User talk:Trumpetrep: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:58, 31 May 2013

Welcome!

Hello, Trumpetrep, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Trumpet repertoire, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Wperdue (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Trumpet repertoire

A tag has been placed on Trumpet repertoire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Wperdue (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trumpet Repertoire

I realize your edits are in good faith, but this new category looks completely redundant. We already have Category:Compositions for trumpet. DavidRF (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compositions for trumpet is totally useless, and looks completely abandoned, with only 3 entries in it. There are repertoire categories established for Piano Trio, Euphonium, Organ and other instruments. I'm just following those protocols and trying to provide a better resource for trumpeters. Thanks

It contains the subcategory Category:Trumpet concertos. Isn't it assumed that a trumpet concerto is in the trumpet repertoire? I think a better solution is to add Category:Compositions for trumpet to more articles instead of creating a category that means exactly the same thing. DavidRF (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your category should be renamed Category:Trumpet repertoire, which actually already exists. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 03:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the feedback, but there wasn't anything in 'Trumpet repertoire'. I'm just following the pre-existing naming convention for other repertoire categories. That's the most reasonable way to proceed.

I'm unfamiliar with any other "repertoire" categories. We can create an article. You tried that earlier this evening, but it got deleted because it stayed empty too long. I'll take the text from the top of your category and put it in an article.DavidRF (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just search 'repertoire' and you'll see the protocols that have already been established for Piano trio, Organ and Euphonium. All I'm doing is adding to the knowledge base, which is non-existent on the subject here. Trumpeters will really appreciate. Your rolling edits are hampering my efforts to centralize what little information there is on Wikipedia about trumpet repertoire.

You're also proceeding from a fundamental misunderstanding of the word 'repertoire'. Mahler 5 is not a 'composition for trumpet', it is a composition for orchestra. However, it contains such extended solo passages for the trumpet that it is an important part of our repertoire. You guys are sticking to a category that wasn't correct in the first place. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please sign your posts? with four tildes: ~~~~ Just do it and click save. Your signature will show up. Thanks. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 03:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the good faith edits here. There's just a few little organizational details that need to be hammered out or the admins will keep deleting your stuff. I'm all for creating a Trumpet repertoire article in the next day or two. For now, please place new information here: User:DavidRF/Sandbox. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other categories by the name of <Instrument> repertoire. There are articles, but no categories. I went ahead and stubbed the article here, and recategorized them. Q ^{T C} 03:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you guys 'the admins'? Again, 'compositions for trumpet' isn't the protocol that's used for other instruments on Wikipedia, and it's also inaccurate. Thanks for the sandbox. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are global admins who quickly delete articles that are empty. I'm just an editor that's familiar with how to get articles past the stub phase. I put a question on the talk page of the new stub here: Talk:Trumpet repertoire DavidRF (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have examples of this? I couldn't find a category for another instrument that was called "<Instrument> repertoire" but as can be seen here there is a large number of categories name "Compositions for <Instrument>". Q ^{T C} 04:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, according to the Music WikiProject their categorization structure can be seen Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Categories. It basically goes: Music>>Musical compositions>>Compositions by instrument>>Compositions for ... Q ^{T C} 04:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've went ahead and asked them for help regarding this issue. Q ^{T C} 04:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also ask here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music? This list is looking to be classical music centric. DavidRF (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I posted a note here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Those editors usually have some suggestions. For now, there's Trumpet repertoire (by composer) and User:DavidRF/Sandbox (by type). Not sure which format is preferred. Maybe we can keep both? DavidRF (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't both redundant? That seems a bit antithetical to the point of Wikipedia. The 'repertoire' naming convention that I've seen elsewhere is typically done in 'list' format. (see List_of_compositions_for_violin_and_orchestra), which is what your Trumpet repertoire page does. I'm happy to follow whatever convention is considered best by Wikipedia, but I'd just point out that DavidRF's sandbox follows the convention of the music world. Publishers list repertoire by category, and musicians (for whom this page is intended) look for things by category. It's of no use to us to look at an alphabetical list of hundreds of compositions, if we're looking for a duo. We want to laser right in on where the duo rep is, and ignore everything else. If the idea is to conform to industry standards in organizing information, the sandbox version is the most appropriate way.Trumpetrep (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References and sources

I see you've added a lot of new material to Trumpet. Please be aware, though, that Wikipedia aims to be a collection of published, sourced material. Your edits seem to contain valid information, but none of it is cited as to its source, making it original research. Also, please avoid inserting your point of view or opinion into articles - e.g., assessments of the importance of a piece or a player, or claims about what constitutes common practice are only valid in articles if they are from a published source. You're adding lots of information, but any editor would be completely within his rights to remove all of that material for the above reasons. Happy editing! - Special-T (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a fine line, right? Most of the information that is already present lacks citations. For instance, the 'Legende' entry contains the assertion that 'Legende now holds an important place in the trumpet repertoire and is considered one of the most beautiful pieces available in a somewhat limited modern repertoire'. All of that is pure opinion, in the technical sense. It's all conventional wisdom, as well, which requires no citation in academia.

All of what I've added has been well within the realm of conventional wisdom.Trumpetrep (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article, and that sentence in particular, is an example of what shouldn't be here - unsourced claims laced with pure POV and opinion. Of course, lots of articles started out with editors just adding what they thought was true, but check the links in the Welcome message above and you'll see that just because there's some sub-par editing out there, we still need to stick to published, cited facts. - Special-T (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what Wikipedia aspires to be, but again, take a look at any single page on here, and you will find that most of the verbiage is not sourced. I appreciate your intentions, though.Trumpetrep (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Brass Quintet Repertoire

I have nominated Brass Quintet Repertoire, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brass Quintet Repertoire. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination. I'm honored! As to your concerns, the article is all verifiable and does not constitute original research. Please consult other repertoire pages such as Piano_trio_repertoire, Trumpet repertoire, Flute_repertory, and you'll find the format is the same: brief intro, list of pieces. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haggadah of Passover

You added the Haggadah to the category of musical allusions in Ulysses. I can only assume this was a mistake and reverted it, however if I was mistaken please let me know. The Haggadah is a text that is used to guide a Jewish ritual known as the Passover Seder - it is not musical at all. (Well, you can sing it I suppose, but you can sing any written text if you want). Please let me know if I misinterpreted. --Bachrach44 (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. The Haggadah is incorporated into Ulysses as a musical allusion, particularly to the 'Chad Gadya'. The main character thinks of it as he watches a typesetter at work, which makes him think of a Jew and his 'hagadah book, reading backwards with his finger.' He then goes on to chant a few lines to himself, as part of his never ending interior monologue. He does the same thing with the Ordinary of the Mass, at the outset of the book.

However, what's been pointed out to me is that the use of the Category tag is incorrect on Wikipedia, as the Haggadah's not essentially an allusion in Joyce's novel. I find the distinction highly subjective, but I've learned not to argue with the folks who are invested enough in Wikipedia to make a fuss.

Logorama

Thank you for your work on Logorama. I made a couple of changes to your edits in accordance with Wikipedia policy but please don't let that discourage you from continuing to improve the article! - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem fond of blocking people. I'm not now, nor have I ever been, engaged in an edit war.

You were saying? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was saying that I am not, nor have I ever been, engaged in an edit war, and that you seem rather enamored with blocking people.

Fletcher

~~Ok, I can buy "compromised security", since~~Actually, no I can't, but I'm not going to quibble further at this point. I mostly wanted to show up and point out that by a strict reading, we're probably both past 3RR on that article, so let's not give anyone further excuses to block us. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sheilaism

The article Sheilaism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Neologism for which there are no reliable sorces to document its notability, and deletion is likely to be uncontroversial

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, I will remove the prod myself. Bearian (talk)

Images of Murasaki Shikibu Diary Emaki

Hi! I'd be very happy if you could help with this request. Particularly with the image which will soon be on wikipedia's mainpage as DYK. Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Wishcraft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Horror (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

	Happy new year!
	We wish you a merry christmas and a happy new year! Pass a Method talk 20:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for your continuing edits. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Larger than Life (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kansas City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Betrayed (1988 film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ZOG and Luger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split-tones, Rep, etc.

Greetings. I'm doing a little research for my quals on split-tone multiphonics. I've been searching for notated pieces that use them, but I haven't found many. Do you recommend anything?

Also, I have the score to that Isabel Mundry piece mentioned on the split tone page. I doesn't appear to me that there are any multiphonics of any type in that score, although the player is asked to crossfade between the bells of the double-bell trumpet. Do you know anything about that piece?

Thanks! Phembree (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 139: / Line 139: @@
 Greetings. I'm doing a little research for my quals on split-tone multiphonics.  I've been searching for notated pieces that use them, but I haven't found many.  Do you recommend anything?
-Also, I have the score to that Isabel Mundry piece mentioned on the [[split-tones]] page.  I doesn't appear to me that there are any multiphonics of any type in that score, although the player is asked to crossfade between the bells of the double-bell trumpet.  Do you know anything about that piece?
+Also, I have the score to that Isabel Mundry piece mentioned on the [[split tone]] page.  I doesn't appear to me that there are any multiphonics of any type in that score, although the player is asked to crossfade between the bells of the double-bell trumpet.  Do you know anything about that piece?
 Thanks! [[User:Phembree|Phembree]] ([[User talk:Phembree|talk]]) 00:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)