User talk:Why? I Ask/Archive 3

Playlogic Entertainment

Thanks for closing! Can you still change to keep, as that is what folks wanted? gidonb (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: I was not an uninvolved editor, so me closing it as keep would be premature. Marking it as withdrawn is more of helping out the nominator with their lack of technical experience. That said, I doubt someone will renominate it in the future after looking at the past AfD. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NP. I was really thinking of "our" AfD stats :-D gidonb (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently disruptive, bad faith editing?

Relevant to the current AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike ONE, in [1] you removed content including a mention of the AfD subject in Gran Turismo 4, which had previously been its redirect target. Two minutes later in [2] you made a rebuttal to my re-redirect opinion based on the absence of mention at the target without noting that you had yourself just removed it. Have I summarized the timeline correctly? If so, please explain why you felt that pair of edits was appropriate and above-board. Ping Piotrus as this occurred in an AfD he initiated. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: It was WP:GAMECRUFT, pure and simple. A list of unlockable cars in game for any series, whether it be Mario Kart or Forza, is always undue unless it is discussed as something fully notable as its own right. As Sergecross73 notes, I can also see it being scrubbed from the article in a valid cleanup attempt too. (I would like to mention that another editor also noted the removal as justified and opposed a redirect in that case, too). Why? I Ask (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you were completely within your right to do so. People alter things like this during AFD all the time, so I'm surprised to see editors making a stink about this. Sergecross73 msg me 11:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unreferenced content is fine per WP:V, however I'd not say "it is not mentioned" but "it is no longer mentioned as I removed the unreferenced mention". It is best practice to wait with such edits for until after AfD is finished, unless one is doing major rewrite (which some believe should be in the sandbox anyway). Nothing major that I'd call "disruptive, bad faith", just not best practice, IMHO. Carry on and be more careful in the future, both of you (as in, Why, please be more clear with describing stuff, and Jclemens, please WP:AGF more). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The AGF, Piotrus, was me not taking Why? I Ask immediately to ANI. It appears to have been more AGF than necessary, because neither here nor in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike ONE has Why? I Ask expressed any comprehension, let alone contrition, that deleting content from a proposed redirect target--and if you look at the edit, the deletion was limited to content relevant to the AfD--during an AfD, and then arguing against redirection in that same AfD on the basis of his own last edit 2 minutes ago, without mentioning that he had just removed the content which would have made a valid redirect, could reasonably be perceived as deceptive conduct. Piotrus, you've given a couple of excellent suggestions for how the edit could have been made in a transparent manner, but they have not been acknowledged. Instead, Why? I Ask chose to subsequently re-revert my restoration of the content while the discussion was ongoing. Would you like to try counseling this participant again? I'm certainly not getting through to him. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we restore the content with a reference? Until that point, one can argue WP:V supports removal. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: But why re-add it? It's just going to get removed again. It's clear that the page is clearly going to be deleted, and it would clearly be undue to mention a single car in a popular racing game. Honestly, the whole reason it's mentioned on the page to begin with is because it was one to have an article. Since the article will be deleted, a redirect is pointless. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it's ok to mention car types in a racing game, in some list or paragraph, that doesn't seem WP:UNDUE. Although that discussion might be better held at Talk:Gran Turismo 4, where both of you should present your case, per WP:BRD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: No, lists of cars in games has repeatedly been removed forever and there's no reason why it would change for a single game of a franchise where a goal is to collect cars. There's a reason why the video game MOS specified vehicles because it's been discussed to death before. If a concept car was found to be notable on its own, then sure, I can see a mention. But this is not the case; the AfD has made it clear it fails GNG, so mentioning a random car by name is undue. I also don't see a point in a discussion when one person hasn't even commented on if it should be in the page or not. They're just upset with how it was removed and how I mentioned (or lack thereof) its removal. That's not a reason to restore content; because it wasn't removed when and how you liked. A reason to restore content is because you think it deserves to be there. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion here, since I haven't looked into this issue, except reiterating that if either of you wants to continue this, you should go to the article's talk and probably ask for WP:3O since I have a feeling you are not close to any agreement :> _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, GAMECRUFT doesn't wholly prevent listing off a few example cars. It's more about preventing an exhaustive list of like all 100 cars (or however many there are.) That said, to me, there's nothing particularly persuasive about anything I've seen so far that would suggest that this Nike car should be singled out for a specific mention, considering the immense number of cars feature. Anyways, someone ping me if a wider discussion is started. Otherwise, I'm moving on, as there seems to be a pretty clear consensus to delete. Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like I said, a few example cars that are fairly notable and relevant to how Gran Turismo produces concept cars is not undue. A random mention of a single one without any context or independent notability is. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert List of Viola Compositions A to B (and other letters of the alphabet) changes that you have made

There was no consensus to make the changes that you have just made to these pages, and I had already expressed my disagreement with any attempts to trim the article as part of the AfD. Please revert them yourself, otherwise I will do so (or will ask for assistance again in getting this article back to its prior state). Dbynog (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The keep votes at the AfD literally said that trimming it down to notable composers would be fine; ditto for the new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#List of compositions for viola: A to B. There; that's the three people (four including me) that see this as an improvement. You are one of two people in this entire discussion that has spanned several discussions that sees the page fine as is. I'm not going to revert just because you don't like it and where your arguments do not conform to policy. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Leedy Manufacturing Company

On 22 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Leedy Manufacturing Company, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Leedy Manufacturing Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, was at one point the largest manufacturer of drums in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Leedy Manufacturing Company. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Leedy Manufacturing Company), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cornetto

Hello again. I need clarification. Everything I read on the cornetts (not cornet) says they were/are made of wood or ivory. Am I missing something? Best wishes Jacqke (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacqke: A brass instrument ironically doesn't mean that it's made of brass. As the Wikipedia article states: [a brass instrument] produces sound by sympathetic vibration of air in a tubular resonator in sympathy with the vibration of the player's lips. Basically, it uses a cup mouthpiece that you vibrate your lips into just like a trumpet. It doesn't use a reed (like a clarinet) or a free column of air (like a flute) to make sound, so it's not a woodwind. In fact, if you refer to the brass page once again: the view of most scholars is that the term "brass instrument" should be defined by the way the sound is made, as above, and not by whether the instrument is actually made of brass. Thus one finds brass instruments made of wood, like the alphorn, the cornett, the serpent and the didgeridoo... Why? I Ask (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to explain. I'm stepping outside of my comfort area here, working on trumpets and horns. I had these in my mind as trumpets but not brass. Thank you Jacqke (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Your nomination statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of longest novels (2nd nomination) is a truly thorough and appropriate way to prime a discussion. Good job. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Low Tier God

Seems this guy *really* wants to keep the article up... [3] User:WeaponizingArchitecture/Low Tier God.

I want to take this to MfD because clearly we have BLP violations being hosted in userspace and the lack of respect of the consensus is annoying at least. Do you have any thoughts? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostOfDanGurney: For some reason, people at the AfD didn't find it to be an attack page, and one even voted dratify (although, I, for various reasons already stated, disagree that it's not an attack page). I think you'll have a hard time getting it deleted it because of that. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like most of the article's history has been full of poorly referenced BLP vios. I found the assertion that he needed these versions to recreate the article to be funny. I guess I'll just have faith that it'll never get accepted back into mainspace like that again. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 14:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning at WT:CSD

Hey there. In regards to your comments at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Amend G5 to say that uninvolved editors may request undeletion, I was just wondering if you're familiar with the essay WP:BLUDGEON? I count 39 replies from you so far. Seems a bit rude to dominate the conversation like that on a talk page full of other people who also have opinions on that topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: If they respond to me asking me something or disagreeing with me, I want to give them a response back. Or, I want to ask for clarification on their positions. Unfortunately, all of the reasons against restoration have been pretty weak so far. A good portion of the argument is that banned users should have their work destroyed to WP:DENY them per WP:BRB. However, I feel that conflicts with a few other policies, so that interpretation not only hinders my work, but is questionable. But yes, I will work on cutting back the WP:BLUDGEONING. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these posts and others, you have been called on WP:FORUMSHOP several times already, now you're well into WP:OTHERPARENT. It's time for you to give up and accept that the page won't be restored. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I directly asked twice if that was forum shopping or asking the other parent and was denied that it wasn't. This whole conversation is stupid. Users are explicitly allowed to revert back to banned users content. It shouldn't matter whether or not that content was deleted. There seems to be a subset of users that think all banned users content should stay removed, but that is not supported by policy and not fair to maintain. Either users are allowed to revert back to content including the undiscussed deletion of pages or not allowed at all. You cannot have it both ways. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Christine de Montbrial

Hello Mr/Ms Why? :)

I would like to understand the reasoning behind declining the G5 for this article please? It looked to me like the creator MRCLD is a sock of User:AlexLevyOne, who was blocked in 2008? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A very basic WP:BEFORE search showed me that there may be something to be had (and the French Wikipedia has an article, too), so I'd feel more comfortable going through AfD. (I have not verified that bibliography at the sources, yet, to see if they actually do mention her.) But basically, there is nothing that says it has to be deleted because it was made by a sock. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I will do that. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fabloo

Hello, Why? I Ask,

Please do not redirect, rename or merge an article under discussion in an ongoing AFD. It really ties the hands of the closer of the discussion. There is no rush to take action, even in cases that look like SNOW. Please wait for an admin to decide how and when to close a discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: (Let me know if you do not want to be pinged!) I was not the one that closed the discussion nor is there anything that says the article needs to stay as is during the duration of the discussion. If there was someone that opposed, the undo button is helpful tool, so I doubt that it truly ties the closer of the discussion as you said. Furthermore, while there is never any rush to close, I also doubt any editor at the AfD would disagree with the WP:SNOW clause being applied here. (Obviously, at least another user agreed since they closed it as such.) I also think you forgot that non-admins are allowed to close discussions, too. The policy makes it explicitly clear and we have essays about how it should be done. That idea that we need to wait for an administrator is (in my view) problematic. (Although, the user, DOOMSDAYER520, was involved, but that is an issue for their talk page, not mine. I feel like it would not change the closing, however.) Why? I Ask (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I Ask, you were way out of order here. You state I was not the one that closed the discussion - true, but nobody is saying that you did close it; the point is that the AfD hadn't yet been closed when you took your pre-emptive action. You also state nor is there anything that says the article needs to stay as is during the duration of the discussion. - yes there is, in at least three different places, two of which you would certainly have seen. Prior to your edit, the page looked like this - the box at the top states Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed and do not blank the page. For more information, read the guide to deletion. Your edit removed that notice and blanked the page, both being in contravention of the explicit instructions not to. Your edit also removed the comment  again contrary to explicit instructions. If you had followed the link in the sentence For more information, read the guide to deletion. you would have found this stated in greater detail. In particular, WP:EDITATAFD states Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another page unilaterally before the debate closes. ... If you wish to merge or copy material, it is preferable to offer a specific proposal in the deletion discussion, negotiate with the other participants, and wait for the discussion to be closed. You were a participant in the AfD having posted there at 13:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC); the AfD was not closed until 18 hours later; and yet you took this unilateral action. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, always keep in mind that WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

The policy you cited, number five, is not applicable as no content was copied to the parent article. If you really wanted to point it out, it would fall under criteria number two. But it was not unilateral in the slightest. How many votes for redirects were there? All of them after the WP:AtD was brought up. Sorry for removing the deletion notice (forgot about that), but I made it clear in the discussion I would revert if people thought that was a poor decision. If you think it would have been closed as something else, take it to WP:DRV. Otherwise, quit complaining about a bold, good faith edit to expedite something that was going to happen anyway. You and I have better things to do than worry about trivialities of procedures where the result was certain to happen nonetheless. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree with Liz and Redrose64. It is outside the norms of AFD to redirect a page while there is an AFD open. Not everything needs to be a debate. You could just accept the feedback with a simple "Understood. Thanks for letting me know." –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed a while back on the talk page by one of the original editors of the policy: Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion/archive1#"You should not turn the article into a redirect." Not everything needs to be debate, which is why I question why you all are making it one. I already apologized for removing the AfD tag in the process, but I will not apologize for my defense of making it a redirect before the time was up. I said I would not fight if it was reverted. Remember that product trumps policy per WP:3P. There are users that disagree with that, but I am free to disagree back. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March songs

Thank you for defending the independent participants in an RfC who where liked to Nazi military. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my first language. I didn't say that Wehrmacht is Nazi. I said that it's not neutral. Help me understanding: it comes across as likening the initiator and the participants (on one side at least) of an RfC to a military organisation, which is an offense (no?), and then one of Nazi Germany, which is worse (no?), especially with me being German, and me being believed to be behind the organisation. - I passed the last Mozart RfC, and I want to pass this one. I feel the offense is aimed at making me leave my cool, no? - If it is not redacted by tomorrow, I'll reach out to arbitration, but today is Sunday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are right: it is not neutral and it likens users to the military of Nazi Germany. (While you can argue that the military was not necessarily the exact same as the Nazi Party, they committed war crimes and colluded with the party to enact genocide under the flag of Nazi Germany. Those acts sound like those of Nazis to me and pretty terrible to liken with any group of users.) I do question why the original user would draw that comparison to a German military. I will assume good faith and just assume he is a history buff rather than trying to belittle someone he knows is German. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should always assume good faith, yes. He wrote today's featured article. We wrote two articles together, The Company of Heaven and Requiem. But some nice day in 2016, another user on his talk proclaimed that he had left Wikipedia and it was my work. I have no idea what caused it. Yes, we had disagreed (Gustav Holst), but that seems to be little explanation. Looking at Classical music, further up, he asked about my agenda (as if it was clear that my agenda was compulsory infoboxes for all articles). My agenda is peace and compromise, but that's difficult, see? - Forgot to sign, and also: I thought it would be easy to find the Holst discussion in an archive, but no. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sharing impressions from vacation on Madeira 20-30 March, pics now at 24 Mar from the peaks - the RfC (with the non-neutral invitation to fight) was closed, and went rather peacefully - what can we learn from it? - I saw today that Brian Boulton added an infobox to Imogen Holst in 2014, edit summary "risk" - should it still be a risk in 2023 to follow his example? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of 3rr rule

Might I suggest you self-revert both pages, or I'll be forced to report you.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I do anything wrong? I did not revert more than three times. Obviously, someone contesting a deletion means it's no longer uncontroversial. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the rule at WP:3RR - 3 reverts is the line, not 4. In other words, if I revert, that would put me at the line as well, and I'd prefer not to do that. I'd prefer to end this amicably, and you simply state your objections to an obvious sockpuppet edit on the talk page of the articles, and allow an admin to take a look at it. So far, you've stated no reason to remove the tag.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't go above that line because of that rule, so your warning made no sense. Clearly a Grammy-nominated artist's page with only minor WP:MOS problems is worthy as a page. I do not think deletion is the best course. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A warning like this (i.e. {{subst:uw-3rr}}) is normally served when it is felt that the user is about to violate WP:3RR, not when the user has actually made more than three reverts. Primarily, it informs them that their behaviour has been noticed and will continue to be observed, and that a fourth revert will make them liable to be blocked. Whether a {{subst:uw-3rr}}) was served or not, if the user actually exceeds three reverts a block may be imposed without warning, but will normally be accompanied by a different message - {{subst:uw-3block}}.

In view of this page history, I have put the page on my watchlist. The thing to do is not to revert one another, but use the talk page, which I see that neither of you have done. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When the page is tagged to be speedily deleted, it is obviously more important to prevent that from happening to actually discuss whether or not that is a fair assessment. It also does not help that the above user also told me to revert or be reported as if I had actually reverted more than three times. Now please stop commenting on everything brought up on my talk page. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to prevent speedy deletion? You should leave it for an administrator to assess. If the tagging was in error (and I see no indication that it was), an admin will remove the tag instead of deleting the page. Nobody has claimed that you have reverted more than three times: but I do see clear evidence that you reverted exactly three times, which is sufficient to justify a {{subst:uw-3rr}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't want the pages deleted, duh? And the issue isn't the tag placed (although, putting a tag like that on the talk page of an experienced user is in bad taste during an editing spat), but the malformed order to revert or be reported. I am taking responsibility for the content on all the pages I declined a CSD. That is explicitly allowed per policy. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't want the pages deleted is not a valid reason for removing a {{db-banned}} tag. Can you demonstrate how WP:CSD#G5 does not apply? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says at the top you are explicitly allowed to remove a CSD tags (unless you are the article creator). And when other policies also disagree that such edits need to be reverted or deleted, I will try to maintain what seems like encyclopedic content to me. (No, I am not going to willy-nilly de-tag everything primed for G5; most have many other issues, anyway.) Take these pages to AfD if you think they will fail (one already went through and was kept if that tells you anything): If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual dance as a recent artform, sources

Hi W. 'virtual dance as a modern art form is an unquestionably notable topic' - I would be interested to check out the sources that you offered to provide on request. Can be here or on my talk page if you prefer that. Thank you. Peli_ (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelikana: Sure! Here are my top five, although I can add more if needed. (Just a quick note, but "virtual dancing" is generally used within arts studies to refer to computer-assisted dancing, not just online dance performances or classes which some popular or medical sources define it as. That's why shifting through sources is a bit hard!):

Boucher, Marc (2011). "Virtual Dance and Motion-Capture". Contemporary Aesthetics. 9 (1): 1–24.
Dodds, Sherril, ed. (2019). "Digital dancing futures". The Bloomsbury Companion to Dance Studies. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-350-02447-2.
Geroimenko, Vladimir, ed. (2018). Augmented Reality Art: From an Emerging Technology to a Novel Creative Medium. Vladimir Geroimenko (Second ed.). Springer. pp. 197–198. ISBN 978-3-319-69932-5.
Rosenberg, Douglas, ed. (2016). "Virtualizing Dance". The Oxford Handbook of Screendance Studies. Oxford University Press. pp. 263–282. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199981601.013.13.
Dickson, Andrew (2019-08-15). "Digital dance — how artificial intelligence is disrupting the art form". Financial Times.

There are definitely some notable digital dance performances to be added to Wikipedia, too. The biggest one is Ghostcatching. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Peli_ (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deadname

This edit is a bit dismaying. You remove the notice not to add the deadname when you add the deadname? Clearly it's been a point of discussion already. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: You can not include a comment touting policy when the policy no longer applies. It's pretty basic stuff. A comment pointing to an RfC is fine. Not that. Wait until if or when the Village Pump decides to amend WP:DEADNAME. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roll back of my edit on template Percussion instruments

Hi!

I added two types of drums to the template Percussion instruments. You reverted the edit saying that it would be too much to include all the percussion instruments in the world; that it is enough to include only the most popular ones. I beg to differ. This encyclopedia strives to be comprehensive. Anyway, how do you define popular? Please put the two types of drums back in the template and while you´re at it, could you add any others you know of? Thank you Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruud Buitelaar: Check talk page of template, please! Why? I Ask (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Trendupp Awards

Heyyy!!! I wanted to see if you can help take a look at this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Trendupp_Awards I submitted for review. I'm still looking at ways to make it better. However, I really believe it is ready to be published. Kindly help take a look if you can as this will also improve my editing as well. Thank you very much. Olakunle Rufai (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ted Poor

HI! I added some solid references to Draft:Ted Poor, is it the right direction? Thanks, lkitross (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lkitrossky: The most important part is finding reliable, independent sources that are explicitly about Ted Poor or his work. They can not just be passing mentions. I think the Jazz Times, Glide Magazine, and perhaps Jazziz (which I have not encountered before) are good. The rest do not really count toward his notability, although the information can certainly be used. However, just three sources from niche publications are not really enough, in my opinion. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Why? I Ask: Added All About Jazz poll results on favorite drummers lkitross (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for In a Nutshell

On 12 November 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article In a Nutshell, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the British premiere of Percy Grainger's suite In a Nutshell, The Daily Telegraph argued that the marimba, then new to the orchestra, sounded inferior to the xylophone? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/In a Nutshell (suite). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, In a Nutshell), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

percussion

Thank you for quality articles around music with percussion, such as In a Nutshell, Lenny Castro and Leedy Manufacturing Company, for adding media such as audio to improve articles, for dealing with articles for creation, for taking time to explain in edit summaries, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2891 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you so much Gerda! It's an honor! Why? I Ask (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]