Talk:List of composers by name

message: This is a dispute about whether or not "Songwriters" may properly be listed in the general list of composers by name16:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment: Should "Songwriters" be refered to as "Composers"

message: Since indiscriminiate collection of information, which is an official policy, has been invoked, it would seem that a closer look at that would be indicated-
The policy lists several cases in which this policy has been seen as qualifying as an "indiscriminiate collection of information"-
# Lists of  Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
# Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
# Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.
# Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.
# Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
# Textbooks and annotated texts. These belong on our sister project, Wikibooks.
#Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article.
This article is none of these and if a general list of composers does not have its place here (with inclusion governed by Wikipedia's own notority guidelines regarding music), then I must confess that I don't know what does. However, other editors should comment on this issue, to see what the general consesus would be. Musikfabrik 20:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should include songwriters who write the tunes and tones and not just the lyrics.  Peter O. (Talk) 19:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Is this guy a composer?  Mathiastck 23:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeremiah Jacquet 

message: I have just reverted an edit by David Shankbone, which removed the name of one Paul Wehage on grounds of non-notability. I indicated in my edit summary that I was reverting this edit regretfully. This is on grounds that (1) the list does not specify notability as a criterion for inclusion, and (2) there are a great many other names on the list, also redlinks, that may be no more notable than Mr. Wehage (e.g., Pierre-Nicolas La Hossaye, Michel Angelo Mendoza, Keir Ramshaw), so why single him out for special treatment? Wikipedia policy of course discourages inclusion of non-notable information in general but, if it is to be applied to this presently indiscriminate list, it seems to me that some criteria must first be established. Second, a notice ought to be placed at the top of the list, specifying that it is to contain only "notable" composers, and define notability for the purpose of this list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood so far that notability was established by an article. Now I see many red links with an article in a different language. Are they wanted? If yes, shouldn't we use the template for interwiki-links, example ? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting question. In the four years since I posted the above remark, the redlinks were weeded out and a notice added at the head of the list, which currently reads "it includes only music composers of significant fame, notability or importance who also have current Wikipedia biographies". Several weeks ago I began to notice the wholesale addition of names by an obviously well-informed editor who unfortunately does not have a User page. Most of these names were bluelinks, but a few were not and so I deleted them. Then this new device was added, which I think has the merit of identifying which names have not got articles on the English Wikipedia, but are nevertheless sanctioned on other Wikipedias. I think there are two questions here: (1) should retention of a name on this list require an article on the English Wikpedia, and (2) if not, should the interwiki-link format be substituted? I have to admit that this is the first time I have seen that template—up until now, the only way I knew of linking to an article on another Wikipedia was to use, for example, Isaac Albéniz, which not only does not warn the reader that the article is not on the Wikipedia of the language currently being read, but will display a bluelink regardless of whether the indicated target article exists, for example: Nonexistent article. Is it possible that there are "bluelinks" of this sort embedded in this list?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To the last question: the blue of those is slightly more pale. The template was introduced to me by Michael Bednarek, and indeed, once there is an article in English, the "other language link" will disappear. As long as the lead just says "current Wikipedia biographies", but not specifically English, the additions seem valid. (I removed one before I noticed, but would restore if that's the decision.) How will it be determined? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am concerned, a composer is notable if there is an article that satisfies notability criteria on any Wikipedia (even though standards do vary from one to another), and it sounds like you agree with me. If this position is to be adopted, it will of course be by consensus. Since there is no question that composers in this list should be notable, and criteria have already been established for some time now, the only question is whether the phrase "who also have current Wikipedia biographies" should be interpreted to mean "on any Wikipedia", or "just on English Wikpedia". Does this really require a formal process of announcement and casting of opinions, or is it sufficient to allow a week or two for further comments to this discussion, in order to see whether there is actually any opposition? It appears that I owe Michael Bednarek a "thank you" for passing on information about that ingenious template. I shall stop using the other one immediately, since it will continue to show as a bluelink, even if the linked article on another Wikipedia is removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am with you to just wait for further comment, and brought back the one I had removed, for consistency, with the template ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: There's a section above that's now nine years old, about this subject.  So maybe time to address it again.  I see there are some songwriters included in this list, like Irving Berlin, Stephen Foster, Frank Zappa.  Should they be included in this list?  If we open the gates to all songwriters, then the list will become unmanageable.  Of course, songwriters who composed other stuff in addition to songs would be fine for this list.  Composing a score for a musical play would apparently be enough to qualify for this list, but maybe not writing a standalone song that merely happens to be on the same album with other songs.  What do people think about this?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is well-taken. I notice that you include Frank Zappa in your list of examples, and he certainly falls into the category of songwriters who also "composed other stuff". (On the other hand, Schubert was also a "songwriter"!) Since List of songwriters redirects to List of singer-songwriters, perhaps something could be negotiated with the editors involved on that list to get the redirect changed to a self-standing list, and then put a link in this article. There remain the difficulties you mention, concerning how to determine the distinction between "composer" and "songwriter".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that there are a lot more songwriters than there are other composers, so it might make sense to use more than one Wikipedia list to cover songwriters.  For example, in addition to the list of singer-songwriters, there's also the list of Songwriters Hall of Fame inductees.  If we exclude from this composer list people who are songwriters (and haven't composed anything else), would we have to remove many people who are presently listed?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Include songwriters?

message: This list of exclusively people with an article has so far relied on references in these articles, and a reference list would get rather clumsy if complete.
I am not sure where to place Magister Franciscus, a name of a title and a given name, but no surname. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry was not watching the page (will do so now). Franciscus should be placed in F, as he is referred to as "Franciscus" not "Magister" of course – this is how it's done with Grimace who sometimes has the "Magister" title. I can remove the references if you want, but I don't think there's any guideline that actually supports such a decision, since this is a list, not a category. Although looking at the scope of the list, maybe common sense veers on the side without references since as you say, it would get rather clumsy. Aza24 (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  References?