This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't this article be combined with music basic topics, or vice versa? -- Merphant
Ok, I redirected Music basic topics to here and all of the articles (minus talk pages) that link to it as well. Everything on MBT was already here, except for composers. I didn't link those, because we already have extensive lists of composers.
But that raises another question: what about musical instruments? We also have a list of musical instruments, but piano and violin are on this page. Saxophone is not. This isn't a major issue, but I don't think they should be here, since that encourages duplicate info. I'll put a notice on the page saying not to add stuff that might be on those other lists, and then delete the instrument links. -- Merphant
Sorry - not quite sure of the function of this list. I couldn't resist the temptation to try to fill in all the letters of the alphabet, but noticed that xylophone has been deleted. Fair dos - it should be on the instrument list. But what then about piano, flute, and some of the others? Also ukelele which I added has been left untouched! So, somewhat confused about how this page is to be used. -- User:David Martland
I put the self link back in the list. It should be there so we can track changes to the list page itself. -- Merphant 09:30 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph on the page says that the list exists so that people can click the Related Changes button and see which articles have been modified recently. Thus, since octave is linked from the page, it will pop up at the top of the Related Changes list when somebody modifies the octave article. Having the self link makes it easy to see when somebody modifies the List of musical topics. This probably should be explained on the page. I'll do that now. -- Merphant
There is a list on Music theory of music theory topics. This seems to duplicate part of this list unecessarily. Does anyone see the need to have that as a seperate list? Otherwise I will get rid of it. Hyacinth
Where do non-musicians such as record producers, audio engineers, promotion and distribution people, get listed? Not all on List of musicians by genre. Hyacinth 00:23, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Should gamelan and jegog be removed from this list, as they are genres? Hyacinth 20:37, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Jegog is both the name of an ensemble and a genre of music. I wrote the Jegog entry, so when I went to link it I noticed that Gamelan, Orchestra and Musical band were on this list. I also noticed that quartet, quintet, trio were missing. I didn't imediately see a clear distinction of what should and should not be on the list. Thinking about it, I decided to take the broadest view and decided that Jegog is music and Jegog is a topic, and suspected that the list just hadn't been fleshed out fully.
After further review of the list, I have come to the view that it very difficult to come up with distinctions that would not be ethrocentric in determining what should or shouldn't be on this list. For example, I could add dozens of terms relating to Indonesian music. Couldn't the decision just be to have something removed from this list if it can be found on another list that is linked to this one? If that is the case, Jegog and Joged Bumbung should go on a list of types of Gamelan Ensembles (which I might add is needed in the Gamelan entry).
Another suggestion I have is to be clear that there are many LISTS that are linked to this page. That was not clear to me at first. Perhaps LISTS are the only thing that should be linked to this page. I would then call it something different, like "Index of Musical Lists". Is there policy about this sort of thing already?
I'm kinda new to all this, so I just say my piece and see what happens... -- SamuelWantman
Since 'string quartet' is on the list, I added 'string quintet' and 'string sextet'. Hyacinth promptly deleted them, but not string quartet. I think consistency demands the inclusion or exclusion of all the ensembles. (And the 'List of musical ensembles' is not, properly speaking, a list at all, though this is a quibble.) Can we work out a uniform policy here? Physicist 15:43, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone maintain this list? Does anyone find it useful? Is it time to delete it? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a discussion on what the reference requirements for lists like this one. The Transhumanist ( talk) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
another addition, Music and the brain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_the_brain Microcosmmm ( talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Firstly I'd like to congratulate Cote d'Azur for the huge amount of work they've done here in the last week or so – looks like 1100-1200 edits – wow!
Secondly I'd like to query whether it matters that Cote d'Azur appears to have repurposed the article somewhat. The discussions above, and the hidden text (HTML comment) at the top of the article, talk about the original intent and ask editors not to add stuff that is in other lists: I only realized this when I went to add piccolo trumpet and flugelhorn. There are other examples, both above and in the HTML comment. Cote d'Azur appears to have ignored this ... but ... maybe it doesn't matter!
Most of the people above are long gone. I see an earlier manifestation of myself discussing it >15 years ago, Camembert is in there, and they're hardly here at all any more (and much missed) etc etc. And even then there was doubt about its usefulness. So maybe it really doesn't matter at all if you just change it into a different concept. What I do think you should consider, though, Cote d'Azur, is putting something on this Talk page stating your intentions for the list, and editing the HTML comment so that it is no longer contradicted by the list contents! I very much doubt that you will find anyone with the energy or commitment to argue with you over it, but at least it would set your stall out clearly and update the current purpose of the list.
I certainly won't be arguing with you about your purpose here; I don't really feel that I have a dog in this race any longer. I'd just be happier to see the changes accounted for and, I suppose, in effect agreed to by being mentioned here and not being disputed!
Thanks and best wishes, DBaK ( talk) 10:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
In view of all Cote d'Azur's work and the lack of input from anyone else, I am happy to leave it as it is, and have edited the HTML comment to reflect the current reality. I'm not up for a fight over this either way and am satisfied that we've at least aired the issue: YMMV. Best to all, DBaK ( talk) 11:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't this article be combined with music basic topics, or vice versa? -- Merphant
Ok, I redirected Music basic topics to here and all of the articles (minus talk pages) that link to it as well. Everything on MBT was already here, except for composers. I didn't link those, because we already have extensive lists of composers.
But that raises another question: what about musical instruments? We also have a list of musical instruments, but piano and violin are on this page. Saxophone is not. This isn't a major issue, but I don't think they should be here, since that encourages duplicate info. I'll put a notice on the page saying not to add stuff that might be on those other lists, and then delete the instrument links. -- Merphant
Sorry - not quite sure of the function of this list. I couldn't resist the temptation to try to fill in all the letters of the alphabet, but noticed that xylophone has been deleted. Fair dos - it should be on the instrument list. But what then about piano, flute, and some of the others? Also ukelele which I added has been left untouched! So, somewhat confused about how this page is to be used. -- User:David Martland
I put the self link back in the list. It should be there so we can track changes to the list page itself. -- Merphant 09:30 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph on the page says that the list exists so that people can click the Related Changes button and see which articles have been modified recently. Thus, since octave is linked from the page, it will pop up at the top of the Related Changes list when somebody modifies the octave article. Having the self link makes it easy to see when somebody modifies the List of musical topics. This probably should be explained on the page. I'll do that now. -- Merphant
There is a list on Music theory of music theory topics. This seems to duplicate part of this list unecessarily. Does anyone see the need to have that as a seperate list? Otherwise I will get rid of it. Hyacinth
Where do non-musicians such as record producers, audio engineers, promotion and distribution people, get listed? Not all on List of musicians by genre. Hyacinth 00:23, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Should gamelan and jegog be removed from this list, as they are genres? Hyacinth 20:37, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Jegog is both the name of an ensemble and a genre of music. I wrote the Jegog entry, so when I went to link it I noticed that Gamelan, Orchestra and Musical band were on this list. I also noticed that quartet, quintet, trio were missing. I didn't imediately see a clear distinction of what should and should not be on the list. Thinking about it, I decided to take the broadest view and decided that Jegog is music and Jegog is a topic, and suspected that the list just hadn't been fleshed out fully.
After further review of the list, I have come to the view that it very difficult to come up with distinctions that would not be ethrocentric in determining what should or shouldn't be on this list. For example, I could add dozens of terms relating to Indonesian music. Couldn't the decision just be to have something removed from this list if it can be found on another list that is linked to this one? If that is the case, Jegog and Joged Bumbung should go on a list of types of Gamelan Ensembles (which I might add is needed in the Gamelan entry).
Another suggestion I have is to be clear that there are many LISTS that are linked to this page. That was not clear to me at first. Perhaps LISTS are the only thing that should be linked to this page. I would then call it something different, like "Index of Musical Lists". Is there policy about this sort of thing already?
I'm kinda new to all this, so I just say my piece and see what happens... -- SamuelWantman
Since 'string quartet' is on the list, I added 'string quintet' and 'string sextet'. Hyacinth promptly deleted them, but not string quartet. I think consistency demands the inclusion or exclusion of all the ensembles. (And the 'List of musical ensembles' is not, properly speaking, a list at all, though this is a quibble.) Can we work out a uniform policy here? Physicist 15:43, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone maintain this list? Does anyone find it useful? Is it time to delete it? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a discussion on what the reference requirements for lists like this one. The Transhumanist ( talk) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
another addition, Music and the brain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_the_brain Microcosmmm ( talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Firstly I'd like to congratulate Cote d'Azur for the huge amount of work they've done here in the last week or so – looks like 1100-1200 edits – wow!
Secondly I'd like to query whether it matters that Cote d'Azur appears to have repurposed the article somewhat. The discussions above, and the hidden text (HTML comment) at the top of the article, talk about the original intent and ask editors not to add stuff that is in other lists: I only realized this when I went to add piccolo trumpet and flugelhorn. There are other examples, both above and in the HTML comment. Cote d'Azur appears to have ignored this ... but ... maybe it doesn't matter!
Most of the people above are long gone. I see an earlier manifestation of myself discussing it >15 years ago, Camembert is in there, and they're hardly here at all any more (and much missed) etc etc. And even then there was doubt about its usefulness. So maybe it really doesn't matter at all if you just change it into a different concept. What I do think you should consider, though, Cote d'Azur, is putting something on this Talk page stating your intentions for the list, and editing the HTML comment so that it is no longer contradicted by the list contents! I very much doubt that you will find anyone with the energy or commitment to argue with you over it, but at least it would set your stall out clearly and update the current purpose of the list.
I certainly won't be arguing with you about your purpose here; I don't really feel that I have a dog in this race any longer. I'd just be happier to see the changes accounted for and, I suppose, in effect agreed to by being mentioned here and not being disputed!
Thanks and best wishes, DBaK ( talk) 10:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
In view of all Cote d'Azur's work and the lack of input from anyone else, I am happy to leave it as it is, and have edited the HTML comment to reflect the current reality. I'm not up for a fight over this either way and am satisfied that we've at least aired the issue: YMMV. Best to all, DBaK ( talk) 11:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)