Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz/Archives/2022 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
FAR for Bradley Joseph
I have nominated Bradley Joseph for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
jazzdisco.com as an unreliable source
I have recently been in a discussion where it had been claimed that jazzdisco.com is reliable but I disagree. Can we gather consensus here that it is not? Sikonmina (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Can someone link to the website? I did a search and the website was dead. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether this is best discussed under this Project heading or within the main WP:RS structure with a link from here? Anyway, worth noting the brief discussion opened by Binksternet 6 months ago at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Jazzdisco.org_versus_Jazzdiscography.com. AllyD (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Repeating from what's at the RS noticeboard: Searching what I have easy access to, I find jazzdisco used in the following:
- West & Titlebaum Teaching School Jazz: Perspectives, Principles, and Strategies Oxford University Press ("jazzdisco.org, which provides an extensive chronological discography for most major jazz artists")
- Gluck The Miles Davis Lost Quintet and Other Revolutionary Ensembles University of Chicago Press (uses it as a source)
- Giddins Celebrating Bird: The Triumph of Charlie Parker University of Minnesota Press (uses it as a source)
- Adlington Sound Commitments: Avant-Garde Music and the Sixties Oxford University Press (uses it as a source)
- Goodman Mingus Speaks University of California Press (refers readers to it)
- Petersen & Rehak The Music and Life of Theodore "Fats" Navarro Scarecrow Press (listed in 'discographies' section)
- Myers Why Jazz Happened University of California Press (uses it as a source)
Quoting WP:USEBYOTHERS (part of WP:RS): "How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." The sources listed above include very well-known university publishers, which makes them RS, unless there's strong evidence to doubt the accuracy of their contents. The authors include Gary Giddins and Marc Myers, who are notable (in the Wikipedia sense) writers on jazz. I haven't found any negative coverage of jazzdisco, so conclude that it has a strong reputation in the field of jazz discography. According to the site, it is maintained by a team of three people (it cannot be edited by just anyone). EddieHugh (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- It seems that you are arguing that jazzdisco.org is reliable because reputable publishers rely on jazzdisco.org. jazzdisco.org itself has to be reliable to be used as a reference on Wikipedia. This is exactly what WP:UGC considers unreliable and what I would consider circular reporting. Sikonmina (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's not my argument; it's community consensus – that's what policies and guidelines are. The consensus is that the use of a source by what are unquestionably reliable sources provides evidence as to the reliability of that source. I've provided evidence that such reliable sources use jazzdisco in a positive way. I've re-checked and found a lot more that do the same thing. I can list them here if needed. EddieHugh (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm seeing very little in the way of community consensus here though. Unless I missed it I see very little discussion on it at all. I still need to take a deeper look, but first glance looks...rough. Sergecross73 msg me
- No consensus on WP:USEBYOTHERS? It's a guideline. EddieHugh (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- That generally holds up to the point in which serious scrutiny and concerns come up though. WP:CIRCULAR and WP:USERG are major concerns. They can't just be hand-waved away by saying "well we use them a lot". They need to be actually addressed. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- What's the WP:CIRCULAR argument? That jazzdisco is based on Wikipedia? I suppose they started around the same time! There's a lot more information at jazzdisco than could be collected from even a very thorough trawling of Wikipedia. It's not impossible that some of the information came from Wikipedia, but we can say that of any potential source. But is there any evidence of that being true in this case? EddieHugh (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- That was Binksternet's comment, so maybe he has more insight on it. He's an experienced editor with a good understanding of our sourcing policies, so I'm sure there's a reason he mentioned it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I said circular reporting rather than WP:CIRC, intending to convey that I was seeing jazzdisco.com carry information from other online sources, not necessarily Wikipedia. I would be much happier to find that jazzdisco.com got their information from 20th century publications. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- That was Binksternet's comment, so maybe he has more insight on it. He's an experienced editor with a good understanding of our sourcing policies, so I'm sure there's a reason he mentioned it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- What's the WP:CIRCULAR argument? That jazzdisco is based on Wikipedia? I suppose they started around the same time! There's a lot more information at jazzdisco than could be collected from even a very thorough trawling of Wikipedia. It's not impossible that some of the information came from Wikipedia, but we can say that of any potential source. But is there any evidence of that being true in this case? EddieHugh (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- That generally holds up to the point in which serious scrutiny and concerns come up though. WP:CIRCULAR and WP:USERG are major concerns. They can't just be hand-waved away by saying "well we use them a lot". They need to be actually addressed. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- No consensus on WP:USEBYOTHERS? It's a guideline. EddieHugh (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm seeing very little in the way of community consensus here though. Unless I missed it I see very little discussion on it at all. I still need to take a deeper look, but first glance looks...rough. Sergecross73 msg me
- It's not my argument; it's community consensus – that's what policies and guidelines are. The consensus is that the use of a source by what are unquestionably reliable sources provides evidence as to the reliability of that source. I've provided evidence that such reliable sources use jazzdisco in a positive way. I've re-checked and found a lot more that do the same thing. I can list them here if needed. EddieHugh (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, so some concerns. It looks like a poor man's jazz-themed Discogs, which we don't find reliable per WP:NOTRSMUSIC. I don't see any editorial policy or team. I see three names of people in charge with no credentials or mission listed. And I see a randomly placed "thanks to our contributors" nearby a publicly posted gmail address where contributors can submit info. That would seem to suggest they take submissions from anyone. Unless I'm missing things, I'm not seeing any of the trademarks we look for in an RS outside of WP:UBO, which is not enough by itself. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Does a discography site named 'jazzdisco' require a mission statement? For what it's worth, there's an obvious one on the home page: "A collector's guide to jazz music...". Requesting (and receiving) contributions from others is how all discographies are assembled. It's the nature of the work. Doing so doesn't mean that the information is not checked (to the contrary, unless it's from a well-trusted person, it's either checked or ignored). The people who maintain jazzdisco have been listed on the site since at least 2004. Superficially, it might look like discogs, but it's actually very different. discogs is release-based; serious jazz discographies are session-based (sometimes termed 'sessionographies'). That's largely what jazzdisco is, but they've done work on record labels, too, and can present information on releases. This is a niche part (discographies) of a niche field (jazz). Lots of people who write professionally about the latter have used jazzdisco as a source on the former. That's a very positive sign. EddieHugh (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- What part of any of this is supposed to instill confidence that this is a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense? We don't know anything about who the writers are, what their methodology is, or where they are getting their information from. Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I was responding to the points that you made. Not many discographies list where they get their information from; assembling them takes long enough. I don't think the biggest one does either. What weight do we ascribe to what experts in a field use? I'd hope it would be a lot, particularly for something that doesn't involve contentious information. EddieHugh (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- You're only responding to a select few of my many objections. The who/what/where question I mentioned is by far the biggest issue. That, and that it violates WP:USERG. These are massive problems. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- lordisco.com is so much larger than jazzdisco.org, isn't it? Why would jazzdisco.org be more reliable than lordisco.com? When comparing jazzdisco.org and lordisco.com, lordisco.com has to be accountable to its clients while jazzdisco.org does not. I don't see jazzdisco.org as being more reliable than lordisco.com. As reference: WP:UGC says "Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), content farms, Internet forums, social media sites, video and image hosting services, most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites". Sikonmina (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- You're only responding to a select few of my many objections. The who/what/where question I mentioned is by far the biggest issue. That, and that it violates WP:USERG. These are massive problems. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- I was responding to the points that you made. Not many discographies list where they get their information from; assembling them takes long enough. I don't think the biggest one does either. What weight do we ascribe to what experts in a field use? I'd hope it would be a lot, particularly for something that doesn't involve contentious information. EddieHugh (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- What part of any of this is supposed to instill confidence that this is a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense? We don't know anything about who the writers are, what their methodology is, or where they are getting their information from. Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Does a discography site named 'jazzdisco' require a mission statement? For what it's worth, there's an obvious one on the home page: "A collector's guide to jazz music...". Requesting (and receiving) contributions from others is how all discographies are assembled. It's the nature of the work. Doing so doesn't mean that the information is not checked (to the contrary, unless it's from a well-trusted person, it's either checked or ignored). The people who maintain jazzdisco have been listed on the site since at least 2004. Superficially, it might look like discogs, but it's actually very different. discogs is release-based; serious jazz discographies are session-based (sometimes termed 'sessionographies'). That's largely what jazzdisco is, but they've done work on record labels, too, and can present information on releases. This is a niche part (discographies) of a niche field (jazz). Lots of people who write professionally about the latter have used jazzdisco as a source on the former. That's a very positive sign. EddieHugh (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Help editing pages I have published
Hello,
I have published 4 pages pertaining to jazz musicians Bill Coon, Steve Kaldestad, Daniel Hersog, and Jaelem Bhate. I am not the most well versed at contributing to articles as I have only been doing it on and off for about a year or so. Any feedback is greatly appreciated!
Thanks --Izlhyl (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Izlhyl (talk · contribs)
British dance bands
I've tidied up the British dance band article a bit (it probably still needs improvement though). It seems that this sub-genre needs a bit of attention. I thought that the "Notable band leaders" section could do with trimming, so I've limited it to those artists featured on the set of Lambert and Butler cigarette cards for dance band leaders published in 1936. Granted, that's not definitive, but it's probably a good starting point to stop the list getting too long. Rather than having all the extra names in the List of British big band leaders, I created List of British dance band leaders. A few red-linked names are included there - those who I feel are significant enough to warrant an article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz/To do. The articles on the "notable" British dance band leaders could probably also do with clean-up or expanding. I've created articles on several dance band vocalists/musicians, such as Bob and Alf Pearson, Helen Clare and Ivor Moreton and Dave Kaye. News or magazine archive sites may be useful or necessary for content in this area, as online website sources often appear to be lacking. The magazine Memory Lane has produced features on such performers, but its older content is sadly not digitised. It would be good if there were others interested in working on these articles.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Should Folk jazz be cut?
Jazz is a subgenre of folk music, so I don't really see how it can be fused with folk music.47.36.25.163 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Lots of missing articles still. Maybe some of the red links aren't full standards, but feel free anybody to create a missing article and add it to List of jazz standards!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reminder. I have access to the book Charlie Parker, Composer, which gave me a head start for "Parker's Mood". EddieHugh (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Don Cherry move request discussion
see here: Talk:Don_Cherry#Requested_move_20_June_2022 Acousmana 12:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |
Encyclopedia of Jazz
It appears that Leonard Feather's Encyclopedia of Jazz and Encyclopedia of Jazz are the same work. Perhaps someone would want to merge them. - kosboot (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
labelling "se e tarde me perdoa" as a jazz standard.
the title says it all, really. i want to make an article on "se e tarde me perdoa", but i want to get consensus beforehand as to whether it qualifies as a "jazz standard". it was originally recorded by cal tjader and covered by many jazz musicians such as vince guaraldi, quincy jones, joão gilberto, maria luiza, and luciana souza. in my opinion it is certainly a standard, especially with respect to latin jazz pieces and the musicians in that ecosystem. what do you all think ? Ayyydoc (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Dr. Blofeld has done a lot on List of jazz standards, so might have a view. Ultimately, though, we need WP:RS that state 'this is a jazz standard'. EddieHugh (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, ideally the tune should have a source stating it is a jazz standard. There is a grey area with a lot of them I think. I and I'm sure many jazz musicians would call "Conception" a jazz standard, and there are sources which describe it as such but if you look in https://secondhandsongs.com/work/180704/versions#nav-entity there's only 43 "covers" listed. Compared to Autumn Leaves and Body and Soul etc with over 1000 "covers" listed there. Some on the list will be what you could call more a "minor standard". I'm generally an inclusionist, I support articles on tunes with sources even if you couldn't call them standards. Se é Tarde Me Perdoa has 28 covers listed on that site. It would be worth creating, but I wouldn't feel comfortable calling it a jazz standard.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Percy France
Hi all, I'm reviewing Draft:Percy France at AfC, and would appreciate some expert help. The sources cited are at best borderline for WP:GNG notability, and I can't work out from the career details whether WP:MUSICBIO or similar notability exists either. The standard we ultimately judge by is 'would this have a better than 50:50 chance of surviving an AfD', and I think it would, but it would be great to get a second (and third, etc.) opinion. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- discogs isn't a reliable source. See WP:RS/P. The website in his own name looks questionable; it could be used as a way of identifying information that can be found in a better source. Much better sources are available. Grove Music has an article on him. EddieHugh (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Can I ask more specifically, what is the 'leader' vs. 'sideman' distinction in the discography section, in jazz terms? To me that looks like it might potentially make or break the case for MUSICBIO notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Generally, leader: the recording was issued under his name; sideman: he played on a recording that was issued under another musician's name. MUSICBIO criterion 1 looks the best bet, particularly given that Grove has a piece on him. Prod me again and I'll look for better sources. EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Okay thanks.
- What does "Grove has a piece on him" mean? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Grove is The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. For Wikipedia editors who meet some basic criteria, it's accessible online via The Wikipedia Library. Having an entry there is a good start towards proving a musician's notability. EddieHugh (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- EddieHugh, were you able to read the whole of Howard Rye's article about Percy France in Grove or just the first 100-odd words in the search summary? I thought WP Libary editors have access to full Grove articles but got bounced with insufficient permission. My browser of choice (Firefox) has given other issues so it could be that. AllyD (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like there's an intermittent problem with some of Oxford's resources: Library talk page comments on it. EddieHugh (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Just to say that I was meaning to accept this draft, but another AfC reviewer has now done it, hence the matter is concluded. Thanks for your help. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like there's an intermittent problem with some of Oxford's resources: Library talk page comments on it. EddieHugh (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- EddieHugh, were you able to read the whole of Howard Rye's article about Percy France in Grove or just the first 100-odd words in the search summary? I thought WP Libary editors have access to full Grove articles but got bounced with insufficient permission. My browser of choice (Firefox) has given other issues so it could be that. AllyD (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Grove is The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. For Wikipedia editors who meet some basic criteria, it's accessible online via The Wikipedia Library. Having an entry there is a good start towards proving a musician's notability. EddieHugh (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Generally, leader: the recording was issued under his name; sideman: he played on a recording that was issued under another musician's name. MUSICBIO criterion 1 looks the best bet, particularly given that Grove has a piece on him. Prod me again and I'll look for better sources. EddieHugh (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Can I ask more specifically, what is the 'leader' vs. 'sideman' distinction in the discography section, in jazz terms? To me that looks like it might potentially make or break the case for MUSICBIO notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)