Jump to content

Talk:Scott Joplin/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Audio Filename Upload Query

I am fascinated by the audio samplings in many musical articles on Wikipedia but I am completely overwhelmed in how to go about uploading audio files and adding them to musical articles. Can the contributor who added the musical audio files for this article take a moment and list a run down of how to do this? Thank you so much! (I have a Mac OSx)

Peacefulposter (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi there Peacefulposter, and thanks for your question. I notice that you have not posted before so welcome! - I will add anything I write here to your talk page.



Mechanics


The mechanics of uploading are fairly simple - once the file has been uploaded to Wikipedia you can use it in any WP page using a little bit of wiki jargon.
The best way to start is to take a look at the "Upload" option in the "toolbox" menu item on the left hand side of your screen. This should take you to this page. It should be fairly self-explanatory - and it should explain what limitations there are in terms of which file formats.


For audio recordings you're going to have to convert your file to an OGG format; the free and popular programme Audacity can export in this format. Whenever you upload a file, make sure that you have the rights to upload and share your recording with the world. If you've recorded yourself performing a piece and are happy to have this on Wikipedia, please go ahead. Recordings from before 1923 are OKas they are treated as Public domain, as are very short samples of recordings after 1923. See this page for more information start with this page Wikipedia:Public_domain#Sound_recordings. There is a wealth of information there but please don't be put off! If you can contribute by adding audio files to illustrate pages then that would be a great thing to have on WP.



Wikimarkup


Once you've added your file to Wikipedia, then the next step is to add it to the page; you'll need to add something like this to the appropriate part of the page:
{{Listen | filename = | title = | description = | pos = }}

For an example of this in action look at this from the Scott Joplin page:


{{Listen|filename=1906 - Scott Joplin's Maple Leaf Rag (1899) played by the United States Marine Band.ogg|title=A 1906 recording of the "Maple Leaf Rag" by the United States Marine Band. This is the first surviving recording of the "Maple Leaf Rag"|pos=right}}


I hope this goes some way to helping you find your way through the complex world of wikimarkup. I can't claim to be an expert, but I have used the tools a few times so I have a fair idea how it works. There are more intricacies than I have discussed here, but this is a start! Good luck - feel free to ask again if anything here is not clear. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Quotations

In case it's been missed by users Hoops and Pennylane, MOS has guidance about quotations and where the punctuation goes. It's here: MOS:LQ

The short version seems to be that punctuation used in quotations should duplicate the source material. Hope this helps. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just checked the text, and it seems that the diff display does not differentiate between quotation-marks and the wiki-markup double apostrophe which indicates italics. Perhaps this is where the disagreement lies? I don't think that we want commas and full stops to be in italics. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
MOS:TITLE specifically states that punctuation should go outside of italics. Fitnr (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Just to be very clear (I think my last posing wasn't terribly helpful) the current edit war appears to be about the use of the double apostrophe in the article. In wiki markup this is different to the quotation mark. As far as I can see from the page the dispute seems to be about cases where italic text is used to indicate a title. For reasons that are not clear user:PennyLane415 is putting commas into the wiki markup for titles and italicising them (see for example A Guest of Honor, and The Maple Leaf Rag,). There may well be some changes that are sensible ("the first great instrumental sheet music hit in America.")
Her user page indicates that she calls herself a "grammar nerd". This is to be applauded, but a better use of everyone's time would be to improve the wording of the page and using proper American grammar, as suggested by the most recent GAN from back in 2011.
Please stop reverting eachother and discuss here. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
    • There aren't italicised full stops and commas anymore. I'm barely fluent in code but I'm glad to have learned how to italicise now! The article has proper American grammar throughout. PennyLane415 (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe that titles of compositions or just titles for that matter - i.e. "Maple Leaf Rag," and "The King of Ragtime." as two examples in the current version of the article - should not contain commas or full stops within them. That is not proper English. The only time that a title should contain punctuation within it is if it were an actual quote of someone. Could someone please direct me to where on Wikipedia it states that such grammar is allowed?Hoops gza (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It clearly states here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Punctuation that punctuation (such as commas or full stops) should be placed outside of quotations marks unless the punctuation is part of the title itself. Therefore, user:PennyLane415's edits on this article should be reverted.Hoops gza (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for referencing that, Hoops gza, but the page is still incosistent. Your reference is for punctuation with regard to titles where you pointed out that punctuation should lie outside the quotation marks, and I agree after reading the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Punctuation. However, there are quotes within the article that have full stops outside of the quotation marks when the period is known to be in the source and, conversely, there are full stops inside the quotation marks when the period is not known to be within the source. Those should be changed. That is clearly stated here------>(see shortcut): WP:MOSLQ PennyLane415 (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Indeed, PennyLane415, feel free to edit the quotes such that punctuation is properly placed. I do apologize that some of your edits that were made in good faith had to be reverted because of the incorrect ones.Hoops gza (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for coming here to discuss this. I've just got out my trusty copies of Berlin and Blesh to look for the original punctuation for some of the phrases under dispute. "King of Ragtime" is used by Berlin frequently in the first few pages of his book without a comma or full stop. "King of ragtime writers" (or "rag time") is used in various places, including on the cover of the Palm Leaf Rag without any punctuation. Berlin uses it four times, twice with a following comma, once with a full stop and once in quotes without any other punctuation (thanks Google Books!). To be very pedantic, the use of "King of Ragtime writers" as used on this page comes from p128 where it is used in quotes with a comma. On the whole I think we should do without the comma and the sentence should be re-written for clarity.
Please be careful - I've just looked at the most recent diff, and some of the comma (re)placements have been within footnotes. Another example - "the first great instrumental sheet music hit in America" is from the middle of a sentence by Blesh where there is no punctuation and the full stop should (I think) be outside the quotation marks. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Tin Pan Alley as an influence on Joplin while he was learning to play the piano?

Second paragraph under "Works" makes this claim. How can this be so if Wikipedia's own entry for Tin Pan Alley says it didn't start until 1885? --Jeff Grossman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.150.117 (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

This article is without question remarkable in its detailed citing of sources and extensive research. However, the lead section is not in keeping with structures for writing a Wikipedia article. It is almost an entire article within itself and does not simply establish significance and entice the reader to want to know more; but instead launches directly into a full scale biography of the subject. Many statements are repeated within the article and should either be removed entirely or absorbed within the sections that they parallel. Before editing the lead section, please discuss this topic here. My objective is to end the lead section after the sentence ending in: "... and has been recognized as the archetypal rag" or add the line: "In 1976, Joplin was posthumously awarded a Pulitzer Prize." Thus allowing the biographical remaining paragraphs to be joined within the sections following. Maineartists (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree. First of all long articles can or rather should have a longer lead as well, which indeed can serve as a short article of its own. This follows quite naturally since the lead is supposed to summarize the most important aspects of the article. Moreover in the case of a long article a reader just looking for a summary should not be forced to look beyond the lead. If a reader looking a quick summary is forced to read through a rather long article, then it is badly designed.
As far as the importance is concerned, the lead clearly establishes that in the first paragraph already, so I see no real deficiency here. However I see no problem with adding the line about the Pulitzer prize.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Kmhkmh I agree with you. Perhaps my eye for clean-up was a matter of taste shared with other contributors and not necessarily Wikipedia standards. I think there might be a happy medium between cleaning up the present lead and yet keeping an interesting teaser in length that would entice readers to investigate the article more or quickly summarize if they do not wish to continue. My issue with this particular lead (as you state) is that a good lead should present the most important aspects of the article. I find that this lead in certain areas goes into article facts and depths that do not belong in a lead section: i.e. the second paragraph (which seems to be subjective in its inclusion). In the life of Scott Joplin, these aspects are not important enough to be included in a lead and really should be included in the article. However, mentioning works such as A Guest of Honor, Treemonisha, Maple Leaf Rag are significant in his lifetime. On the whole, the biographical details can be better truncated and condensed into a tighter more concise lead without personal opinion or statements that are without cited resources (especially for a lead section). "Joplin's death is widely considered to mark the end of ragtime as a mainstream music format" [by whom?]As well, there are inconsistencies within the lead section that are not then further proven and elaborated within the article itself: i.e. "The score to his first opera A Guest of Honor was confiscated in 1903 with his belongings because of a non-payment of bills." Yet there is no mention or cited resource in the section ==Life in Missouri== to corroborate this statement. Actually, the statement itself is merely an educated assumption made by biographer Edward Berlin in his biography Scott Joplin: King of Ragtime and not a proven fact. Statements like these should be presented within the article and cited correctly so that they may be challenged. Do you think a compromise could be achieved in the interest of creating a more precise lead section? Maineartists (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
In addition, the sentence: "During his brief career, he wrote 44 original ragtime pieces, one ragtime ballet, and two operas" is misleading and lacking in historical fact. First, the link to ragtime pieces is incorrect as this brings you to the Wikipedia page: Classic Rag; which Joplin did not write 44 original Classic Rags in the sense that this article describes. Furthermore, to mention works that have been listed in newspapers but once in Joplin's lifetime but never surfaced elsewhere in copyright, manuscript or published form is also misleading to the reader. In this sense, other works such as Joplin's piano concerto (1916), If - Musical Comedy (1915), Symphony no. 1 (1916) should also be included in the lead; but these are not of importance since they are highly challenged subjects in Joplin's life and should be placed within the proper sections below. Maineartists (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The cited source doesn't seem to state the 44 nor does it list 44 individual tunes as far as i can see. Sot at least based on the source (not being a high quality source anyhow) it is unclear whether 44 is correct or not. So with a new source that figure should be replaced by less precise but correct/safe formulation not stating an exact figure (for instance "wrote a number of ragtime pieces").--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Currently, I am restructuring this entire lead section. It is quite perplexing that much of this has remained, since I am finding that even more facts are simply not true: i.e. Joplin never wrote a ragtime ballet in the true sense of the term. Yes, ballets have been written utilizing his music, such as The Prodigal Son, but Joplin himself never wrote a ragtime ballet. He wrote a single work entitled "Frolic of the Bears" for his opera Treemonisha in which bears dance, but the work itself is a short excerpt published as a piano piece, not a ballet. Furthermore, one can easily refer to the correct number of pieces written expressly for the piano by accessing this Wikipedia link: List of compositions by Scott Joplin. I am hoping to rephrase the lead to include his rags, marches, waltzed and songs; which total nearly 75 in number. However, since there are numerous works of Joplin's that are known [lost] though yet to be discovered, placing a numerical association next to his catalog seems pointless. Maineartists (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Scott Joplin. 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) 09:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Number of Rags

Ok fine. First off, again, the source given is only a list of Joplin's compositions, in fact it specifically is titled "Rags and Pieces" -- there are a number on that list that are 100% not ragtime -- and hell, the composition list here on Wikipedia shows /less/ than 40 pieces specifically called rag (so as one can see, there's a lot of variance in what is and isn't). Not sure why User:Modernist is saying 50 here, especially when they willy nilly just reverted the good-faith attempt at making it correct. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Joplin/Archive_2&oldid=1219561490"