This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I've been under the impression and have been told that general reasers and casual listeners would not be interested in moderate-to-large amounts of musial analysis or blow-by-blow descriptions. However, several articles listed on "to do" lists have considerable detail in this regard. Some of it has been flagged NPOV or needing verification; some of it has not been flagged in the article itself but has been flagged as such on the list. Some suggestons or guidelines would be helpful, as I have already had one case where virtually all of my clean-up efforts were reversed by other Wikipedians. Thanks. Jonyungk ( talk) 05:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Crone. Badagnani ( talk) 06:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Is Vocal theory a hoax? "Vocal theory is a framework for understanding the interrelationships between vocal registration and societal angst that is increasingly common in younger segments of the population of developed countries." Huh? If it’s real it really needs sources to prove this isn’t OR. -- S.dedalus ( talk) 06:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I’m also asking at WP:WPO.
Hello. Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles needs your help. Piano Concerto No. 2 (Beethoven) has been without any references since June, 2006. Could you please take a minute out of your busy day to help add sources? Thanks for your time. Viriditas ( talk) 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Currently, there is a controversial campaign to put a 'No Free Image' graphic on all biographical pages. This is the 'female version':
If you're interested there is a discussion about this here. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 07:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There is now a centralized discussion about this at: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 08:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion was supposed to close, but it has in fact continued, despite some objections. A suggestion just emerged that infoboxes should be added to articles lacking them in order to facilitate the insertion of a revised take on the placeholder concept. Objection that such a course was not in keeping with the consensus of classical music editors (and some other groups) was met with responses that refusing to include infoboxes is irrational and that if an infobox is inserted, other editors are always free to remove it again. Those with views on this issue might wish to review the ongoing discussion (on the centralized discussion page referenced above) and participate if they have contributions to offer. The disscussion of "no infobox" articles has an entry in the table of contents. Drhoehl ( talk) 06:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Would appreciate more specialized users to weigh in on whether this musician is notable enough for inclusion. ♫ Cricket02 ( talk) 22:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I had always been using Tempo#Italian tempo markings for my tempo links. Today, an experienced editor (Centy) changed some of them to Glossary of musical terminology#A (or whatever letter the term started with). I really have no preference either way, but I'd like to know what the standard is so that I can train myself to use the corect links. Since these links are everywhere, I thought I would pose the question here. Where should I link to for terms like allegro, andante, allegretto, adagio, etc. DavidRF ( talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There has been a long running merge proposal to merge the two parent pages for Beethoven's middle quartets String Quartets Nos. 7 - 9, Opus 59 - Rasumovsky (Beethoven) and String Quartets Nos. 10 - 11, Opus 74 "Harp" and 95 "Serioso" (Beethoven).
Personally it seems sensible to group the Rasumovsky quartets whereas the Harp and Serioso seem a pairing only by process of elimination. To me, I think we should just delete String Quartets Nos. 10 - 11, Opus 74 "Harp" and 95 "Serioso" (Beethoven) as there's really no real need to say Beethoven composed two other quartets that aren't in one of the two obvious groups. I mean the navbox does just read Other middle period quartets. There's no real need to link to that. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There are dozens of Bach cantatas that don't have articles. Could someone work on stubs for each of them? -- Ted-m ( talk) 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it time for a new bot run? Perhaps the run can include the articles that weren't covered last time? Perhaps the bot can automatically assess stubbed articles as stub class in the way that SatyrBot assessed Opera Project articles? IMO bannering would serve to define the project more clearly and attract new participants. Any thoughts? Best. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 03:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
A long time has past and SatyrTN is still away. The Composers Project has just had a successful bot run done by ShepBot by Stepshep. I suggest we ask him to do a run here. -- Klein zach 07:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
There's an extensive (though perhaps suspicious) edit that was recently made to the article on the Scottish Symphony. I'm trying to decide whether to clean up or revert. Could you all take a brief look and see if you recognize the prose? I don't want to bother cleaning it up if it was just lifted from somewhere. Thanks. DavidRF ( talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this tangle today. Can someone here give some advice on this? Something's got to be deleted, but I'm not sure which or how many or how. Here's the story...
Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently at Articles for deletion for members who wish to comment. Voceditenore ( talk) 10:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
According to this edit by Stepshep ( t c) the {{ Classical}} template has now been updated to include ratings for all levels of the 1.0 assessment scale, not just the GA or FA statuses that were notated previously. Was this a discussed change? I thought we didn't want to deal with grading articles. ALTON .ıl 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This is strange. A short biography of Avison is followed by a long biography of Arthur Fagen. When I try to edit the Fagen text there nothing visible in the edit window. Does anybody understand what is happening here? -- Klein zach 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. The same thing is happening on Omer Létourneau. -- Klein zach 23:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC) and other pages: Keri Lynn Wilson, Samuel Wong -- Klein zach 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 22:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The bot runs that have been going on since 19 June are now finished. The project has 9,258 articles (compared to about 1,700 before we started). Many thanks to Stepshep (ShepBot) and Richard0612 (Bot0612) for all their work.
As the scope of this project covers "all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects" all articles currently bannered by the Composers, Contemporary music, Opera, Gilbert and Sullivan, and Wagner projects have been excluded from the run.
Of the current 9,258 articles, 8,697 are unassessed and 517 are marked as stubs. (There are also six Class B articles, four GAs, and four FAs.)
Classical music is the largest of all the mainstream music projects. (By comparison, Opera has 4,863 articles, Composers has 3,973 and Contemporary music has 2,687 - Music itself only has 3,742.)
There is a list of all the categories bannered at Classical music/Categories. These categories were checked. The bots did not run through unlisted subcategories as many of these include non-classical music. I'd advise anyone arranging bot runs in the future to keep to the 'authentic' categories. -- Klein zach 00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I just started a new project dedicated to editing articles related to music theory. The scope of the project includes articles on the following:
All are welcome to join and participate. Nrswanson ( talk) 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 9261 articles are assigned to this project, of which 1557, or 16.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I've been under the impression and have been told that general reasers and casual listeners would not be interested in moderate-to-large amounts of musial analysis or blow-by-blow descriptions. However, several articles listed on "to do" lists have considerable detail in this regard. Some of it has been flagged NPOV or needing verification; some of it has not been flagged in the article itself but has been flagged as such on the list. Some suggestons or guidelines would be helpful, as I have already had one case where virtually all of my clean-up efforts were reversed by other Wikipedians. Thanks. Jonyungk ( talk) 05:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Crone. Badagnani ( talk) 06:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Is Vocal theory a hoax? "Vocal theory is a framework for understanding the interrelationships between vocal registration and societal angst that is increasingly common in younger segments of the population of developed countries." Huh? If it’s real it really needs sources to prove this isn’t OR. -- S.dedalus ( talk) 06:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC) I’m also asking at WP:WPO.
Hello. Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles needs your help. Piano Concerto No. 2 (Beethoven) has been without any references since June, 2006. Could you please take a minute out of your busy day to help add sources? Thanks for your time. Viriditas ( talk) 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Currently, there is a controversial campaign to put a 'No Free Image' graphic on all biographical pages. This is the 'female version':
If you're interested there is a discussion about this here. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 07:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
There is now a centralized discussion about this at: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 08:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion was supposed to close, but it has in fact continued, despite some objections. A suggestion just emerged that infoboxes should be added to articles lacking them in order to facilitate the insertion of a revised take on the placeholder concept. Objection that such a course was not in keeping with the consensus of classical music editors (and some other groups) was met with responses that refusing to include infoboxes is irrational and that if an infobox is inserted, other editors are always free to remove it again. Those with views on this issue might wish to review the ongoing discussion (on the centralized discussion page referenced above) and participate if they have contributions to offer. The disscussion of "no infobox" articles has an entry in the table of contents. Drhoehl ( talk) 06:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Would appreciate more specialized users to weigh in on whether this musician is notable enough for inclusion. ♫ Cricket02 ( talk) 22:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I had always been using Tempo#Italian tempo markings for my tempo links. Today, an experienced editor (Centy) changed some of them to Glossary of musical terminology#A (or whatever letter the term started with). I really have no preference either way, but I'd like to know what the standard is so that I can train myself to use the corect links. Since these links are everywhere, I thought I would pose the question here. Where should I link to for terms like allegro, andante, allegretto, adagio, etc. DavidRF ( talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There has been a long running merge proposal to merge the two parent pages for Beethoven's middle quartets String Quartets Nos. 7 - 9, Opus 59 - Rasumovsky (Beethoven) and String Quartets Nos. 10 - 11, Opus 74 "Harp" and 95 "Serioso" (Beethoven).
Personally it seems sensible to group the Rasumovsky quartets whereas the Harp and Serioso seem a pairing only by process of elimination. To me, I think we should just delete String Quartets Nos. 10 - 11, Opus 74 "Harp" and 95 "Serioso" (Beethoven) as there's really no real need to say Beethoven composed two other quartets that aren't in one of the two obvious groups. I mean the navbox does just read Other middle period quartets. There's no real need to link to that. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
There are dozens of Bach cantatas that don't have articles. Could someone work on stubs for each of them? -- Ted-m ( talk) 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it time for a new bot run? Perhaps the run can include the articles that weren't covered last time? Perhaps the bot can automatically assess stubbed articles as stub class in the way that SatyrBot assessed Opera Project articles? IMO bannering would serve to define the project more clearly and attract new participants. Any thoughts? Best. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 03:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
A long time has past and SatyrTN is still away. The Composers Project has just had a successful bot run done by ShepBot by Stepshep. I suggest we ask him to do a run here. -- Klein zach 07:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
There's an extensive (though perhaps suspicious) edit that was recently made to the article on the Scottish Symphony. I'm trying to decide whether to clean up or revert. Could you all take a brief look and see if you recognize the prose? I don't want to bother cleaning it up if it was just lifted from somewhere. Thanks. DavidRF ( talk) 01:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this tangle today. Can someone here give some advice on this? Something's got to be deleted, but I'm not sure which or how many or how. Here's the story...
Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 17:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently at Articles for deletion for members who wish to comment. Voceditenore ( talk) 10:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
According to this edit by Stepshep ( t c) the {{ Classical}} template has now been updated to include ratings for all levels of the 1.0 assessment scale, not just the GA or FA statuses that were notated previously. Was this a discussed change? I thought we didn't want to deal with grading articles. ALTON .ıl 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This is strange. A short biography of Avison is followed by a long biography of Arthur Fagen. When I try to edit the Fagen text there nothing visible in the edit window. Does anybody understand what is happening here? -- Klein zach 23:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. The same thing is happening on Omer Létourneau. -- Klein zach 23:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC) and other pages: Keri Lynn Wilson, Samuel Wong -- Klein zach 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 22:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The bot runs that have been going on since 19 June are now finished. The project has 9,258 articles (compared to about 1,700 before we started). Many thanks to Stepshep (ShepBot) and Richard0612 (Bot0612) for all their work.
As the scope of this project covers "all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects" all articles currently bannered by the Composers, Contemporary music, Opera, Gilbert and Sullivan, and Wagner projects have been excluded from the run.
Of the current 9,258 articles, 8,697 are unassessed and 517 are marked as stubs. (There are also six Class B articles, four GAs, and four FAs.)
Classical music is the largest of all the mainstream music projects. (By comparison, Opera has 4,863 articles, Composers has 3,973 and Contemporary music has 2,687 - Music itself only has 3,742.)
There is a list of all the categories bannered at Classical music/Categories. These categories were checked. The bots did not run through unlisted subcategories as many of these include non-classical music. I'd advise anyone arranging bot runs in the future to keep to the 'authentic' categories. -- Klein zach 00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I just started a new project dedicated to editing articles related to music theory. The scope of the project includes articles on the following:
All are welcome to join and participate. Nrswanson ( talk) 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 9261 articles are assigned to this project, of which 1557, or 16.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)