Wikipedia talk:Music encyclopedia topics

Mordent

Page 32 has a link to Mordent but that links goes to a linguistics stub. Mordents are discussed in Ornaments (music). I would edit it myself but the page is too large for me to edit. Jaberwocky6669 June 28, 2005 19:54 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Two related topics, Percussion instrument and Rhythm and blues have been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. Come and support the nomination there or comment on it.--Fenice 07:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary terms?

A few of these entries are just musical terms, non-encyclopedic but suitable for a glossary. And we have such a glossary: Musical terminology. Can anyone see a problem with, for example, making affettuoso a redirect to Musical terminology#A? (search good, redirect better...) David Brooks 17:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minstrel

I figure this is as good a place as any to ask: Minstrel could use expert attention. See my remarks at Talk:Minstrel. - Jmabel | Talk 01:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad entry

I was going to remove the Brethren of Purity link from your B index, since I have never ever seen a reference to them in a musical context in all my research, but then I saw the warning on top to not remove anything, so... I guess I'll leave it to you guys. --maru (talk) contribs 06:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reason it's on this list is because it was in a music encyclopedia. There must be a reason it's in there -- perhaps there's a completely different meaning by the same name. Could be the name of a symphony, a name or translation of a name of a completely different group somewhere else in the world, a name or translation of a name of an important song, or something else entirely. Tuf-Kat 07:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be...

a classical musical enyclopedia? (or very old). What about the Guiness Enyclopedia of Popular Music (or the Microsoft CDROM based on part of it, the excellent but now deleted Music Central)? --kingboyk 13:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something I noticed

"Musical score" redirects to "sheet music". That seems ridiculous to me, the New Grove article on "Score" is enormous. Chubbles 05:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on sheet music seems to talk a lot about scores. Perhaps it should be split? Rigadoun (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs?

Is there a reason why blue-linked stubs are marked on the list but not removed? BuddingJournalist 12:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing it mainly because that was what was being done when I started working here. But I can think of two reasons to continue listing stubs:

The stub may be so insubstantial that it may be seriously considered for deletion (if it doesn't appropriately imply notability) or be merged into another topic inappropriately because someone suspects little can be said (not to imply that none of these should be merged, but many should have their own articles)
To give editors searching these lists ideas for articles that are covered in familiar resources like Grove that our coverage is weak. (As opposed to a stub category like Category:Composer stubs, which may not be easy to add to, if they are not in such a resource)

I generally mark them here as stubs only if they seem quite insubstantial, whether they are tagged with the stub tag or not. WP:STUB suggests it is for articles of only a few sentences, although frequently much larger articles are so tagged (imo, inappropriately). If the article redirects to another article on the list (and they really are synonyms, or so intricately linked separate articles would be inappropriate), it can be deleted, since the other still appears. Rigadoun (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb: if it's marked with a stub template but it's still substantially longer than you'd expect the Grove article (if it existed) on the topic to be, then axe it. There are a lot of jazz musicians who have stub templates because it'd be easy to fill out their discographies, etc., but are much too long to consider it a missing topic. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Can we redirect WP:MET here for ease of use? Chubbles (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People in the list not well identified

I've had a look at the list of Encyclopedia topics with the idea of writing some bios, but right away I was confused by the lack of information available on people in the listing. A search on Minnie Douglas, for example, turns up singers, songwriters and writers with various birthdates. Could there be some effort to clarify the listings with birthdates? Pkeets (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion...

If you can, work from the topics with the highest number first -- you'll get your biggest bang for your buck that way. :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor milestone: no pages have more than 900 entries any more. Still much lowhanging fruit on the 800+s. Will try to get the lists trimmed down under 800 next. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1/3 done! Can we make it to 50% by the end of the year? :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that we are about 50% done; every time someone does a cleaning operation, they get rid of about half of them. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - not sure if there's anyone actively monitoring this, but I occasionally use this list as a pointer for article creation, and recently I took to poring through the lists with Grove in hand, looking for redirect targets. I've found hundreds and hundreds so far; you're actually much farther along than the statistics would indicate, and if there's any more will to keep this project alive, I think you'd find you're well over the 50% mark by this point. Another tranche of removals might be worth your time. Chubbles (talk) 00:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbleweeds...

Hello, just waving to see if anyone else is actively monitoring this. I do wish there were still a concerted effort to improve our comprehensiveness in musical coverage. I'm mostly writing to note that I am losing my access to Grove online (I graduated), though the local library has a paper copy if need be - but it's very difficult for me to do the mass updates without having the online version available. Anyone else out there still interested in the project? Chubbles (talk) 01:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]