Talk:Witold Lutosławski/Archive 1

message: There was a draft article which I was working on which anyone was welcome to incorporate here if you thought it was worth it. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was so nearly there, I'd just clean it up a bit and post it, and see what happens. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

text: 144.32.128.68 17:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Hutchies 17:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft article 

message: A recent edit introduced factual inaccuracy and removed implicit information.  I have revised the changes.  Individual performers are not given latitude, nor are they asked to improvise, as the section Aleatory technique makes clear.  Implicit information was removed when the Easter-egg link was added (People's Republic of Poland was wrapped under Poland).  His solistic works (song cycles and concertos) were the ones written for renowned soloists: this obviously wasn't stated clearly enough in previous versions.  You don't adhere to a line: the correct expression is to toe the line.  I've recast the sentences in question.  --RobertG ♬ talk 09:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits to introduction 

message: Tony, I think you've needlessly "cut" the intro.  He "rose from making a living by playing the piano in bars to be the pre-eminent musician of his country" gives a false impression: on the contrary, he and Panufnik were reduced to making a living playing piano in bars by wartime deprivation; if it hadn't been for the war, L. would have been studying in Paris.  Why remove his formative struggle with Soviet Realism during the Soviet era from the intro?  He was a notable pianist as a student, but he never pursued it; he was mainly (only?) a noted conductor of his own works.  I've taken action on the pianist/conductor points, but I want to understand your reasons for the other changes before doing any more.  --RobertG ♬ talk 15:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see - we're coming from different angles.  The question is "what is the purpose of the lead section?"  I subscribe to the view that "the lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article".  I think for music articles the lead section should be a precis such as one might encounter in a 500-page dictionary of music & musicians.  How it was before reflects this view (although it admittedly was capable of improvement!): a paragraph of potted biography, a paragraph about his music.  How it is now reflects your view.  What shall we do?  --RobertG ♬ talk 09:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You're right.  (Also I missed your edit summary: "work in progress".)  On reflection I agree with your points above, although I think you stripped a little too much out.  I think two paragraphs would be better as there is a natural break before the intro's discussion of his music.  I think the Soviet proscription is important enough to be in the intro; I've tried to give the "piano in bars" bit more context. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Tony: an improvement, and as we've discussed, I've implemented part of this suggestion.  The Bartok influence, while entirely obvious, needs discussion in the main article, as do the Prokofiev and Stravinsky influences (which are less obvious), before they find their way into the intro.  I agree with the influence on other composers' styles, but also this should be discussed and exemplified in the main article before going into the intro.  --RobertG ♬ talk 10:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recast of intro 

message: You might want to use "Solidarity," perhaps with its Polish equivalant in parentheses. 
Also, I suggest you explain "formalist," which is used in the intro and again in the postwar years paragraph.  In the late style paragraph, formalist is finally linked, but the link doesn't help me understand why his music was "banned as formalist."  Perhaps if you improve the Formalism (art) stub, you can just link to it in the intro. 
I recommend that all of the red links be eliminated, ideally by generating articles (or stubs).  Non-encyclopedic people do not need to be linked.  Technical terms, however, should either be explained in context or should have links to explanatory articles (especially for us non-musicians).  Thanks!
Rewster 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Rewster for your helpful suggestions.  I did as you suggested for "Solidarity", and linked formalist to Russian Formalism as the most appropriate explanatory article.  While I sympathise with the idea that there should be no red links, I do think they perform a useful function as requests for articles.  I have removed some red links as unencyclopedic (I don't think there will ever be an article on Lutosławski's mother or his wife) leaving only particularly notable ones; Wicenty Lutosławski for example is in my opinion well worthy of documentation, but I am not planning to start an article about him.  There will be no red links when Wikipedia is complete!  :-)  --RobertG ♬ talk 10:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested improvements 

message: Substituted at 16:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I don't think the article gains from having the works in a classified list.  Each work has the forces for which it was written clearly stated, so the article does not gain any information; on the contrary, the chronology of the works is lost.  Can I put it back to just a plain list, please?  --RobertG ♬ talk 09:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list getting a bit long in any case, so it should be put on a separate page... there we can have different classifications and also a chronological list. Karol 10:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classified works list 

message: Why has the list of compositions been unilaterally moved?  This is a featured article, and doesn't deserve to be chopped up in this way.  --RobertG ♬ talk 11:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it, because it was very long. There's no point in listing _all_ of his works in this article, even if it is a featured one. There is now incentive to refactor that list and place the most important compositions in the article, and perhaps to add a summary of his compositions, some statistics, comments, etc. 16:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compositions 

message: I can read the discussion page, but when I try to look at the article, it tells me Wikipedia has no such page. Is there a database problem? DanB†DanD 04:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh? Article missing?

message: Regarding the statement "...and was the pre-eminent musician of his country during the last three decades of the century". I changed this sentence to "...and was one of the pre-eminent musicians of his country...", since, at the very least, Krzysztof Penderecki and Henryk Górecki too were pre-eminent during the last three to four decades of the 20th century. ---Sluzzelin 17:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On pre-eminence 

message: I noticed in the archives a reference to pictures of the younger Lutoslawski.  I think it'd be nice to have them for variety -- all the photos there now seem to be from at least the mid 1980's.  Esp. a picture w/ his family, for example, or Panufnik or another significant musician, would be pretty cool.
Also it occurs to me that for an illustration of his aleatory technique and notation, maybe a smaller-scale work would be easier for the novice to read.  The analysis to the right of the symphony page is excellent -- clear and concise -- but I find myself squinting to try & make out what's going on in the score, and the notes themselves are nothing but blurs, so that the rhythmic variety in each part is apparent only if you click through twice to the larger image.  Wouldn't the seminal String Quartet, for example, provide a clearer illustration for the novice?  (provided somebody could find or provide an image).  This example would still be valuable for the article on the symphony itself.  --Turangalila (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreed with Turangalila's assessment of the musical example from the Third Symphony.  I replaced it with an extract from the Second Symphony that could be included more legibly.  I hope this is satisfactory.  --RobertG ♬ talk 11:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: Featured article or not, this is seriously marred by the excessive number of footnotes.  Their presence after every other sentence makes this difficult to read - yes, there is value in documenting the sources, but it is totally unreasonable to have so many reference to the same source - this article goes too far... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.71.171 (talk • contribs) 20 Septemer 2009
: I quite agree.  I still think it highly amusing that the Featured Article Review process resulted in this being viewed as an improvement.  This process completely killed my drive to improve Wikipedia by writing articles.  --RobertG ♬ talk 06:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many footnotes!! 

message: hello,
currently the article is lacking in-line citations; every paragraph has to be cited. Currently the article fails WP:FA?, 2c. Regards.--GoPTCN 14:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say you are wrong: first, I see 28 inline citations, so the article does not lack them. If you are not seeing these, I suggest you check your browser or WP account settings to see if something is suppressing display of footnotes. I also do not see anything in WP:FA? that specifies every paragraph has got to have at least one citation. The point to which you refer (2c) says that citations should use a consistent format and, since the format citations here are quite consistent, the article complies with WP:FA? 2c perfectly. If there are specific dubious claims that you believe require citations, then by all means mark them with  or a similar template. If there might be some ambiguity, please add a short hidden note (using  syntax) identifying the nature of the problem. Alternatively, bring up your specific concerns here. That is what Talk pages are for.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Right then, if it won't be reverted to this good version with in-line citations, then it needs to be demoted, sorry. You may want to read WP:IC and especially this essay. Regards.--GoPTCN 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to tell me about it—I'm just a bystander, not an editor who has ever contributed much to this article. You also don't need to refer me to WP:IC, with which I am already familiar, though I might in turn call your attention to a specific part of that guideline, here, which is pertinent to your incorrect claim that every paragraph must have at least one citation, and was in fact the core of my suggestion that you tag any dubious claims you notice in this article. The 116 footnotes in that version from 2007 are, in one sense, impressive. I am not, however, going to review the entire edit history since that time in order to find out what the logic has been (if any) in changing the article at every stage. I hope the editors active on this article will respond appropriately.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but if you look at it you will see that the article needs in-line citations to check for verifiability. Every paragraph should have at least one in-line citation as users split or merge the paragraphs all the time, and to avoid any issues it is better to do this. As you can see in that version, several different sources were used throughout. It is not restricted to use only a few sources (for example in Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the Frank 2500-page biography has nearly all information about the writer), but here most of the footnotes were ironically removed by the nominator with one edit. Regards.--GoPTCN 18:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to believe that I do not know what inline citations are for. Trust me, I am notorious for demanding citations where other editors see no need. While I am personally inclined to agree that every paragraph—apart from the "sky is blue" variety—should be cited at least once, I still fail to see this actually expressed in the guidelines. Can you point me to a specific place where it says, "every paragraph must bear at least one inline citation"? (I would love to be able to use this when my own demands for citations are questioned.) I have not examined the present article for editorial intent, so I cannot say what degree of irony may have been behind editorial removal of citations. As I have already said, perhaps the editors active on this article will respond.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Your dialogue made me curious, so I looked at the history and found this this edit, reducing the citations to two major sources. It makes sense to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Gerda, for looking that up. Ordinarily, this is exactly the kind of situation that would have me peppering the article with "fact" or "cn" tags, since I do tend to prefer knowing on which page in a book I will find a particular fact. On the other hand, 28 footnotes vs 116 seems a fair trade-off (zero footnotes are too many footnotes, in my opinion—I far prefer parenthetical citations, but let's not fight that battle here), so long as it is clear what the WP:GENREFs support.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-line citations 

message: Hello. I have a concern about the lead section. Per the suggestions at Wikipedia:MOSLEAD#Length, the appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. Also a useful suggestion would be to expand the lead to four paragraphs, as this article has more than 30,000 characters per the MoS. Unless someone objects, I am going to expand the lead section in the next couple of days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was a bit short wasn't it? I'm not in favour of a lead section size "quota", but on reading it again I thought I remembered it being longer once upon a time. A trawl through the history showed I was right: I restored a paragraph (heavily modified, in the hope of addressing legitimate concerns leading to its removal) and moved bits around. What do you think? I hope this helps you. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That should work. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section concerns? 

message: Took the liberty of changing the "Final Years" section to say he was aged eighty-one at death, not eighty-four. Simple maths (1994-1913) lead to this conclusion, if however there is something complicated going on with Gregorian calendar or such like, please correct back?! Mathi80 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: * Eminent Poles under the auspices of UNESCO
* UNESCO: Poland. 100th anniversary of the birth of Witold Lutosławski, composer (1913-1994)
Semimartingale (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witold Lutosławski Centennial 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Witold Lutosławski. 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/20150402124732/http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/VEPM/lutos/lu-wrk-f.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/VEPM/lutos/lu-wrk-f.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040406151310/http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/VEPM/lutos/lu-title.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/VEPM/lutos/lu-title.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040411153936/http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/harley/nancy.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/polish_music/harley/nancy.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070627234449/http://music-files.download.com/mp3download/100321890/192/McKeever_Piano_Duo-Variations_Paganini_-_Live.mp3 to http://music-files.download.com/mp3download/100321890/192/McKeever_Piano_Duo-Variations_Paganini_-_Live.mp3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051102233045/http://music.download.com/mckeeverpianoduo to http://music.download.com/mckeeverpianoduo
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Witold Lutosławski. 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/20140724194941/http://grawemeyer.org/music/previous-winners/1985-witold-lutoslawski.html to http://grawemeyer.org/music/previous-winners/1985-witold-lutoslawski.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified