Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) →BWV: 15 months pregnancy |
Finnusertop (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
:::::Having an infobox, or not, is a matter of editorial [[WP:CONS|consensus]]. Having one is not a policy must, not a MOS rule (which reflect prior consensuses); there are points to be made for and against infoboxes. There has been [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Major discussions and arbitration case|plenty of discussion]] to establish consensus. It would help parties who have not taken part in those discussions (eg. people like me) if the results were incorporated into some guideline. Sadly, Wikiproject Classical music [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines|guidelines]] don't say anything about ''composition'' infoboxes. Has there ever been a consensus on composition infoboxes? There's nowhere I can go and check. Having this discussion over and over again is not very productive. [[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]] ([[User_talk:Finnusertop|talk]] | [[User:Finnusertop/guestbook|guestbook]] | [[User:Finnusertop/contributions|contribs]]) 19:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
:::::Having an infobox, or not, is a matter of editorial [[WP:CONS|consensus]]. Having one is not a policy must, not a MOS rule (which reflect prior consensuses); there are points to be made for and against infoboxes. There has been [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Major discussions and arbitration case|plenty of discussion]] to establish consensus. It would help parties who have not taken part in those discussions (eg. people like me) if the results were incorporated into some guideline. Sadly, Wikiproject Classical music [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines|guidelines]] don't say anything about ''composition'' infoboxes. Has there ever been a consensus on composition infoboxes? There's nowhere I can go and check. Having this discussion over and over again is not very productive. [[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]] ([[User_talk:Finnusertop|talk]] | [[User:Finnusertop/guestbook|guestbook]] | [[User:Finnusertop/contributions|contribs]]) 19:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::: I see in the Class B criteria that an infobox, images, tables etc are wanted. For reasons I don't understand, infobox is treated differently from images, a history of almost religious battles since 2005. Nikkimaria and I arranged that she doesn't revert my infoboxes and I don't add one to "her" articles. (That was before I was found such a dangerous person that I couldn't anyway.) It's - of course - pure ownership, but better than fighting. Some members of Classical music don't like ANY infobox. The project has a guideline not to have one for people (which is not binding, of course), has a frequently used one for orchestras, I made one for Bach composition and revived an older one for musical composition. In 2013, project opera installed one for operas, I suggested to use it for Carmen 3 June, - it was installed yesterday! 15 months pregnancy ;) - The ownership of BWV 120A would be a tricky question because it was forked off "my" 120. Sometimes I wonder what our readers think about the inconsistent results of our personal likes and dislikes ;) --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
:::::: I see in the Class B criteria that an infobox, images, tables etc are wanted. For reasons I don't understand, infobox is treated differently from images, a history of almost religious battles since 2005. Nikkimaria and I arranged that she doesn't revert my infoboxes and I don't add one to "her" articles. (That was before I was found such a dangerous person that I couldn't anyway.) It's - of course - pure ownership, but better than fighting. Some members of Classical music don't like ANY infobox. The project has a guideline not to have one for people (which is not binding, of course), has a frequently used one for orchestras, I made one for Bach composition and revived an older one for musical composition. In 2013, project opera installed one for operas, I suggested to use it for Carmen 3 June, - it was installed yesterday! 15 months pregnancy ;) - The ownership of BWV 120A would be a tricky question because it was forked off "my" 120. Sometimes I wonder what our readers think about the inconsistent results of our personal likes and dislikes ;) --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
::::::: More specifically B article criteria say that infoboxes "should be included" when "relevant and useful to the content" ([[WP:BCLASS]]). These criteria are not objective, and the requirement is not categorical, but they certainly can't be reduced to mere preference of an editor - does s/he favor infoboxes or not. Consensus already would be the preference of more than one editor, but here I argue that the [[WP:READER|reader]] takes precedence: "Relevant and useful" to the ''content'' and not to the editing ''process'' - that is to say to the reader rather than the editor. The Classical music wikiproject is where the editors' concerns step into the picture. It's the task of the project to balance virtues like consistency of the articles within its scope, upholding principles such as non-ownership, as well as the [[WP:ETIQ|friendliness]] of contributors toward one another. Obviously these goals can be in tension. What can I say? I wish you people get along so as to provide contributions today and in the future :) [[User:Finnusertop|Finnusertop]] ([[User_talk:Finnusertop|talk]] | [[User:Finnusertop/guestbook|guestbook]] | [[User:Finnusertop/contributions|contribs]]) 23:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Precious == |
== Precious == |
Revision as of 23:08, 31 August 2014
Last updated: 2014-08-31 by Finnusertop (talk | contributions)
Discussion tracking |
---|
Contributions by Finnusertop to: |
Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Finnusertop! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey Finn
Hey Finn, fisrt of all, thanks for the tips. Now my page on Cry of Fear looks more professional. Which brings me to my second thing to say. How do you make the part where for game articles it shows the ESRB Rating, developer(s), release date, genre, and all that other stuff. I know that I probably sound like a moron right now, but that's because I don't know much about wikipedia articles. I also want to add pictures to the article and try to make it look better. I see my Cry of Fear article as incomplete without those things. And I must learn how to do it.
Nbomber97 (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Nbomber97
- I'm glad to help you. Looks like you already found the template for videogame infoboxes. As for pictures, Wikimedia already has two about Cry of Fear. Check them out at the end of this message. How did I find them? I searched for "Cry of Fear" on Wikimedia Commons. Turns out these images are used on the Vietnamese languge Wikipedia for their article on Cry of Fear. You can use these images on your article. To learn how, read about it here: Images, Picture tutorial. Your article is coming along nicely! Follow instructions from fellow WIkipedians and keep up the good work!
-
File:Cry of Fear - The Dawn Lake.pngFile:Cry of Fear - The Dawn Lake.png
-
File:Cry of Fear - Developer Commentary - Example.pngFile:Cry of Fear - Developer Commentary - Example.png
Finnusertop (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Hey, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like your kitten!
R.E.D (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Aww, thank you so much! I'm happy to see that you got adopted. If your mentor isn't online whenever you want to ask something, feel free to ask me! I love to find out and teach about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Finnusertop (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Adopted!
Hey, thanks for the message :) I've adopted you! Let's get down to business :)
Would you rather:
a. Go through a formal question-and-answer layout guide where you do different activities and I validate that you did them correctly
or
b. Just ask me questions whenever you have them?
Also, I'm very active on different IRC channels including #wikipedia-en-help connect, where you can ask experienced Wikipedia users for help :) Even if I'm not online, you can ask someone else :D
See ya!
-Newyorkadam (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- I'd like to do a. I know my way around WP, policies and editing but it would be great to be reassured about this. Maybe it would help me being bolder.
- Thanks for the IRC tip. I actually went there last night because I was unsure of which policy templates should I present to newcomers so as to not bite them. Maybe the lesson I learnt was that I need to get a welcoming experience in mentoring so that I know how a newcomer should feel. Finnusertop (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- Alright! Let's get started then :) Head over to User:Newyorkadam/Adoption school and you'll see what to do. -Newyorkadam (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- I have created my Adoption school page, read the Five pillars and submitted answers for the cleanup tasks for review. Finnusertop (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Completed Markup tasks. Finnusertop (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Completed Reliable sources tasks. I'm skipping the References task for a while. Finnusertop (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Completed Markup tasks. Finnusertop (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have created my Adoption school page, read the Five pillars and submitted answers for the cleanup tasks for review. Finnusertop (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Alright! Let's get started then :) Head over to User:Newyorkadam/Adoption school and you'll see what to do. -Newyorkadam (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- Thanks for the IRC tip. I actually went there last night because I was unsure of which policy templates should I present to newcomers so as to not bite them. Maybe the lesson I learnt was that I need to get a welcoming experience in mentoring so that I know how a newcomer should feel. Finnusertop (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Oops, didn't see this :-) I'll grade 'em soon, nice work! -Newyorkadam (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- Newbie question: I've been doing some editing in Wikipedia: namespace, namely here. Since this page is mostly edited by inexperienced users, bad formatting and copyedit issues are rampant. Is fixing this generally worth it? Finnusertop (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sadly, Requested Articles is (in my opinion) very under appreciated and people rarely look at them other than to post new Requested Articles. If you'd like to you can fix the errors, but there isn't a pressing need. -Newyorkadam (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
- As a member of Typo team, which is also in charge of redirects for misspelled article names, can you answer a question? Although there are many redirects from misspellings, people still make many unseccesful page requests because of tyops. Why aren't there redirects for the (typo) ones in the latter list? If the stats are correct, making a redirect for "Vikings (TV series)m" would help tens of thousands of people per week. Finnusertop (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- EDIT: Well, looks like I didn't do my research. The issue has been discussed and there are compelling reasons for not creating mass redirects for those. This list portrays warnings about it. The trailing m/n for instance is probably due to bot requests, not human views, and there's no reason to help "tens of thousands of bots per week" ;)Finnusertop (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 04:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Read. Finnusertop (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 28 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). ( | )
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Fixed by someone else. Finnusertop (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to C-4 (explosive) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- color [[Mylar]]-film container with a [[pressure-sensitive adhesive tape]] on one surface.<ref>{{cite web|title=M112|url=http://www.aollc.biz/pdf/DemoBlockM112.pdf|website=http://www.aollc.biz/|
- | >100
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
San Wilfrido
I've reworked the SS San Wilfrido shipindex page, retargeted San Wilfrido and removed the hatnote from the SS Empire Cobbett page. If you find similar situations, you can simply retarget the redirect, and use the {{otherships}} as a hatnote on the articles. Mjroots (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you! Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 11:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Amanda's Guestbook Barnstar | ||
This user has signed my guestbook! Be sure that you're next to sign! | Amanda Smalls |
- Thank you! Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 14:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
BWV
If you remove the link from BWV, as you did in BWV 22, how will you explain the abbreviation to the uninitiated? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi there! If it needs to be explained, there are two ways that won't conflict MOS:BOLDTITLE: first, you can put the explanation in a footnote. Second - and I think this is something worth considering if explaining BWV is necessary for every Bach piece article - you could modify the infobox Bach composition template to include a link to BWV. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 08:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- The second option is already taken, but we have editors who would not accept an infobox in "their" articles. Look at BWV 120a, for an example, and perhaps talk to the editor about what to do, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Recognizing that no one owns articles on WP, I think that an infobox or some other centralized template is the only way to make sure that most articles have that explanation/link. I don't see a point why any Bach piece article would not have an infobox. I feel obliged to remove links from the boldface reiteration because those are against the guidelines, and as compensation I might add an infobox that contains the link. That certainly isn't against the guidelines, no matter what the "owner" claims. I was bold and made the changes in BWV 120a. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 09:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you ;) - other numbers are 5 6 8 15 19 27 28 30 30a 34 34a 35 36a 36b 36c 38 ... - As for 105, look --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Bottom line: wikilinks in boldface reiterations are prohibited, ugly infoboxes are allowed but not compulsory. It's up to the editors if they choose to use them; editors' compliance with MOS guidelines should be expected in any case. I probably won't edit many Bach articles in the future but I'm reassured that someone involved with them knows the "right" way. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 09:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC) PS. This is particularly true in the context of a Wikiproject that tries to get articles to GA status and to "compl[y] with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections" (WP:GACR). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 09:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- My approach had been not to bold the BWV number, as kind of disambiguation, but it had been reverted as being a redirect. I will unlink BWV where I see it, - typically I go over the cantatas for the following Sunday once a week. I can not add infoboxes, - arbcom restriction ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I fixed FA and GA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Now I got the regular ones from 1st Sunday after Trinity (when Bach started his job in Leipzig) to now, including St John and Visitation, will do Ratswechsel also. BWV 119 was premiered on 30 August, - perhaps you could help that one to a minimum infobox? I am not restricted from adding. The numbers above - except 6 - were all started long ago and expanded by me, - so if you could eventually do the same for them, we would help our readers without conflict. 105: the main editor is banned, we know his preference, I think it would not be polite to force something now that he finds ugly, even if nobody owns articles, - a good theory ;) - Interesting, btw, that none of the different GA and FA reviewers noticed what you saw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Bottom line: wikilinks in boldface reiterations are prohibited, ugly infoboxes are allowed but not compulsory. It's up to the editors if they choose to use them; editors' compliance with MOS guidelines should be expected in any case. I probably won't edit many Bach articles in the future but I'm reassured that someone involved with them knows the "right" way. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 09:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC) PS. This is particularly true in the context of a Wikiproject that tries to get articles to GA status and to "compl[y] with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections" (WP:GACR). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 09:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Recognizing that MOS allows flexibility and editorial choice in presentation, perhaps you might consider that, while you don't see any point for such articles not to have an infobox, others do? If you feel strongly that BWV should be unlinked in the title, do so; it's not necessary to overcompensate for that change. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Having an infobox, or not, is a matter of editorial consensus. Having one is not a policy must, not a MOS rule (which reflect prior consensuses); there are points to be made for and against infoboxes. There has been plenty of discussion to establish consensus. It would help parties who have not taken part in those discussions (eg. people like me) if the results were incorporated into some guideline. Sadly, Wikiproject Classical music guidelines don't say anything about composition infoboxes. Has there ever been a consensus on composition infoboxes? There's nowhere I can go and check. Having this discussion over and over again is not very productive. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I see in the Class B criteria that an infobox, images, tables etc are wanted. For reasons I don't understand, infobox is treated differently from images, a history of almost religious battles since 2005. Nikkimaria and I arranged that she doesn't revert my infoboxes and I don't add one to "her" articles. (That was before I was found such a dangerous person that I couldn't anyway.) It's - of course - pure ownership, but better than fighting. Some members of Classical music don't like ANY infobox. The project has a guideline not to have one for people (which is not binding, of course), has a frequently used one for orchestras, I made one for Bach composition and revived an older one for musical composition. In 2013, project opera installed one for operas, I suggested to use it for Carmen 3 June, - it was installed yesterday! 15 months pregnancy ;) - The ownership of BWV 120A would be a tricky question because it was forked off "my" 120. Sometimes I wonder what our readers think about the inconsistent results of our personal likes and dislikes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- More specifically B article criteria say that infoboxes "should be included" when "relevant and useful to the content" (WP:BCLASS). These criteria are not objective, and the requirement is not categorical, but they certainly can't be reduced to mere preference of an editor - does s/he favor infoboxes or not. Consensus already would be the preference of more than one editor, but here I argue that the reader takes precedence: "Relevant and useful" to the content and not to the editing process - that is to say to the reader rather than the editor. The Classical music wikiproject is where the editors' concerns step into the picture. It's the task of the project to balance virtues like consistency of the articles within its scope, upholding principles such as non-ownership, as well as the friendliness of contributors toward one another. Obviously these goals can be in tension. What can I say? I wish you people get along so as to provide contributions today and in the future :) Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 23:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- I see in the Class B criteria that an infobox, images, tables etc are wanted. For reasons I don't understand, infobox is treated differently from images, a history of almost religious battles since 2005. Nikkimaria and I arranged that she doesn't revert my infoboxes and I don't add one to "her" articles. (That was before I was found such a dangerous person that I couldn't anyway.) It's - of course - pure ownership, but better than fighting. Some members of Classical music don't like ANY infobox. The project has a guideline not to have one for people (which is not binding, of course), has a frequently used one for orchestras, I made one for Bach composition and revived an older one for musical composition. In 2013, project opera installed one for operas, I suggested to use it for Carmen 3 June, - it was installed yesterday! 15 months pregnancy ;) - The ownership of BWV 120A would be a tricky question because it was forked off "my" 120. Sometimes I wonder what our readers think about the inconsistent results of our personal likes and dislikes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Having an infobox, or not, is a matter of editorial consensus. Having one is not a policy must, not a MOS rule (which reflect prior consensuses); there are points to be made for and against infoboxes. There has been plenty of discussion to establish consensus. It would help parties who have not taken part in those discussions (eg. people like me) if the results were incorporated into some guideline. Sadly, Wikiproject Classical music guidelines don't say anything about composition infoboxes. Has there ever been a consensus on composition infoboxes? There's nowhere I can go and check. Having this discussion over and over again is not very productive. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 19:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you ;) - other numbers are 5 6 8 15 19 27 28 30 30a 34 34a 35 36a 36b 36c 38 ... - As for 105, look --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Recognizing that no one owns articles on WP, I think that an infobox or some other centralized template is the only way to make sure that most articles have that explanation/link. I don't see a point why any Bach piece article would not have an infobox. I feel obliged to remove links from the boldface reiteration because those are against the guidelines, and as compensation I might add an infobox that contains the link. That certainly isn't against the guidelines, no matter what the "owner" claims. I was bold and made the changes in BWV 120a. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 09:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- The second option is already taken, but we have editors who would not accept an infobox in "their" articles. Look at BWV 120a, for an example, and perhaps talk to the editor about what to do, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Precious
work in progress
Thank you, Finnish user interested in history, starting with an infobox and looking for collaboration, for your activity in TAFI, for SS San Wilfrido (1914), for improving articles and adding, for pointing at "creator has created the page in good faith" and "I love to find out and teach about Wikipedia policies and guidelines", for fixing inventively, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)