Talk:List of major opera composers/Archive 4

message: Given that we've now arrived at NPOV criteria for deciding who is on the list, we need to work on how the list will be organized, and what will be said about the included composers.
There was a suggestion to put the composers in alphabetical order, and remove all the descriptive text. I wouldn't go that route. An alphabetical list with no descriptive text is like a category. You could get the identical outcome by putting those 50 composers into a newly-created category called "Major opera composers." Usually, the reason for creating a list is so that you can organize the entries more sensibly and say something about them.
The article's current organization by the composer's birth date makes sense. I also don't have a problem with including a brief description of what makes the composer "major." That's what the original article was trying to do, but it was POV and unsourced. Some good steps have been taken in that direction. The descriptions still need work, but they're headed the right way.
Obviously, the inclusion criteria need to be stated at the top of the article itself. Marc Shepherd 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've slotted in all the missing composers who scored 7 (I hope). Stravinsky only scored a total of 6, so according to our plan he must be removed (yes, I know). Will add brief descriptions over the next week or so. Explanatory note still needed.--Folantin 11:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: FA status might be a "bridge too far"! It's just struck me that making 6 votes a requirememt for listing is more "objective" than 7, because it would mean we would include all composers who appear on the majority of the lists. Also, some notable absentees would make the grade. I would be quite happy to fill in the descriptions for the additional composers myself (over the course of the next week). --Folantin 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What to do with the article

message: The bottom of the references section is filled with html code rubbish. Vanished user talk 13:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. Watch the closing of those <ref> tags. Vanished user talk 13:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem!

message: I made some edits to the introductory explanation to clarify that the ONLY criterion for inclusion was the appearance on 7 out of 10 lists.  There were no other criteria used, because that was the criterion that everyone agreed gave the most NPOV result.  -- Ssilvers 15:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But see my note above. I now consider 6 out of 10 (i.e. a majority) is the most objective measure we can reach. I'm prepared to add and  describe the composers with 6 votes. --Folantin 15:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have gone with 8 out of 10 lists.  I think the list is too long -- The original discussion was that the list would have about 30 composers, and at 8, you're already above that.  Even at 7, you're including a lot of composers who only had one major opera.  But, if you want to write and notate more, I don't have a big objection.  In any case, I think that your note about who appeared on all 10 list is good, and I think you should also note who appeared on 9 of 10, 8 of 10, etc.  I think this is useful info.  Alternatively, we could have a number somewhere in each composer's squb like (9) to show how many lists they appear on, with an appropriate explanation of the format.  -- Ssilvers 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hold off on that until my results are double-checked - I've probably made at least a few mistakes. I posted a proofreding page up above a ways. Vanished user talk 17:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Talk:List of major opera composers/ProofreadingOfData Vanished user talk 18:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, do you think we should also do an "Extended list of major opera composers" going down to, say, 4 (1/3rd of the lists)? That would get in a lot of interesting choices, but would be a lot of work. (Below that and we begin to hit length and obscurity issues) Vanished user talk 17:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a comprehensive list of composers in the Opera Corpus.  That might be linked to, however.  I think the introduction should be as dry as possible to avoid claims that it is POV.  A list, by its nature, should be mechanical.  The more interesting articles are all blue linked, and that's what people should read.  The list should not have any new content that is not in the articles themselves.  -- Ssilvers 17:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should try to let the facts speak for themselves as much as possible. These aren't "our" choices after all. As far as I see it there are three "objective" cut-offs: 10 votes (everyone who made it onto every list); 6 votes (everyone on the majority - i.e. more than half - of the lists); 1 vote (i.e. everybody on any list). That's why I'd plump for 6.--Folantin 18:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory language

message: I don't agree that 6 means anything special.  Whatever number we choose, unless it's 1, it's a subjective cutoff.  Indeed, the judgment that the lists are reliable (or the best ones) is subjective -- theyre just the ones that were agreed to by a small number of Wikipedians.  So, I think 8 is the best cutoff, because it creates a list of what looks to me like a list that contains only composers that are truly important to opera.  In the rank of 7 are people like Hindemuth, Beethoven, etc. who are important to music, but not what I would call really important to opera.  Moreso with 6.  Sure, people's favorites are on them, and I like many of them personally, but I think if you will look at who is on 8 and who is below that, you will see why the original discussion was to limit the list to about 30 composers.  Just look at the description of Beethoven:  "He wrote ONE of the most important GERMAN operas."  As Marc Shephers (now retired from Wikipedia) said, an important opera like Fidelio will be described on the "List of Important Operas", or whatever we finally call that.  So I think that if you consider the composers below 8, you sort of weaken the list as a tool for newbies.  Anyhow, like I said, if you want to expand it, I won't lose sleep over it, but there is alread a comprehensive, blue-linked opera corpus that should be blue linked here, too, and there will also be a list of major operas soon that will have more objective criteria like we used here, I hope.  Best regards!  -- Ssilvers 18:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that eight is a better number. Dybryd 17:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still like 4. Vanished user talk 17:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cutoff number (rides again)

message: Think this Talk section's ready for another archiving? Vanished user talk 17:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, please try to leave everything from at least "Preliminary results" downwards, so we know what we're working with. --Folantin 17:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive?

message: This is about the fourth time that rudeness has become a problem in this discussion. I would like to ask all editors to moderate their tone. Dybryd 16:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: For anyone I haven't contacted personally, but who is more involved than I may have realised, there is a Request for Arbitration ongoing involving Jean-Thierry Boisseau/Musikfabrik, and, well, pretty much the major editors here who dealt with him. I apologise if I failed to notify you personally and you feel involved. Vanished user talk 14:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notification

message: Great work on these lists!  I was thinking it might be nice to note (in bold? italics?) in some way composers who are primarily or nearly exclusively for their contributions to opera.  It might also make it possible to include some cases from below cut-off zone (3 to 4) who are primarily operatic.  I don't believe though it will generally help the ambiguity.  Certainly Wagner, Verdi, Halevy, and Pfitzner are bold and Schoenberg, Dvorak, and Beethoven are not; but Mozart, Adams, R. Strauss?  It might be interesting.  --Myke Cuthbert 00:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a bad idea, but it risks readding POV or second guessing the list (particularly adding composers below the cut - I wouldn't).  Possibly dangerous. I suspect it'd be best to wait a bit - this NPOV-making has just finished, and I think everyone's a bit worn out, and not up to secondary work. Vanished user talk 01:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm not sure how we could do any of those things. If we were selective about including a few composers on 3 or 4 votes, then we'd be right back where we started with accusations of non-neutral POV levelled at us. Remember, this isn't our own choice of the major opera composers but an attempt to create an objective list. Though in my personal opinion one or two of the experts' choices are distinctly odd, I think no truly major composer of opera has been omitted. I think we've taken this list as far as it can go objectively and it is now for all intents and purposes finished. Cheers --Folantin 08:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for entertaining the suggestion.  The objections are good ones. --Myke Cuthbert 18:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relative importance of opera among the composers' works