles_in_the_United_States#Links_to_official_sites

--Ronz (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've stated my views previously in many of the linked places mentioned above. People might also might want to read the AFD discussion as well. I think the issues is not whether the external links should exist, but how. We add external links all over Wikipedia. For organizations, like universities and corporations, we add them in the same spot in infoboxes. This makes it very helpful for the people who come to Wikipedia because they are trying to find an organization. Personally, I use Wikipedia this way all the time. Our policies recommend adding a link to organizations in the articles about them. Often, instead of having separate pages about less notable organizations, we collect them in a list. If we deem the list to be notable (which is the case for this article), then it makes sense to have links to all of them. Personally, I'd prefer having these links separate from the other references. It would make it more transparent to the user which are primary and which are third party. This has been done in other lists. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a little premature to put this article through yet another administrative process? The AfD just closed yesterday. — Gwalla | Talk 20:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The external links utilized as references in this article have been carefully selected by conscientious editors knowledgeable and interested in this subject, in order to verify each gamelan's existence, Indonesian name, type (i.e., Balinese or Javanese), institutional affiliation, date of establishment, current director, etc., and thus enhance the article for our users. Consequently, they should not be removed. Let's work together to make this the best possible article on this subject. Badagnani (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• The links given on the page seem wholly appropriate - as Sam points out, an article on one of the ensembles would have an external link to its official site without controversy, and so a list of 75 ensembles is entitled to 75 links to 75 official sites without controversy. Occuli (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Citations must be to reliable sources that meet WP:RS. External links should be in an external link section and must conform to WP:EL. Dlabtot (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• They do. This has been pointed out many times in the above discussion (please read it before commenting further). The references verify uncontroversial points of information such as the gamelan's existence institutional affiliation, and type (i.e., Balinese or Javanese), as well as often its date of establishment, current director, and Indonesian name; this information is often fairly complete and accurate on such sites, making them useful and usable under our very reasonable WP guidelines. Badagnani (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Two points: First, at least some (more likely, most if not all) of the links were added only to provide links to the official sites. They were not added as references at all, but were simply reformatted to appear as references without checking to see if they verified anything at all [9]. Going through the history of the article, it is easy to see that these links have been updated to keep a link to the official site, and no older links are ever kept as references. The reformatting is simply a way to attempt to get around WP:EL, WP:NOTLINK, and WP:SPAM.

Second, even if we removed all the links that don't verify anything, provided access dates with the links, and indicated what each link was being used to verify (basic maintenance tasks that editors have yet to do more than two months after the links were first identified as problematic), these are all self-published, failing WP:SELFPUB #1 and #5, and failing WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You suggested the SELFPUB violation above, and we await your reply at #"Notes" section and WP:SELFPUB. As for RS, we've explained countless times that these do not violate Wikipedia:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. I think you are overly-strictly interpreting this guideline. They are (intended to be) referencing basic facts and figures, and serving as a link for further information. If you like examples, see List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.), which is entirely based upon a primary source (and leads to further details that we don't include in our list itself). -- Quiddity (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The reliable, primary sources in List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.) are not self-published, while the official sites in this article are self-published, so WP:SELFPUB applies this these links in this article. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Answered in the thread at my talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're clear, the issue is that the majority of the references here are self-published sources, which were just external links to official web sites until one editor reformatted them to references without checking to see that they actually verified anything at all. (Three weeks later, we still have not checked to see if all these reformatted links verify anything at all.) As for WP:RS, it's already been discussed in RSN, linked above. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable self-published sources can be used as references for themselves. Just as we link to http://www.stuy.edu as a reference at Stuyvesant High School, or http://www.royalsociety.org references at Michael Faraday Prize, or the http://www.juniper.net references at List of acquisitions by Juniper Networks. They are all primary self-published sources, that are reliable about certain things (reliablity is relative, and varies with context). Hence, they can all be used with due care.

How the links here were formatted or intended originally, is not particularly relevant. If they are suitable as references, and once they have been checked [we're working on it..."Three weeks later" there are a lot of editing diffs, and many of the links have been checked and verified], then there should be no objections to using them. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: Further requests for input have been left at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, and Wikipedia talk:External links, and Wikipedia talk:Lists. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Using official sites as references to show non-notable entities exist is not appropriate. Referncing the existence of soemthing is of no value. Other stuff does exist. This is an encyclopedia of notable subjects. We are not a link farm of unnotable stuff. 2005 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  So in effect you are saying that lists should only contain notable subjects which are worthy of Wikipedia articles. If so, why do we routinely merge less than notable articles into lists? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  Seems that he's saying that such "official site" references shouldn't be used, and that we have other problems with this list as well. --Ronz (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  He said "Using official sites as references to show non-notable entities exist is not appropriate". He did not say anything about whether or not such links could ever be used as references. Both of you should know better than to put words in other editor's mouths. (I've probably done it too. It's a hard rhetorical habit to break). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessed for projects

Assessed SatuSuro 04:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Name field format

Why is the name field formatted as bold and italics? Isn't this a big no-no? Why can't we use plain text here? Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. It might make sense to create redirects to this page for the groups that do not have articles. In which case they would be bold. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but these guys gave me a hard time when I proposed a similar thing. I guess everyone does it differently. WP:NRHP prefers to create small stubs instead of redirects. Viriditas (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's worthwhile at this point to create redirects. Anyone searching for those terms would find this page anyway. I'd rather that people find which groups could pass WP:BAND on their own and create well-sourced stubs. As for text styling, I'm neutral. — Gwalla | Talk 17:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sweet River of Understanding

Might no longer be playing. According to [10] Marilyn Meador, the owner of the gamelan set (acquired in 1997), retired in 2008. It doesn't mention whether she left the set with the university or took it with her. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I received an email from her on April 26 (in response to my query whether her group had a Javanese name) and she didn't mention that the group is no longer performing. Emeriti often continue to teach; it's hard to give up the habit. Badagnani (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Example farm

This list has been linked to WP:LISTCRUFT using the example farm tag. The page says this:

If a Wikipedia editor refers to a list as listcruft, it indicates that the editor believes one or more of the following:

1. The list was created just for the sake of having such a list
2. The list is of interest to a very limited number of people
3. The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
4. The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable
5. The list cannot be expanded beyond a handful of terms
6. The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable
7. The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category
8. The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia.
9. Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available.
10. Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.
11. The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.

Number one is not true, and I'm not even sure what it means. Number two is not true, the list is relevant and of interest to thousands of Gamelan musicians and students around the world. Number three is not true, it is not indiscriminant, but clearly defined and a notable topic. Number four is not true either. Nobody has said that any of these groups do not exist, rather, they have been challenged for not having third party sources. Third party sources are only required for information that is, or can be, challenged, which is not the case here. Notability of the concept has been shown in the third party references. Number five is not true. It has already been expanded. Number six is not a problem. The list has already been expanded to include virtually all the ensembles that exist and we've had no problem maintaining it. Number seven is not applicable because many individual entries are not article worthy on their own, but are worth including on a comprehensive list. Number eight depends on what you think the meaning of encyclopedic is. I would expect this list to be included in an encyclopedia of Indonesian music or Ethnomusicology. Number nine does not apply at all. As for number ten, There's no synthesis here, and there are other lists on-line that include most entries that appear here. Others are added as they become known by the contributors. And finally number eleven, there's no volatility and it takes a minimum effort to maintain this.

So I don't see how this is cruft. It is comprehensive, and I don't see that there is anything wrong with that in harmless cases like this one that list uncontroversial information. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"and I'm not even sure what it means" Not a very convincing argument that.

I'd say #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #8 all apply. --Ronz (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with Sam. The afd(s) failed, the article has been improved and the unsightly tags taking up the top screen should all be removed. I did suggest earlier that Ronz display the same zeal re List of symphony orchestras in the United States which appears to have no references whatever and offers a wide variety of farmyard experiences. Occuli (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Please provide rationale. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"and I'm not even sure what it means" is referring to the fact that everything at Wikipedia is created "just for the sake of having it". Isn't that the point of our efforts? I have given my rationalle for removing the tag, All that you have done, Ronz, is check off which ones you think apply -- without providing any rationale. I am happy to discuss this, but the point that I (and perhaps Occuli) are making is that any problems that might exist here are either marginal or insignificant. This list is stable, comprehensive, and more up to date than the third party sources it relies on, yet you say it is unlimited or unmaintainable. This suggests that you know little or nothing about the subject. I get the impression that you feel strongly that this list needs policing -- that it is somehow harming the project. Why is this? Why do you think that people coming to this page need to be linked to an essay about Listcruft? I find that insulting to everyone who is studying or interested this music (most of the groups are part of university ethnomusicology programs). I find that harmful to Wikipedia as it is off-putting to our readers. As an established editor, who has been donating a great deal of effort for many years, I personally find it off-putting to have to put so much effort into justifying something like this. I see it as being the result of well-intentioned editors who may have become carried away with the idea of making Wikipedia "pure" by adding tags with links to essays that don't even have universal support of the community. To me that is not conducive to a community where we can all coexist. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please focus on content, per WP:NPA. Thanks!

"without providing any rationale" I'm happy to provide some. I first wanted to point out a few of the areas on which we disagee.

"I find that insulting to everyone" I'm sorry you feel this way. However, it's not a reason for removing valid tags. See WP:OWN.

#1 - The list was created to host a list that was created off of Wikipedia. It had no notable entries at creation. It had no independent references other than the list from which it was derived.

#2 - The lack of notable entries in the article, the very low traffic (averaging less than 20/day when the article isn't being edited), and the comments on this talk page and in the AfDs all indicate a very limited interest.

#3 - The article has no entries one entry that meets WP:N.

#4 - Again, we have no entries only one entry that meet WP:N.

#6 - The edit history speaks for itself. No notable entries. No independent sources until very recently. Editors unable or unwilling to verify the information they add to the article.

#8 - The article was unencyclopedic at creation (basically, Wikipedia was just being used to host a list created elsewhere), and it remains without a single notable entry three and a half years later.

--Ronz (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Two of the ensembles have articles (and some of the other ensembles are notable enough to have articles, but they haven't been written yet). Please stop confusing the situation by repeatedly stating that there aren't any that have notability. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

"some of the other ensembles are notable enough to have articles, but they haven't been written yet" I acknowledge that you have made this assertion. Upon what facts are you basing it? Did you find sources that establish notability? If so, why don't you just write the articles for those ensembles, or add those sources to this article? Or are you in fact not aware of any sources that establish notability for the un-named ensembles to which you are referring? Dlabtot (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There are two entries with articles now? Sorry, I only saw Gamelan Son of Lion when I looked through it, which has no indication of notability in the article. I've updated my comments accordingly. So we have one, Gamelan Sekar Jaya. That really doesn't change the situation. --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dlabtot: There are many ensembles with multiple RS references. Therefor articles could be created about them. I don't have the time or interest to personally create the articles for these ensembles. Nor am I obliged to: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists covers "list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles". However, many of the ensembles do warrant independent articles, as the references attest. Someone who is interested in building the encyclopedia will doubtlessly get around to them, in time. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Endless repetition of your assertions makes them less convincing, not more so. Dlabtot (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You are tagging the list now, not the one that was first created years ago. I created this list because it seemed to me that a wiki was a much better forum for this information. Wikis are more up to date than websites controlled by a single owner. That is one reason why we all like and use Wikipedia. Even if what you say were true, you can't object to something now because of what it might have been several years ago. If we did that, virtually every article in Wikipedia would have to be deleted!

All your other points are incorrect because there are notable entries, and there are more articles about notable ensembles that could be created. Besides that, lists often contain non-notable entries when the entire topic is notable. Lists were and are a customary way to inspire others to write missing articles about notable subjects. Notability of the topic has been shown from the articles cited about the topic. You concede that there are independent sources when you said "until very recently". Verifiability means that suspect information that is or could be challenged needs to be cited. Nobody has ever claimed that there is any suspect information in this list. Do you think that all these universities are fraudulently trying to make people think that they have gamelan ensembles? Your points are not valid. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What a ridiculous strawman. No one is questioning the existence of these ensembles, the question is, are they notable? " Lists were and are a customary way to inspire others to write missing articles about notable subjects. " So why don't you try writing the articles about the allegedly notable subjects? It would seem to be a more productive task than asserting ad nauseum that they are notable. Dlabtot (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Item #1 in WP:LISTCRUFT is, "The list was created just for the sake of having such a list." I addressed that specific topic of WP:LISTCRUFT. At this point, it may be helpful to point out what else WP:LISTCRUFT says, "If a Wikipedia editor refers to a list as listcruft, it indicates that the editor believes one or more of the following". --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting). Any labeling of an article should reflect its current state. And #1 could be applied to almost any list so it is virtually meaningless. Listcruft is an essay, and just because you think it is cruft does not necessarily mean that it should be tagged that way. The listcruft tag on this article is insulting to a community of musicians, enthusiasts and ethnomusicologists, and hence detrimental to the Wikipedia community. The message it sends is "we don't want you here". Why would we want to send that message? We have many lists at Wikipedia where only a few entries are notable, but the list topic is notable. This topic is notable. What I really don't understand is how the tag is of use to anyone. What is it warning the user of in this case? What is it suggesting to the editors (mainly me)? Get specific and concrete with your rationale and explain this to me, because I do not see the problem that you are trying to fix. There is no challenge to the policies of verifiability, and notability that has been shown to be valid. Spam is not a problem here. Maintaining the list is not a problem. It is comprehensive. It is stable. Other than the tags that we are discussing now, there is no controversy. I think your efforts would be better spent patrolling serious egregious examples of cruft, and then I will put more effort into creating articles about some of the other notable ensembles. This would be a much better use of all or our energies. Wouldn't it? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your focus on editors and turn your attention to the concerns with content. I'm here to work on an encyclopedia. I hope all other editors have the same intentions.

"Any labeling of an article should reflect its current state." Sorry, but I'm applying WP:LISTCRUFT here, which is what the tag indicates. Such tags are certainly not "harmful to Wikipedia as it is off-putting to our readers."

Maintaining his article is most certainly a problem. The article had fundamental problems since it's creation, and many of those problems remain because editors would rather resist their being identified and fixed, than simply maintain the article. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for concrete suggestions above that would explain the problems you are having, but your response is that I am focusing on editors. I do not see the problem that you are trying to fix by applying these tags. How can we engage in a conversation if you insist there is "cruft", and I don't, yet any discussion ends up with you essentially saying that the only thing you want to discuss is the removal of "cruft". To discuss this we have to discuss "cruft". I've stated why I don't think it is, yet where is your explanation? Please tell me how to make a comprehensive list without adding less notable entries to it? Why is a list with verifiable, less-notable entries, such a bad thing that we have to warn readers? How many notable entries have to be on a list for you to find it acceptable? What would I have to do to get you to agree to remove the tag? Would such a list still be comprehensive? I still think you are missing the bigger picture. Wikis grow by building on imperfection. A list might evolve, first having an uncited entry, which eventually gets a source added to confirm it. A first-hand source will eventually become a third party source. An entry that appears to be non-notable will eventually have an article written which meets notability guidelines. We need to encourage these things. To my way of thinking we need to be very selective about labeling things as "cruft". It can send the message "don't work on this list, or write articles about the entries because the community thinks they are worthless and a waste of time". There needs to be a clear consensus before such a label gets applied. This is especially true for a tag which hasn't even reached the community support level of being a guideline. We have to rely on the subject knowledge of our editors to know the difference between garbage and something which can evolve. The editors on this page with that subject knowledge have said that the information here is not garbage. If editors have not demonstrated that they know anything about the subject, why should their evaluations of the information override those who are more knowledgeable? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has had tags since April identifying specific problems with the article. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The only tag that I see that deals with listcruft is at the top of the page. Please reply to my questions so I can fix the specific problems. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest you look closer. The article currently has four tags at the top. Many of the supposed "references" have been tagged inline, identifying them as self-published, failing verification, or both.

If you have further questions, please present them in a way that follows WP:CON, WP:TALK, WP:NPA, and WP:DR. I've repeatedly asked you to focus on content. Once should have been enough.

Additionally, I think we need to address the WP:N concerns here. Given the lack of progress to date, and RfC would probably be the best next step. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Self published

This tag links to the following text:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I think this list meets these criteria:

1. These entries just state basic simple facts about each ensemble such as location, the type of music played, and the instruments being used. None of these things are unduly self-serving.
2. These entries do not make any claims at all about third parties.
3. No events are mentioned anywhere and everything is directly related to the subject.
4. There has never been any claim that the information is inauthentic. Colleges and Universities have no reason to mislead the public about their music programs. The community groups have other citations supporting the information.
5. The article is based on a third party list, but has been updated with more current information drawn from these self-published sources. The question that I think is raised by this is whether this evolution away from the third party source is likely to make the information here suspect. I don't think that is the case. The nature of Wikipedia is such that as it matures its lists will become the best source of information in many cases. This happened on another list I worked on, List of longest suspension bridge spans. It was based on several third party lists which are now all out of date, making the Wikipedia list much more accurate than the original sources.

So I don't see justification for this tag, and I am removing it. --☑ SamuelWantman 20:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is a list of gamelans. It is not specifically about any one gamelan, which would be the only generally accepted situation where such self-published sources and WP:SELFPUB apply.

The article is based primarily upon such sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is based on the 2 secondary source listings (University and Embassy). -- Quiddity (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We have many more than two out of the 81, but either way it's mostly based upon primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No. It is based upon the two secondary sources. It has a large quantity of primary sources, and a large quantity of additional secondary sources, but it is not based upon any of them. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not making much sense of what you're saying. Let me put it another way for you to address. How would you support the inclusion of the many entries that have no secondary sources whatsoever? --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Embassy source gives 91 ensembles in the US. The Dartmouth source lists many more, 27 in California alone. Which ensembles in the article are not included in either? Occuli (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Which ensembles in the article are not included in either?" As far as I can tell, the ones that do not have any such references. --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is at the root of our misunderstanding. I don't see a single citation to these two second party sources. They are listed in the "Notes and bibliography" as source material for the entire list. None of the 87 citations are to the second party sources mentioned above because virtually every group is on those lists. It looks as though you were not aware of that. We can certainly add a citation for each group that appears on those second party sources. I would not object, and I hope this will satisfy you. --☑ SamuelWantman 06:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I expect information to be properly verified per WP:V. Sorry that's causing so many problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

citations and references

These two tags still remain on the list:

• It may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text.
• It may contain improper references to self-published sources.

Which citations are inappropriate or misinterpreted? Which references to self-published sources are improper? Most, if not all of the self-published sources appear to be verifying basic non-controversial information about the ensembles, which is in line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Please list any that are not, so they can be fixed. Thanks. -- ☑ SamuelWantman

Some are tagged in the article. They've been that way since April. In April, I had checked all the links up to but not including the Dharmaswara entry, about two thirds of the article. From a cursory glance at the rest, there appears to be more of the same. Very sad that we still have links in the article that have never been verified after three and a half years. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that every cite tagged as "self-published" source is improper? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No. As I've pointed out time and again, the article was once just a linkfarm. This was addressed improperly by reformatting the external links as if they were references. This was done without even bothering to check if they verified any information whatsoever. For those links that can actually be used to verify something, there are still the matters of WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. We've still not resolved this problem. As I said, I worked on this up to the Dharmaswara entry, about two thirds of the article, identifying the self-published websites, and those links that fail to verify anything at all. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD?

Given the discussions above, the AfDs, and the lack of work on the article since, I think it's time to delete this article. It has been an interesting experiment attempting to work around WP:EL, WP:REFSPAM, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SAL, and WP:N. After almost two years since the problems with this list were first identified, editors don't appear even interested in maintaining the article, let alone addressing it's many problems. I'd much rather just a simple WP:PROD despite the past Afds if its acceptable, in order to avoid further drama. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of gamelan ensembles in the United States. 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/20061126022632/http://www.galaktika.org/aboutgt.shtml to http://www.galaktika.org/aboutgt.shtml

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) 15:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on List of gamelan ensembles in the United States. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thetucsoncitizen.biz/daily/breaking/101070.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tucsoncitizen.info/daily/breakingnews/116432
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926014243/http://music.berkeley.edu/JavaneseGamelan/instruments.html to http://music.berkeley.edu/JavaneseGamelan/instruments.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926014238/http://music.berkeley.edu/JavaneseGamelan/aboutus.html to http://music.berkeley.edu/JavaneseGamelan/aboutus.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209125035/http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/gamelan.html to http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/gamelan.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120707134427/http://bulletin.hmc.edu/archives/2005/Summer05/elizabeth_johansen01.html to http://bulletin.hmc.edu/archives/2005/Summer05/elizabeth_johansen01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090403214604/http://www.gamelanx.com/x/?q=node%2F3 to http://www.gamelanx.com/x/?q=node%2F3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708204624/http://music.sdsu.edu/faculty/music/walujo/index.html to http://music.sdsu.edu/faculty/music/walujo/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509061824/http://music.sdsu.edu/main-1/ensembles.html to http://music.sdsu.edu/main-1/ensembles.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080325200903/http://music.ucsc.edu/swarasanti/ to http://music.ucsc.edu/swarasanti/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120707134427/http://bulletin.hmc.edu/archives/2005/Summer05/elizabeth_johansen01.html to http://bulletin.hmc.edu/archives/2005/Summer05/elizabeth_johansen01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109205434/http://www.smith.edu/music/groups_inst.php to http://www.smith.edu/music/groups_inst.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210122318/http://music.uoregon.edu/AcademicStudies/Ensembles/javanesegamelan.html to http://music.uoregon.edu/AcademicStudies/Ensembles/javanesegamelan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090524183329/http://www.bucknell.edu/x47468.xml to http://www.bucknell.edu/x47468.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050921010419/http://www.runet.edu/~mmeador/ to http://www.runet.edu/~mmeador/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827183943/http://www.gamelanpacifica.org/gamelan/profile.htm to http://www.gamelanpacifica.org/gamelan/profile.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829193146/http://www.shepherd.edu/musicweb/gamelan.html to http://www.shepherd.edu/musicweb/gamelan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081209124541/http://www.embassyofindonesia.org/education/docpdf/KelompokGamelandiAmerikaSerikat.pdf to http://www.embassyofindonesia.org/education/docpdf/KelompokGamelandiAmerikaSerikat.pdf

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) 13:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Gamelan Kori Mas

Wouldn't it be better to retain the information about defunct groups like Gamelan Kori Mas, for history's sake (but adding a note saying that the group is no longer active), rather than deleting all mention of them entirely? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)