Talk:Musette

Article on musette de cour

Greetings to readers and contributors! After discussing the idea with my musette tutor, I've drafted a new article about the musette de cour – available for consultation in my user pages. Niels Grundtvig Nielsen 06:56, 21 March 2006

NOTE: The user page link now redirects to the Musette de cour article in Wikipedia.—Finell 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content

Please do not continue to remove large areas of content from this page. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing me the consideration of actually paying heed to the guidelines I have linked to multiple times instead of treating me as if I'm a vandal. Oh, wait--you haven't done me that consideration at all.

This page is a disambiguation page. It is not an article because it is about many different uses of the word "musette." It falls under the guidelines for disambiguation pages.

Here, I will quote for you the relevant portions of the Manual of Style so that you can ignore them here instead of ignoring the links in my edit summaries:

Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article.

Preface each entry with a bullet (an asterisk in wiki markup). Only entries that link, not leading lines, should have bullet points.

Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link. To avoid confusing the reader, do not wikilink any other words in the line.

The link should be the first word or phrase in each entry.

My cleanup primarily consisted of removing those entries that did not link to any article with more information about those meanings of "musette," and condensing the remaining entries to a single wikilink, so that if that is the meaning that the user is looking for, they can click on the appropriate article for more information. That is the purpose of a disambiguation page. Propaniac (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please restore the content, as the massive removals are damaging to our project. Badagnani (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the information I included above mean anything to you? Did you read it? I have no idea what your project is or how it is helped by the existence of a page with several paragraphs about different meanings of "musette," but perhaps someone else from your project could come here and actually discuss the problem instead of ignoring my objections. I'm certainly not going to say, "Oh, well, if you have some sort of undefined project that depends on the page being a mess, I'm happy to ignore all Wikipedia guidelines in that case." If you can explain to me what your problem actually is, I might be able to suggest a solution. Propaniac (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, as presented now the information about the term "musette" is wrong, incomplete, and misleading. Previously, it was complete and correct. Our first priority is to serve our users. That means presenting accurate and complete information, not depleting it to prove a WP:POINT. If you could actually address the content, and how you believe removing several instances of this term improves the article, rather than falling back on a hyperaggressive "those are the rules, live with them," it would be great. Badagnani (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting myself from above:

My cleanup primarily consisted of removing those entries that did not link to any article with more information about those meanings of "musette," and condensing the remaining entries to a single wikilink, so that if that is the meaning that the user is looking for, they can click on the appropriate article for more information. That is the purpose of a disambiguation page.

A disambiguation page is not supposed to list several different meanings of the term (that's what a dictionary does); it is supposed to direct users to the existing Wikipedia content that discusses the usage in which they're interested. If there is no Wikipedia article that discusses a particular meaning of the term (such as the definition of "musette" as a kind of rucksack), then there's no reason for it to be included on the disambiguation page. If there IS an article discussing that meaning, then the disambiguation page only needs to include enough information so that a user looking for that meaning would know which article to click on. Including extraneous information, such as whole paragraphs about each meaning, serves no purpose and makes the page harder to use.

WP:POINT has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion (who would I have been trying to make this "point" TO, considering that I revised the page two months ago?).

The guidelines exist to maximize the usefulness and efficiency of disambiguation pages as a navigational tool; you haven't suggested how Wikipedia is improved by ignoring them in this case, or how they interfere with this project of yours. If there are factual inaccuracies in the ~20 words that currently exist on the page, feel free to correct them while maintaining the spirit of what a disambiguation page is supposed to be and do. Propaniac (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly actually address the content, and how misstating the meanings of this term, and removing several, improves this page for our users, rather than falling back on an unnecessarily hyperaggressive mode of discourse that places your reading of WP's guidelines above presenting an accurate and complete disambiguation of this term for our users. Badagnani (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've answered your question. I've explained what the guidelines are, and why following them results in a better, more useful page. I'm not going to continue to repeat myself. If you require a clarification that takes into account what I've written, feel free to ask a specific question that doesn't ignore what I've already said. If you would like all guidelines and policies to be suspended so that you can make whatever edits you think are best without needing to provide justification or explanation, make a proposal at the Village Pump. But if you continue to edit this page, or any other pages that I'm aware of, without respecting the opinions of other editors (including those editors that have participated in creating the guidelines through sincere, consensus-building discussion), I'll report your behavior at WP:ANI. Propaniac (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly actually address the content, which were formerly accurate and complete, and now, after your large deletions, seriously misrepresents the term. I've read and know the guidelines well (are you implying that I am a new editor?), and your edits indicate that you are misreading them. Your hyperaggressive editing manner is not helpful to our readers, who must be paramount in our minds with all edits we make. Badagnani (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know full well that you're not a new editor--from what I've observed, you're a very good editor until you run into any kind of disagreement with anyone. Your claim that my behavior is "hyperaggressive" is rather stunning.

The burden of proof is not on me to show that the guidelines should be followed; it is on you to show that this is a case where the guidelines should not be followed. You have not provided a single specific example of how the page has been made worse. For example, you could describe a hypothetical situation in which a user would encounter my version of this page and not be served as well as if he had encounted the older version. Saying over and over that the new version is inaccurate and incomplete is not a good argument to revert to the old version. If the content in the new version is inaccurate, I have explicitly invited you to correct it if you can do so without compromising the page's purpose as a disambiguation tool. As for it being complete, it only needs to be complete enough to direct the user to the articles where he or she can find the information they're looking for. If there are articles about other meanings of the word "musette," adding those would make the page more complete.

After all the words that have been written on this page, I'm still trying to guess what exactly your grievance is. Propaniac (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting and presenting a few incorrect statements about the term "Musette," by substituting accurate information with inaccurate and partial, wrong information does not present the best disambiguation page for our users. Seeing that you don't actually address the content in a substantive manner despite having been asked several times, preferring to rely on "my interpretation of WP guidelines trump your wish to provide the best information for our readers," I will be restoring it promptly. Take a look at the diff and you'll see what the grievance is: information about the musical instruments is now stated incorrectly, and several definitions are completely gone. That is far from encyclopedic, and represent a form of intellectual malpractice, seeing as the former version of the article did present a proper disambiguation, and the current version is highly problematic, incorrect, and full of lacunae. Badagnani (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited you to correct inaccuracies. The information will by necessity be "partial" because the user is intended to visit the linked articles for full information. Since you have not attempted to interpret the guidelines at all in this discussion (you've simply advocated ignoring them completely), my "interpretation" is the only one of concern; I doubt you could find anyone familiar with them who thinks the previous version was a "proper disambiguation" and did not clearly and directly violate virtually every part of the guidelines with no clear benefit for doing so. Propaniac (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to back down on this and allow you to change it back to the old version, no matter how long you drag this "discussion" out by saying the same things over and over. If you don't like the current version, design a new one that meets your standards of accuracy and completeness while also accomodating the guidelines, or propose to change the guidelines so that they are all completely different, which is what would be required to make the old version acceptable. Propaniac (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insisting, in a hyperaggressive manner, on reverting this page from an accurate, complete disambiguation, to a fragmentary, inaccurate, and wrong version does not benefit our readers, whom we must always keep foremost in our minds. You do not have the authority to "allow" or "disallow" any other editor to undo your damage to this article and its content due to a highly problematic misreading of our Manual of Style. Please restore the blanked text. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right to bring the issue up at WP:ANI, as I said before, if you insist on reverting to a version that ignores the guidelines for no reason. (If I still believed that you could be inclined to follow a suggestion of mine in order to make the discussion productive and perhaps come to a compromise, I would suggest that you point out to me any specific part of the MOS that you believe I'm misreading, and how you think it should properly be interpreted. I've already quoted, above, the main portion that I feel your version violates.)

Seriously, I'm baffled as to what you hope to gain by just telling me over and over, "THE NEW VERSION IS INACCURATE [but I won't say what's inaccurate about it]. THE NEW VERSION IS INCOMPLETE [but I won't say what's incomplete about it]. THE NEW VERSION IS BASED ON YOUR INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE GUIDELINES [but I won't say what the proper interpretation is]." Propaniac (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple; as stated earlier, the former version was accurate and complete in disambiguating this term. The current version (as profoundly depleted by you) is incomplete and misrepresents the subject. Wikipedia is carefully built, brick by brick, in a continuous, thoughtful, deliberate manner, by editors with interest and expertise in their particular subjects of interest, and it's just too easy for editors to dismantle such content, as has occurred here. I'll ask again, in good faith: please restore the article to its former state, then we can discuss the merits of each part of it in thoughful, collaborative manner. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Badagnani (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unnecessary to restore that version in order for you to justify it; I think we're both fully conscious of how to access it through the edit history. Your attitude so far hasn't given me any reason to think that you'll be interested in actually discussing it after it's restored. Feel free to post such a section-by-section defense here using the archived version (and showing how it meets the MOS).

Look, I don't know why I'm still punishing myself by trying to understand your motivations, but I'm pretty sure I know what your problem is with the new page, though not because you've actually expressed it. Assuming I'm right, this would have been a good way to express the problem:

There's another instrument called the musette that's separate from the two instruments currently listed on this page. The old version had information about this instrument, but the new version doesn't mention it.

If that is in fact your issue, my response would be that you should create an article about this third instrument at a different title, list it on the disambig page, and propose that the new article be moved at Musette and the disambig page be moved to Musette (disambiguation).

But maybe I'm wrong, and you really are just heartsick at the idea that Wikipedia won't be informing readers that "musette" also refers to a kind of rucksack. I certainly don't know. Propaniac (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your needlessly sarcastic tone is highly problematic. Kindly restore the page to its accurate version. Badagnani (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not, as it doesn't meet guidelines. Propaniac (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking of items

Please restore the items blanked in this edit. We either endeavor to provide a proper disambiguation of this term or we don't. As an encyclopedia, we have a responsibility to our readers to actually be encyclopedic. Blanking valid and widely used meanings of this term is not helpful to our users. Badagnani (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In our previous discussion, I went to ridiculous lengths for no good reason to try to find a solution that would make you satisfied that doesn't involve ignoring the entirety of the relevant guidelines for no reason. I failed. I'm unlikely to attempt that again. As I said previously, if you continue to revert in violation of the guidelines I will take the issue to ANI. Propaniac (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]