Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Contemporary music task force/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Our picture

Given that Schoenberg (d. 1951) isn't technically part of this project anymore, should we find something else to use? Perhaps something minimalist or New Simplicity? Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How about a squarish section of File:Solitude.png? --Kleinzach 01:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If it can be edited in a sensible way and still make sense when in that tiny box, then great. Graphical notation is one of the most important developments in our timeperiod. One possible objection is that anyone unfamiliar with it will be confused... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking of it as a humorously outlandish, but colourful, graphic — and intending to extract the most complex part. Of course if you think you can make a musically meaningful section out of it, I will defer to your expertise! --Kleinzach 02:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ROFLMAO!!!!!! (Sry: FYI I no u ht LOLing BBQed WTF TLAs, AFAIK). Perhaps a bit of Glass or Adams, then? --Jubilee♫clipman 05:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you have the score for 4′33″? --Kleinzach 07:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Here:

--Jubilee♫clipman 14:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice one! I hate to point out though that 4′33″ was written in 1952, so is not much more contemporary than the Schoenberg — but then I don't want to open up the "what is contemporary" debate again. I like Kleinzach's suggestion of the "Solitude" graphic score. It's distinctive, striking, and... well, contemporary in the good old-fashioned modernist sense. --Deskford (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually it might make a good badge after all, now I look again. I'll have a go at chopping something out of it and see what happens. Tomorrow methinks... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How about this:

...look into my eyes...

Without the text obviously...! --Jubilee♫clipman 19:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, though cropped a bit to feature the central section and give it a bit more impact. --Kleinzach 23:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Refresh the page and look again... better? (I still have the first crop I made if you want to revert.) --Jubilee♫clipman 00:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd go even tighter as the graphic will be very small on the banner. --Kleinzach 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Cropped again (above). That's about as far as I can go without losing the smiley face! Think the (updated) resolution I've used is about the same as the various banners etc, at least in my browser. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the original res:

--Jubilee♫clipman 21:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Can we try it out on a banner? --Kleinzach 00:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

See the project page. BTW, after I had changed the image in the templates, I also had to "edit" the project page then save (without making any actual changes) for this to take effect. How come it doesn't simply update automatically when you refresh the page? Seems odd. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh.. I just refreshed my user page's cache (without all the rigmarole I just described) and the picture changed all by itself... curiouser and curiouser. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. Two small things. Can we centre the image, i.e. move it up, or maybe just slice a bit of white space off the top? I also think people will click on the image to see what it is, so a full description would also be good. Almost there! --Kleinzach 01:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cut more (but thumbs seem to take ages to refresh). Not sure what else to write in description beyond what's there. BTW, the list of links is intreguing... Buckethead?! We really need to review the articles we have in our project! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, thumbs have (finally) refreshed. BTW, any idea how the score actually relates to the music (http://mp3.at.or.at/composer/me/Solitude_-_Hans-Christoph_Steiner_-_2004.mp3)? I've had a listen but there seems to be be no relationship whatsoever... is this actually a joke score? Or is the face actually not a coincidence, and therefore is this actually a self-portrait in visual art translated into musical sound (in some way that escapes me)? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Um BTW, there's no article on Hans-Christoph Steiner... Perhaps we really ought to create one?! I've also informed Mr. Steiner that we are using part of his score for our banner. He seems to be interested in Wiki going by his pages at @or@ so we may get some feedback here. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm the Hans-Christoph Steiner in question, I like the icon :-). That score actually directly created the music. You can download the entire source and play it yourself, or modify it. It isn't the most transparent though, I'll admit.eighthave (talk) 05:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks HC! For others here is the text of our correspondance:

Hi Hans,

Thought you might like to know that the WikiProject Contemporary music has chosen to adopt a small part of your score for Solitude for its banners:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Contemporary_music

You ousted Schoenberg... (and beat Cage, Glass and Adams)! See the talk page for a (sometimes rather funny) commentary:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music

Hope this is acceptable use?

Iain McIntyre (Jubileeclipman)

Hey Iain,

I'm flattered, thanks for letting me know. Its good to see it repurposed in all sorts of ways. FYI:, I recently dropped any copyright on it and made it public domain, so you are free to do whatever you want with it. But I do of course appreciate notes like this.

.hc

--Jubilee♫clipman 05:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks great, and glad to see you've got the approval of its creator! --Deskford (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Deskford, and good to see you back here. Looks like you've been all over the world (or at least Scotland) since we last spoke! I take it you've been concentrating on WP:Scotland for a while? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's quite the cheapest way to travel! The contribution list does make it look like I've been busy, but they're mostly small edits done in odd spare moments between the demands of real life. If real life calms down I may find time to make more substantial contributions on Scotland, contemporary music, or who-knows-what-else. --Deskford (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Life (tsssh) don't talk to me about life!" Anyway, small edits are often the most important of all... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Y implemented per consensus --Jubilee♫clipman 20:14, 25 December 2009 (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.

Categories

According to the Contemporary music articles by quality statistics we still have 2,709 articles, however in our Contemporary music/Categories we have a maximum of 1448 pages (probably in reality nearer 1,200, because many articles will be in more than category.)

This is a problem. A project of any size is normally defined by its exclusive categories, which are needed for automatic bot operations. Unfortunately when this project was set up it lacked its own set of categories (unlike those at Composers project and Classical music). Large existing categories, such as Category:20th-century classical music and Category:20th-century classical composers, were used instead, whether or not the articles in them really related to contemporary music (by any definition).

I believe that about half of the 2,709 articles really belong here, rather than at Classical music. How are we to remove the others? By hand? Or by making new categories and requesting a bot to 're-banner' the project? If the latter, is it possible for editors who are familiar with the articles to identify categories that are currently missing (from the articles) or need to be created? Maybe a tough thing to ask? But without a viable set of articles, the project will be difficult to maintain and develop, because editors will not know what pages are where. --Kleinzach 13:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Darn and blast, I'd forgotten about all that! Going by what you said on my talk page, this is more complex that simply running a bot to remove all the articles from Category:Unassessed Contemporary music articles (the others are small enough to maintain by hand). Even removing them from Category:WikiProject contemporary music articles by bot (to give us a clean sheet) would not work, I guess? I have to say, I still understand very little about bots and cats to help much here. However, a total of 2,709 articles is not unsurmountable, if we had to do this all by hand. Also, this problem has existed for a long time and can probably be corrected at leisure without too much of a problem. After all our field is specialist enough to mainly attract really knowledgeable people to the articles. Such people will be intelligent enough to understand such issues as are raised here and move on without worrying too much, at a guess. Not that they will do anything as such, however: the problem is still ours! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone going through more than about 100 articles by hand, so I don't think that is doable (though going through some of the articles does give you a sense of what kind of problems exist.) Taking all the banners off and then putting them on again in selected categories would be entirely possible. We would need a good set of categories (hence my request above for editors to identify ones that are missing etc.) Of course, many articles are miscategorized and that can only be corrected over time. I don't think giving up completely (albeit in justifiable horror!) is an option unless you are going to abandon any attempt at quality control. --Kleinzach 03:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, we certainly should not give up: this is far too important! But I see your point about the number of articles one person might be willing to sort out manually. Given that there are not actually that many editors involved in this project then, although this option is still available in the long term, it may not be entirely viable in the short term. So un-bannering and re-bannering by bot is probably the most sensible solution. As I say, I don't yet know enough about how the cats/banners/bots etc work so before I can suggest a good set of categories, I will need to research how these are put together and function. Any pointers where I should go to learn this? How much will I actually need to know? Or is it enough to say "composers not yet dead", "works written after year X", "quartets still performing" etc? --Jubilee♫clipman 23:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You learn this stuff by doing it. I first worked on the Opera Project and then applied the knowledge on three or four other projects. Bots can mess everything up and involve you in hours of repair work, so it's really important to give the bot operators really clear and strict instructions. (I had one bad experience with a bot operator I won't name here, and that has made me wary.)

Re cats, banners, bots: Mediawiki cats have their own characteristics, but they basically define sets of articles. Likewise banners (which can obviously contain a lot more information). Bots are scripts that say 'Do X to Y' (e.g. 'Put Wagner Project banner on all articles in category:Richard Wagner'). The more complex the script the more chance the script writer (a.k.a. bot owner) will get it wrong. (I invariably ask them to do a test run of 50 articles first, which they usually resent!).

One thing worth remembering is that categories are connected in bizarre and hidden ways, so it's always necessary to tell the bot operators to only do specific cats and ignore their connections (sub-cats etc).

Bots may be able to cope with "composers not yet dead" by looking for BLP info on talk pages, but "works written after year X", "quartets still performing" will probably be too difficult without cats, hence it's really better to get the cats all ready before using a bot. Hope this helps. --Kleinzach 00:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. I'll need to get my thinking cap on... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Haven't forgotten about this: I'm still thinking... --Jubilee♫clipman 05:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks, bluelinks and lists of lists

Let me invite you all to add your opinions to my little rant about links and lists here. --Deskford (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Simon Proctor

Simon Proctor, composer, is up for AfD here. Please offer your opinions and/or improve the article with references and evidence of notability. --Deskford (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

List of 21st-century classical composers

A bit of work has been done recently on the List of 21st-century classical composers, which now uses a sortable table and combines what used to be List of 21st-century classical composers by name, List of 21st-century classical composers by birth date and List of 21st-century classical composers by death date. We now have a combined list of over 1300 names, and need to think about criteria for inclusion and strategies for pruning. Your thoughts would be welcome at the talk page below. --Deskford (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continued from the talk page. --Deskford (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I see the current criteria: "The list includes composers who have made a significant impact on the world of classical music since 2001, whether through major festivals and promoters of contemporary music, broadcast media or commercial recording on widely distributed labels." I think that's fine, however it means (1) only composers productive in 2001-9 are eligible, and (2) each composer would require a citation. Is that OK? --Kleinzach 01:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(1) Good point. Iannis Xenakis, for example, was alive for the first month of the century but hadn't composed anything since 1997.

(2) Yes, though the citation would probably be in their individual article. This would implicitly rule out redlinks.

--Deskford (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's right, IMO. --Kleinzach 05:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Dejavu! (See the archive in particular!) The most important thing is to cite... and no, we have to cite in the article if we start adding info! --Jubilee♫clipman 05:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

In the past, these lists have sometimes become official project collaborations, serving to advertise the project and get new editors. (See for example collaboration boxes (Composer of the Month, Opera of the Month) at WP:WPO.) --Kleinzach 05:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Returning this discussion to the article talk page. . . . --Kleinzach 03:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator

Now this project has come to life again, can we elect a coordinator? Successful projects usually have a janitorial type helping things along, and I think it works even better when the person is elected. The election is also an opportunity to contact all previous members and recruit new ones.

The job of the coordinator would be to:

• archive discussions
• maintain categories, assessments, and guidelines according to the wishes of the project
• arrange bot runs
• manage project collaborations ('Composer of the Month' or whatever)
• solicit opinions, mediate disputes and 'cast the deciding vote' if opinion is deadlocked
• post notices for the project when necessary etc.

If this idea is accepted, I'll be happy to nominate someone (but not stand myself). I've also made a draft election notice (see here, now here).

P.S. The Films Project explaining how coordinators work, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators, though we would obviously have a very scaled-down version of this. --Kleinzach 03:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Good idea. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems a good idea if someone is willing and able to take the role on, though it could involve a fair amount of work. It seems that in some ways Kleinzach has already been performing this role very effectively in an informal kind of way. --Deskford (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, however I am not so knowledgeable as the rest of you in this field, so I think it's better if I take a back seat. If there are no other comments on this I will go ahead, set it up and ask for nominations etc. --Kleinzach 00:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything looks good to go. I especially like the inclusion of the full score of Solitude in the notice! --Jubilee♫clipman 15:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! --Deskford (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed one small oddity in Election notice (draft): [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary music|Coordinator election] - is that going to be a piped link or is it going to be modified to lead to the specific election discussion? As it stands it doesn't really seem to mean anything. I notice the second link is wikied (though it leads to the page it stands on at present and so comes out bold). It's just the first that puzzles me. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That's right. [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary music|Coordinator election] is just a placeholder. I will replace it with the link to the specific election discussion. I am intending to start tomorrow (27th) if that's OK with everybody. --Kleinzach 00:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine! --Jubilee♫clipman 01:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Pavel E. Smid

I have nominated Pavel E. Smid for AfD. Please add your comments and/or improve the article. --Deskford (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

^this discussion on cats^ still needs thought. Elections first though... --Jubilee♫clipman 23:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)