Talk:The Well-Tuned Piano

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Email

Reference # 18, refers to an email from Kyle Gann. How can I verify this? I still have the email... Peyer9 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Peyer9[reply]

Removed. Hyacinth (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kolob

I don't see how anyone could be surprised that a link on "Kolob" sends one to the article Kolob, not is it hidden. Thus it is not an Easter egg. Hyacinth (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it is a inappropriate wikilink embedded in only a small part of a proper name, in this case a title of a standalone magazine article. Perhaps a second example would clarify; for instance the following ref:

Woodworth, Steven E.; ed. The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research. Greenwood Press, 1996.

The title of the book is the proper name for the book, and when one adds a link on a proper name it should be to a WP article explicitly about that proper name (i.e. in this case specifically about this particular book). If we had an WP article on this book, it would be completely appropriate to link on the whole title, or perhaps pipe the link to point to a section about this book in the article about the author (assuming that existed); however it's not appropriate (and I consider it a form of an easteregg, because it sends one on an unexpected tangent) to link to Civil war or American Civil War in the title instead. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this guideline on Wikipedia? Hyacinth (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This common convention is not explicitly described at wp:Citing sources but the inverse is in no way encouraged either. The only examples listed on that guideline where editors are encouraged to wikilink are where a WP article on a specific author, article/title/work, location, publisher, etc... exists. In addition to common convention, I think this is also a matter of wp:common sense and wp:using ones best judgment, but there are a couple of guidelines that appear to (at least in part) support for my position, that in the following reference...

Grimshaw, Jeremy (2001). "The Sonic Search for Kolob: Mormon Cosmology and the Music of La Monte Young". Repercussions 9 (no. 1): 80

... a wikilink on Kolob is inappropriate.

1. WP:BUILD: In adding or removing links, consider an article's place in the knowledge tree. Internal links can add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia, allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?"

How likely is it that someone clicking on that link at this specific location within this WP article (a reference) is truly wanting to know more specifically about this relatively obscure item of Mormon cosmology, given that there is no direct connection between the Kolob WP article and The Well-Tuned Piano, La Monte Young, Repercussions, or Jeremy Grimshaw? I think it is a very, very low probability; customarily when a wikilink appears within a reference for a article/title/work, it links directly to a WP article about that specific to article/title/work. Wikilinking within a reference on only a part of the wording in the the article/title/work's proper name also does not meet the principle of least astonishment, a useful value to consider in any setting.

2. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: Although a word, name or phrase may refer to more than one topic, it is sometimes the case that one of these topics is the primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. ... In many cases, a topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance. In many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant. In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage and one of primary long-term significance. In such a case, consensus determines which article, if either, is the primary topic. ...

The primary topic of Grimshaw's article is not about the "star" known as Kolob as found in the Book of Abraham, nor is it about Mormon cosmology in general. Instead the primary topic of Grimshaw's article is how Mormon cosmology influences and informs La Monte Young musical works (as clearly demonstrated in the complete title of his article); we don't have a WP article on that very narrow subject, and it seems unlikely that we will have one in the foreseeable future.

3. WP:SPECIFICLINK: Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics.

This is not possible in this case, as described above, so the potential exists that it is a moot point to examine how to add this specific link by following the rest of the material found at wp:Manual of Style/Linking.

When I was digging thru the guidelines looking for supporting material, I was quite surprised that this common convention is not spelled out more directly. Given that I have learned a great deal on how to properly handle references from User:COGDEN, perhaps it would be useful to invite him (&/or other editors who have demonstrated expertise in how references are best handled on WP) to this conversation as an uninvolved third party, to see what his (or their) view(s) on this would be? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this link makes Mormonism look bad? Hyacinth (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not particularly. If you were to have a link (which I still don't think is of true value) a better one would be on Mormon cosmology (though mind the case, as there isn't yet a redirect on Mormon Cosmology). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember dealing with this issue before, but I can offer my opinion. Purely as a matter of style, I would be hesitant to put any links to particular words in citations to references. I don't think there is any guideline on this, but I think it clutters up the citations. I think that any links in article citations ought to be related to the article cited, to avoid confusion. I don't know whether or not there is a Wikipedia consensus on that, though I don't really remember seeing such links in citations. If they are used, they are very rare. COGDEN 04:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November

Dennis Johnson's piano piece November has recently been released on CD. References to it in the artlcle should be appropriately updated.64.246.149.87 (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]