Jump to content

Talk:Exploring Music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Funny outtakes

[edit]

Click on Bill's nose here, and you'll get to a page of funny Exploring Music outtakes. Softlavender (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's cool! Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

The show, which debuted in 2003, is an exploration of and commentary on classical music.

That's a bit clunky. Can it be rewritten? Something like, "The show debuted in 2003, and explores classical music with commentary by McGlaughlin." I'm sure you can think of something better, but along those lines. Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. It's all about that crazy word "exploring," and trying to avoid using it three times in three successive sentences. I took your cue, but had to remove the "explores" in sentence 3. Is there another word (besides the old-fashioned "delve") which means explore? Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2008, Exploring Music airs on over 40 radio stations[3] and has well over 500,000 listeners,[4][5] and is also listenable worldwide day and night online.[6]

This could be broken up into two sentences, with the latter reading something like, "The program can also be heard on the Internet." The "worldwide day and night online" is a bit too wordy and overstates the obvious. Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inception and history

[edit]

In 2002, WFMT Senior Vice President Steve Robinson asked Bill McGlaughlin, the Peabody Award-winning host of the weekly chamber music performance show Saint Paul Sunday since 1980, to host a new, daily national radio show, which would showcase and explicate great works of classical music.[10]

I would like to see this rewritten, perhaps split into two or more sentences, rather than trying to cram in so much detail. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I'm shocked. It makes perfect sense to me. LOL. I was even thinking about putting a few more salient facts into that sentence. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's even funnier, is that the exact opposite problem is occurring in the lead section.  :) Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird. I edited the lead but it didn't take. Maybe I forgot to click Save. Fixed now. Softlavender (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten. Can't tell if it's now in optimal form; need to go to bed. But here's some info from the same interview w/Bill: "Steve Robinson of WFMT called me in 2002 and asked me to do Exploring Music. Garrison Keillor told me, 'Don’t do it. Not enough money.' I did it anyways!" . . . Should that Keillor stuff go in? Softlavender (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The show debuted nationally on October 6, 2003,[11] in essence replacing Karl Haas' long-running show, Adventures in Good Music,[1][2] since the aging and retired Haas had recorded no new episodes of his show after 2002.

Same issue. Viriditas (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split up. Softlavender (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Some of these links can be merged into a "further reading" section (and formatted using the cite template), wile others can be possibly removed altogether, and the rest can be used as references for new material that has yet to be added. My own personal editing philosophy is to remove external links whenever possible and use them in the body of the article, but other editors prefer to have one or two or more in a separate external links section. Keep in mind, the infobox already has the main program link, so an argument could be made to remove it completely, but this is more of my own personal approach rather than standard practice. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about that, but my philosophy is different from yours. I aim to give the reader the most information possible in the easiest form. I like long External Links sections, and am overjoyed when I find that articles have them. In fact, I would have actually kept some of the See Alsos, because, per WP:SEEALSO, "whether a link belongs in the 'See also' section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment," and by the time a reader finishes an article, they don't remember all they've read, and important related articles should be reposted, whether linked in the article or not, in my opinion. Anyway, I've removed the WFMT External Link, as that is applicable mainly for Chicagoans, who likely already know about it; I've also deleted Bill's bio, because people interested iin him will likely seek out more info on him either on his Wiki article or on the site. I'd like to keep the rest in, as they all have valuable and applicable and fascinating info. Even though some of the links are from the EM website, (A) they are hidden and hard to find, and (B) people just don't realize what's on an official site and are often too lazy to find out unless it's put right in front of their face in black and white. Or, erm, blue and white. Softlavender (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may be pleasantly surprised to discover that your philosophy is not so different than my own. In fact, if I was to move ext. links that aren't being used as references into a further reading section using the cite template, the additional fields would provide much more information about the linked resources. I may do that at some point just to show you what it would look like. As for the see also section, I believe a disgruntled editor added "however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" as "links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in 'See also'", and those who add them there are usually trying to push a POV, in my experience. There are some exceptions, however, for example, if an article is extremely long and an editor wishes to return the reader to a prior topic that was discussed in previous sections; but this can be avoided using navigational headings and footers, and they are often a better solution. See also sections, for the most part, are for links that have not yet been incorporated into the article, and the section is more of a "holding pen" for future editing. There are also some tips and tricks you can use to increase the visibility of some links that you would otherwise unnecessarily duplicate in the see also section. Let me know exactly what you want, and I'll help you do it. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"See also" -- Disagree, for reasons given. "External links" -- leave as is. Thanks! Softlavender (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly fine, but keep in mind that your reasons aren't embraced or widely accepted by the community and you will run into friction with other editors. Comments like "I like long External Links sections, and am overjoyed when I find that articles have them," go against best practices here. It might help to keep an open mind on this. What this means is, there is often more than one way to do things, and I think you would find that a further reading section sorted by subtopic is vastly superior (and more informative) than an unsorted, title-based external link list. It's good to be flexible here, and not try to latch on to any one true way. Often times, the style or format of the page should change depending on the subject or scope of the topic. What I wanted to do was to demonstrate how this works and then let you revert it, but I think I will wait for the article to improve a bit, as I see you are making major preparations for an image update. Keep up the good work! :) Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and references

[edit]

Just noticed the category problem and format of the external link in the reference section. I suggest removing all of the categories except for American classical music radio programs, American public radio programs, Music education, Musicology, and Music journalism. It's possible that I've missed some or that others can be added, but many of the current categories unnecessarily duplicate subcategories that are already members of the parent category. As for the reference section, the external link could be formatted with the citation template. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Exploring Music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exploring_Music&oldid=1212391440"