The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was No consensus. Closing this as no consensus with no prejudice to further discussion taking place to decide what to do here. In passing, any new discussion should probably start from the guidelines provided at the MfD page for WikiProject pages:

"It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as ((inactive)), redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable."

It should be noted that the options listed there don't need a new MfD but can be done by any editor. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom[edit]

Dead project, has only 8 members and 40 articles and pages within the scope, nothing worth keeping. JJ98 (Talk) 01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Its always sad to see what was a useful project go, but the project itself has been almost totally inactive for some time and I think I may be the only active member on relevant articles. Most of the work can be covered in other projects.--SabreBD (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was a parent project ever identified? --Klein zach 13:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no parent project, expect WikiProject United Kingdom is the parent project which redirects to the Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board. I left notice at UK Wikipedians' notice board for any concerns. JJ98 (Talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was barely aware of the existence of this project, despite having added and contributed to numerous UK music articles - though not as many as some others who are also not listed as participants. It seems to me that it would be a shame to delete it for inactivity, as it could yet become a useful forum and coordinating centre. Does anyone have the determination to reboot it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very happy if it could actually become active again. I am happy to keep an eye on the project and pages, but it needs new members if some can be drummed up. Is it worth trying to see if interest can be generated?--SabreBD (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, before a decision is taken, it would be worthwhile circulating a direct message to known active contributors on UK music articles, to assess views? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be. Of course it would only work if editors were interested in actively contributing to the articles and using the project page.--SabreBD (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why was the scope of this project defined by a political entity rather than a cultural one(s)? If we're referring to music traditions we'd normally refer to English music, Scottish music, and Welsh music — or British music to lump them together. Categorization follows this. (AFAIK we don't have United Kingdom music categories like Category:United Kingdom music, Category:United Kingdom musicians, Category:United Kingdom composers.) If the parent is WikiProject United Kingdom that implies that there is a political agenda here. I'm inclined to say delete, or rename to 'British music', but I'd like to hear some other opinions before I decide. --Klein zach 23:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Britain or the United Kingdom (more pedantic) can obviously be considered a cultural entity in its own right, with shared institutions and a common music culture. The internal overlap of mass market popular music submerges regional differences. The common category is less overtly political than any artificial balkanisation of it. Separatists are minorities in the constituent nations and regions they inhabit. Taxonomic balkanisation would be more appropriate for traditional or folk music. Lachrie (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There is a difference between Britain and the United Kingdom; it's called Northern Ireland. --Klein zach 09:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To no-one's surprise perhaps, this is a matter that has been subject to discussion on many, many other WP pages, and probably isn't suitable for discussion here. The fact is that "Britain" and "British" are and have been widely used by the UK government and others as terms applying to the whole UK; some people in NI describe themselves as British, others describe themselves as Irish. There are no hard and fast rules on this, but what is clearly incorrect is to describe musical styles from Ireland as a whole, or specifically from the Republic, as "British". Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to get into the UK/British/Irish issue yet again, there was some tension over this problem in the past history of the project. From my point of view, tending to range across the full historical range of music, it is problematic because it cannot really be used before 1801, hence Early music of the British Isles, not Early music of the United Kingdom, which would be an oxymoron. But Brtish music doesnt work either: just to give one example, British in an early medieval context implies "not English" (i.e. Anglo-Saxon). As Ghmyrtle points out, there are no hard and fast rules and editors just have to be sensitive to the problem and accurate.--SabreBD (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I note that one member withdrew with the explanation: "I am interested in classical music of the British Isles, but not in classical music of the United Kingdom." (project participants). So the name and scope of the project is germane to this Mfd. --Klein zach 00:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Britain and the United Kingdom isn't Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is only the difference between the island of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. UK is synonymous with British in a modern context. Pedantic carping about this obvious point suggests a nationalist political agenda. The closest shorthand equivalent for early medieval would be 'Insular'. Lachrie (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: because of problematic name, scope and past history of participation. I'd consider a redirect if a suitable one can be suggested. Unlike the flourishing genre-based Wikiprojects, national music ones don't seem to be very popular: we have none for major musical countries like Italy, France, Germany, Russia, the USA etc. Nevertheless I would be interested to hear the project founder Smerus's opinion if he comes online, as he has a fine track record as a music editor. --Klein zach 00:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Delete] [NB This vote for deletion has since been reversed, see below]. I remember the foundation of the project, it was in connection with the portmanteau article on Classical Music of the United Kingdom. I believe it was originally hoped that this term would enable people to develop good articles, portmanteau and otherwise, on aspects of music in the British Isles and Ireland, and perhaps in particular the way in which the regional traditional music was, during the 19th century, drawn into a broader mainstream synthesis expressing the new national and political entity described as 'The United Kingdom', and its later evolution. It was a project area with potentially high ambitions. However it soon became apparent that this title would never do, because it meant that all those various traditions were to be described from the vantage of the United Kingdom, which - quite unintentionally and clumsily - could be perceived as a politically revisionist, culturally imperialist approach to the past and the preceding and continuing diverse cultural components, in fact an instrument (no pun intended) of the perceived aggression of the Union itself. Yet those traditions exist in their own right and not merely in relation to the Union. The secession of Eire greatly alters the trajectory. The term 'British Isles' is unfortunately not much better! All I am saying is, if the term is used it must be justified and explained. But in my opinion the attempt to use music and political structures to define one another is usually extremely dangerous. Eebahgum (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And deletion would mean emphasising one kind of nationalism to the exclusion of another. The deletion rationale is apparently based on historical revisionism from fringe nationalists with a political (anti-British) agenda, seeking to monopolise the taxonomy of culture. Because the United Kingdom is a fact of modern history, existing as a clearly-defined legal entity with shared cultural space, and has existed for over two centuries, it's a valid category. Every alternative has its ambiguities, and as you've just demonstrated with your own idiosyncratic usage excluding Ireland, 'British Isles' is, if anything, more ambiguous than United Kingdom. Lachrie (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment does not follow justly. There is no intention to prevent anyone writing about music of the United Kingdom, whatever that may be. The evolution of music in the isles of Britain and Ireland over the centuries has been closely affected by aspirations of many kinds, and therein lies their richness. I am not trying to emphasize any kind of nationalism: I hope exactly for a project which can embrace the whole area rooted in the ancient collective cultural identities of these islands without placing it under a current political definition. While the United Kingdom might, during the 19th century (after its creation in 1801), have been its foremost political embodiment, at a time when British and European Empires were at a height and grandly-orchestrated music in large public spaces was especially appropriated to State uses - a process in which Dublin and Ireland were inseparably involved - the United Kingdom since 1937, when the Republic of Ireland was separated from most British monarchical functions, and certainly since 1949 when it quit the British Commonwealth, does not (for the purposes of the Project name) appropriately, sufficiently or relevantly define the cultural area from which those cultures and musical traditions rooted in the old Insular or Hiberno-Saxon ethnographic identity, collectively and variously arose. And what did old Purcell or Handel know of the 'United Kingdom'? - No more than they did of the European Union or the Soviet Union! They lived in (Great) Britain. But can you write about 'The music of the United Kingdom' without mentioning them? The trouble is, you end up writing about the United Kingdom, not about the music, much of which was created without reference to any such concept. Eebahgum (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have slightly amended the historical data since writing the above, and I add: The pre-Union Act associating the Crown of Ireland to the successors of King Henry VIII, of 1542, (by which the then-formed Kingdom of Ireland was 'depending and belonging to the imperial crown of England') resulted in the possession of the Irish Crown by the English Crown during the period leading to 1801: this Act was repealed in the Republic in 1962 but remains in force in Northern Ireland.Eebahgum (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the United Kingdom is really fine for anything since 1801. That's a huge category in itself. The alternative umbrella term British music is all right; historically it could take us back to 1707 or 1603, or even before, but it's slightly more ambiguous, since the British label could apply to music of the Empire and to certain musical traditions of pre-1801 Ireland as well. Your objections are incoherent and inconsistent. You're the one making a political argument, trying to politicise music culture on exclusively ethno-nationalist lines. You're trying to privilege (Irish) ethno-national identity as a music category to the exclusion of (UK) civic national identity, subjectively investing the former with a a cultural validity you want to deny to the latter on spurious political grounds. Ancient history is fine but it isn't particularly relevant to mainstream contemporary music. You can explore ancient folk identities in some other project. The exclusion of part of Ireland from the United Kingdom after 1921 isn't a valid reason to eliminate the United Kingdom category for music of the mainstream tradition produced in the United Kingdom . Lachrie (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see I am cited as founding this Project - if so I have forgotten :-} (and even worse, I have substantially neglected it) - but I think on reflection and looking at the above that I must agree with deletion. And that, if anyone wished, English Music/Scottish Music, etc. WProjects could be established.--Smerus (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep! - I've just wasted an hour of my life trying to make sense of the British music categories (originally looking at the messy Scottish ones), and decided in the end to look for a (this) wikiproject. I'm happy to do various routine work (adding the proper cat templates etc), but if this page is deleted I'll basically create a new one for somewhere to jot things down. I'm not really happy with only having Scottish etc projects, and it's best to work from a central one I feel. And British music is exactly that too - bands are classically formed from over the UK, whichever college, garage, gig, club or studio, etc they form in. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Northern Ireland is British if not strictly part of Britain (ie the island of Great Britain) - please don't anyone let that red herring be a fly in the ointment. Could this project be renamed to 'British music' perhaps? The cats are a real mess, so we can't lose it. Historians use the term for pre-unification periods at times when they need to - it's broad enough. My own concern is contemporary bands right now. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The contemporary band perspective is perfectly valid but essentially different from what we are discussing here. I'd recommend that you propose a new designed-for-purpose project here, advertised here. --Klein zach 01:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I found that a little patronising. Isn't this deletion page about deleting (or renaming) WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom? Surely contemporary music is covered in that? It's one of the periods I want to discuss here anyway, whatever anyone else happens to be focusing on. Nobody could possibly suggest modern music isn't 'valid' - it's simply an area of British music. There may perhaps be a case for another Wikiproject - although why have more than you need too? And it could lead to crossover and conformity issues too. My view is that Wikiproject British Music could cover the lot. I don't understand at all how you can suggest above that 'UK music' (and presumably 'British music') is a politicised identity, yet Scottish, Welsh, England and Northern Irish musuc are merely 'cultural' forms: It makes no sense to me on any level. We are an island remember. The issues with older periods of music can be covered by the typically-flexible word "British" surely?

I don't want this to drift, so I'll be proposing a 'move' in 7 days from now if no one can explain here how the title WP:British Music (or the present name, or even WP:Britannia) cannot work. At least then a decision can be more widely-discussed, and eventually made. Arguments of NI being in Ireland (and thus part Irish in culture) or grievances with the term 'British Isles' shouldn't adversely effect this project - 'British' is the only term that is needed for the title, and it can clearly state that it covers the UK and the Channel Islands(?) as we stand, with a note on any area that is only covered for a period, should that be the case. A clear statement of coverage is all that is needed.

Personally, I could easily stick with Music of the United Kingdom. Do we really need to discuss things like 'Music of the British Islands and British Ireland'? There will always be an area/period that doesn't quite fit in. The only other alternative is something fancy, like WP:Music Britannia (in it's modern sense). Whichever way it's done, a statement of coverage is always going to be necessary anyway. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to that: the difficulty from a musical history point of view is not the inclusion of Northern Ireland, but the impossibility of discussing the Republic of Ireland, i.e. the South, under any heading of 'Britain' or 'UK'. The UK (Contemporary) can encompass all that you wish to discuss, but it can't encompass the traditional music of Ireland as a whole (a question separate from 'Britain'), and it can't encompass the 'classical' music of Britain and Ireland (the UK as it was constituted in 1801), because Dublin, which had an extremely distinguished involvement in that musical evolution, as much as anywhere else and more than most, is the capital city of an entirely independent State which is entitled to have its own view of the same story, and will definitely not expect it to be told or arranged under the banner of 'United Kingdom' or 'Britain'. As you are not intending to write or arrange the encyclopedic material about these historical aspects of the subject, you are not having to confront these problems, and therefore the solutions you propose are suited to your own needs but to no-one else's. To put it plainly, an arrangement of information about music over many centuries does not want to be returning constantly to the matter of the Partition of Ireland, except insofar as it is immediately relevant to one very specific aspect of that musical history. That's why, for these purposes, your title cannot work. Eebahgum (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you catch the title I used? I use the flexible and non-fantastical word "British", not 'Britain'. I'll answer properly below... Matt Lewis (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historically the whole of Ireland was included in the United Kingdom for over a century, so a taxonomic overlap is unavoidable and potentially informative. The Free State/Republic of Ireland would only apply after 1921. You can explore your ethno-nationalist traditionalist perspective in some other project. An Irish parallel perspective for classical music is surely fine but there's inevitably going to be an overlap. Lachrie (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not intended to advocate any form of nationalist perspective - quite the opposite, I hoped to warn of its dangers. I most sincerely apologise to anyone whom this inadvertency in my remarks may have offended, I unreservedly withdraw from any further involvement in this discussion, and I wish all members well in choosing suitable titles for whatever projects they wish to participate in. Eebahgum (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't claim that while suggesting some imagined communities (e.g. Britain or the United Kingdom) are less real than others (e.g. Ireland). But people will be bemused rather than offended by the obvious inconsistency. If you're allergic to cultural history, don't write about it. Music of the United Kingdom is fine, possibly with a statement of coverage, if anybody thinks it's really necessary, though the term seems self-explanatory to me. Lachrie (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can claim it, because I believe you have misunderstood what I have been trying to say. As an Englishman in ten generations in every line of my family, neither I nor any of my ancestors in any line have ever lived in Ireland since the time it became part of the United Kingdom. Therefore I do not have this 'blatant' (the word you used in your edit summary) pro-Irish, anti-British or anti-UK agenda which you suspect me of having, and which you have attributed to me in rather strong terms, and I, too, am bemused to find myself labelled with it. I am myself an Englishman, British, a Citizen of the United Kingdom and of Her Majesty's Commonwealth, and proud of it ('in spite of all temptations...'), and/but I don't feel threatened by trying to discuss my and our longer cultural history in terms which are not entirely ethnocentric upon that exact formulation. I have been discussing and writing about cultural history in these Islands for many years, and I am not at all allergic to it. I am, however, unhappy when I feel I am being misrepresented, especially when I feel it is because of my own failure to make myself properly understood, which must surely be the case in this instance.

If you want a WP Project which is about Music of the United Kingdom, I am not the one to stand in your way. I will, if you wish, gladly withdraw my vote to Delete the Project, if you are intending to take it up and to face all the exciting challenges which it offers. I advocated its deletion for the reasons I tried to explain above (obviously not clearly enough): that is, because the three people then (i.e. at the creation of the Project some years ago) involved in it were not setting out to define the cultural identity of the United Kingdom, splendid though that is, but were looking for a project to capture and arrange certain musical ideas to do with the past, historical view. It soon became apparent that these music-historical ideas went beyond (both geographically, and in historical time) what would be defined by using the United Kingdom as the denominator for the Project, and so some of us felt it might be better to seek some other name for the Project. There was no intention whatever either to pretend that the UK wasn't real, nor to deprive it of its full part and investment therein. I don't for one instant deny that the United Kingdom has an absolute right to see itself as a full participant in, and fully an heir to, those traditions and developments in music - not at all, and I ask you to recognize that I have not at any point denied it. That is what you have said about me, and that is why you think I am being inconsistent.

But if you are not intending to take charge of the Project, then there, I am afraid, it will lie as it has done for quite a long time, not really helping us to arrange the historical information about music because of these historical complexities which I have tried to draw attention to. Of course there is taxonomic overlap, of course there are parallel perspectives, and what we are all trying to do here, and the only thing we are trying to do, is to decide what might be the best framework within which to represent them.Eebahgum (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind clarification, but that your rationale may be second-hand, I'm afraid, is incidental to its content, as is the discussion of personalities and intentions. The objection to deletion remains that a Procrustean taxonomy is too prescriptive, so the remedy would be worse than the disease. The project just needs promotion. Lachrie (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, also, Lachrie, for advancing a material statement which assists constructively towards this deliberation. Like Procrustes we have two beds (and two bodies), one for the United Kingdom, and one for the Musical history, and neither exactly fits the other. Those of us who have written in Wikipedia about music in the past (I am one) have perhaps been inclined to follow the music where it led, rather than thinking in terms of state boundaries. But as I understand it (please correct me), you assert that 'Music of the United Kingdom' is the correct and most appropriate denomination for the Project, because (1) the more ancient ethno-musical traditions of the Old English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Breton and Irish provinces (and any other similar provincial traditions, including the archaeology of music) will in any case all have their own definitions, and will be associated with the Project but each having their own autonomous areas, and (2) that the historical period 1542-1937 is amply inclusive for the development of the post-mediaeval and 'classical' tradition, upon which both the native music and external influences in academic, vernacular and popular music were operating, and that this period should rightly be designated as 'Music of the United Kingdom' because all the preceding cultural influences were then flowing towards that single national identity, regardless of whether they occurred before or after the Act of Union of 1801, and regardless of what happened to them after 1921: (3) that 'Scottish Music', 'Irish Music' 'English Music' and 'Welsh Music' might exist as subsidiary categories to the larger category of the United Kingdom, and probably growing out of the more ancient classifications mentioned in (1) above, but that (4) uniquely 'Irish Music' would extend independently into areas relating to the period after 1921, representing whatever identity may there be deemed appropriate. Is that a fair representation of your preferred view? Please help to project a model that can be worked upon. Doubtless this is a most complex historical area, and no solution will be particularly comfortable. If this project is to go forward, then a keynote or name article should be written in which the scope and structure of the project is modelled. Eebahgum (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eebahgum, I am proposing Wikiproject British Music - where is the word "Britain" in that? I thought I made it clear that 'British' and 'Britain' are different words: Britain is essentially a political island, whereas 'British' is a cultural term that is much more flexible. Culturally it is not 'imagined' at all - that idea is pure opinion, or 'POV' as we like to say here. There are millions of 'British' who are just that - British - so we have to keep the British project, whatever others ones there are. In my opinion the best of British really is British - the more 'pure' (esp 'Celtic') it is the less I personally like it. When Ireland was part of the UK it was essentially British, despite the amount of people who remained 'Irish', or were/became both (esp in Ulster and Dublin) - and that is part of the whole point. The project will no-doubt cover as an area at some stage how things inter-mix(ed) in Ireland. Wikipedia isn't so clunky that it can't deal with Irish and British periods of the same genre of music, or even discuss cultural links that exist today. Quite the opposite, Wikipedia is typically over-complicated - but it doesn't have to be here. A Wikiproject can deal with a section in an article too - it doesn't have to deal with the whole article.

You must know that 'Wikiproject:British Isles' will defeat Wikipedia (and will cross with Wikiproject Irish Music too) - and I include in that; Wikiproject:'These Islands' / 'British Isles and Ireland' / 'Isles of Britain and Ireland' - all of which you seem to personally prefer(!) yet will make acceptance only harder. As I've said above, I'm planning to put this up as a requested move next Wednesday, where people can discuss changing the name to 'British Music', keeping the name we have, finding another one, or even deleting it. If people feel the need to make offshoots in the future (Music of England etc) then we can cross those bridges when and if we come to them. Given the nature and history of the UK, I doubt myself that separate UK constituent country projects will ever be necessary. Where lies Celtic music for example? What in total is England? Harps aren't just Welsh and pipes aren't just Scottish, and for periods of our history some people actually made a real point of being called 'British' too. Even today, it's much harder to force people into national corners than it is to simply be-practical, and use the sovereign stamp. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaagh! I am not advocating any project: nor am I trying to control the subject, nor to force anyone into national corners: nor do I think the subject of 'Music of the UK' is 'imaginary'. I was invited to look at this Mfd (which I did not originate), and chose to vote for the deletion of a project (a project, mind, NOT a subject) which had few followers and had never developed to serve the intentions of its founders. A Project is a system of working by which members will agree to arrange their material, adopt certain conventions of terminology, and develop areas of data and article groups, etc. I sought to explain why I thought it had not been very successful. Lachrie points out that deletion of the Project is tantamount to promoting other (nationalist) views of the culture in preference to the UK identity (which, despite appearances, I was not intending to do). Matt on the other hand wants to rename it, which, as he proposes, would require further discussion elsewhere than in this Mfd. I will not be participating in that discussion, because while I still hope to write articles about music, I shall not trouble myself very much as to which Project(s) they are associated with, except in trying to be broadly cooperative. I leave the question of the Project and its exact name, scope and meaning entirely to others to decide and develop. For these reasons I withdraw my vote to delete the present Project, and suggest this Mfd be abandoned in favour of that discussion taking place elsewhere among those interested. Eebahgum (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Perhaps I myself have been losing some 'faith' due to the various debilitating British Isles/nationality disputes on Wikipedia. Wikipedians naturally tend to use Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (ironically they should avoid it whenever possible when editing it), and from reading Wikipedia you would think that people walk around the UK and Ireland talking using 'terms' like "These Islands" and travelling from one "Region" to another etc. It's largely a 'WP reality' based on selective 'sacred texts' as protected sometimes as the Dead Sea Scrolls. As I say below, the only related project is Wikiproject Irish Music (it wasn't called Music of Ireland) - and it's worth pointing out the the title "Wikiproject British Music" would follow the same pattern. 09:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

God, this discussion is getting way too long. Could some close as no consensus? Thanks. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 02:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put it up for deletion if it wasn't to encourage discussion? Surely you didn't expect someone to actually delete the Music of the United Kingdom Wikiproject, even an American seeing no attendance at this AfD at all! Deletion is hardly the option here, and it's not the only valuable Wikiproject that isn't used - many people don't go near them, partly as they can lead to yet more deadlock situations. There is no doubt they can be useful too though, esp in areas with so many lists. I'll be putting it up for a requested Move soon, so we may as well keep discussion centralised here. There will be a vacuum if this project goes, and given the lack of attendence we need to at least keep some momentum here, even if no one else comments until Wednesday. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well said Matt, just when it's starting to get interesting too. There's plenty of space here, and while no-one else is talking we have a perfect right to say all that we think should be said, since someone is trying to delete this Project. A lot of the trouble surrounding this has been too much desire to control, not enough to collaborate. I have made a lot of mistakes over this present problem, but while there is still space here for us to think about it let us do so. If someone cuts us off they had better have a good reason. So: though the page has already heard far too much from me, I am going to offer a fuller perspective:

First I think I should declare that I was the editor who joined the Project third, on 2 June 2007, and left it on 6 June 2007 ie four days later saying I was not interested in Music of the UK but in Music of the British Isles (project participants). I therefore sowed the seed of doubt into the project that Smerus founded. Not long after that I changed my Username for reasons unconnected with this project.
The reason I turned away from the Project, was in the difficulties I encountered while simultaneously trying to revise completely the article on Classical music of the United Kingdom. As it stood before, this contained an extremely bare outline approximately from Tudor times to 20th century, without really getting to grips with the subject of the title, i.e. what does the United Kingdom mean in relation to the musical development outlined. Between 2nd June 2007 and 15th June 2007 I enlarged the article from c17,000 to c27,000 bytes, taking c1800 (the Union) as the terminus a quo, and coordinating wide linkage to articles about some of the principal schools, orchestras, composers, performers and genres which then emerged. I was trying to map out something like a project. Most of this structure is still in the article today, in form improved by others, though the nods of acknowledgement of continental influences, teachers and performers in UK has mostly been purged (to my regret) by identity purists and one or two figures (e.g. Charles Dibdin) have been chopped out for being 'not classical enough'.
The rationale for this attempted coverage was given when I introduced some chronological pointers about the UK itself, and rewrote the Lead Paragraph, the bones of which are still in place in that article four years later.
Although I did not remove the pre-1800 material, it was left hanging without much satisfactory development - and so (for a long time) ditto the early 20th century. It was clear that a much longer historical perspective was required, to accord a similar structure to the pre-1800 material, and that there wasn't going to be room in that article to do it. It seemed then that the denominator 'United Kingdom' was causing unnatural clefts or horizons in a long process which transcended that kind of national identification.
So I turned away from the UK Project, using those rather unfortunate words, and concentrated on writing useful articles instead. These have often been long articles around selected musicians, again in the hope of stimulating sattelite developments and linkage - i.e. a less centralized, more networking approach to data organization, to which WP is perfectly suited. I am but one among an army of editors so engaged. I turned away from centralized control of data and towards variety spontaneously generating its own structures. I would claim that this WORKS, whereas the attempts to claw back control and centralize the organization of data are precisely the models that keep failing, and keep causing conflict. There is a middle way between the two, just as there is a middle way between tyranny and anarchy (in the political usage), which means that projects bring forward their own guidelines, some of which become quite firmly established, but that development and creative growth are given very broad scope to map out future paths of growth. And now you will perceive that I am talking not only about music, and not only about politics. I am also talking about polyphony, about many distinct voices singing together.
On this point Lachrie has converted me: I do not think that the United Kingdom must be denied (as it would be by deletion or change of name) the natural Project vehicle within which to coordinate the description of its musical culture, and of the roots of that culture going back into the middle ages and before - If, that is, it feels it needs such a Project, which I doubt that it does: for the facts of its cultural identity speak and show infinitely more clearly through articles about its many particulars, its persons and institutions, its spectrum and variety cohering, than by any centralized motto or manifesto, any 'mission statement' ('Perish the thought'!). Its very strength is its diversity, and the amazing loyalty and energy which that principle obtains. Yet to actively delete that Project would be to deny the UK this vessel while granting it and giving precedence to every other subsidiary or opposed interest, and therefore inviting dismemberment or 'taxonomic balkanization' (Lachrie's term). That would be a gross political ineptitude for Wikipedia, a mad position to be in. Are we to be a committee of nitwits, a kind of bucolic soviet? The 'Music of the United Kingdom' project should remain even if no-one ever writes in it again, like a right of free speech.
However there is also every justification for a 'British Music Project', which might readily parallel the 'Irish Music Project'. I think the distinction between 'Britain' and 'British' is straining at a gnat, and will only introduce more ambiguity in the long run - just accept the term and manage the consequences. You could even go for 'Britannic Music', with its resonances of the Dominion, in order to readjust the horizons. Why not just create the new Project without dissolving the old, create linkage between them, and let Users and Editors develop them both as seems best. The duplication we fear will probably not happen, little harm can be done (no 'tugs of love'!) and much good might arise, shaking off those shackles of self-doubt and identity crisis which have dogged the matter.
Thoughts of a dull brain in a dry season, and no doubt waiting for Wednesday or Godot, whichever comes first. Eebahgum (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the day! Sorry - I got waylaid, pretty pointlessly in the end. I'll put something up later on (thurs). You've covered most things there I think, and I probably agree with them all; People don't have to use projects (and have valid reasons actually to avoid them), but this project should certainly remain, and it's current title is not totally disabling. Even Britannic Music (or the perhaps coloquial Britannia, which I've seen used) has some merit. Starting a parallel project isn't the worst idea either if things go awry. I quite like the Irish Music parallel in terms of name (though it's of course it's not as singular stylistically), and I'll lead with that in the Move request, but I'll suggest the other options too. I've got a funny feeling the title will stay the same - but I can't make a Move request just to that! At least we can start afresh it's all done, whatever happens. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment: This humongous discussion — largely about political geography — convinces me that this project is not viable and should be deleted. --Klein zach 03:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you normally edit, but the idea of this discussion being "humongous" must at least entertain a few Brits who read it! Matt Lewis (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.