Talk:Classic 100 Twentieth Century

Links
The link to Kakadu (#51) currently goes to the article on Sculthorpe. Wouldn't it be better to have the links to the composers and only to the work if there is an article on it? Whiteghost.ink 00:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well technically, the link for Kakadu goes to the Orchestral section in the Sculthorpe article. The aim being to land the reader as close to information on the work as Wikipedia can provide (at this time). I don't mind if the link is removed, but the other strategy is to create a new page (e.g. "Kakadu (Sculthorpe)" and redirect that to the Orchestral section in the Sculthorpe article. That way, the page is read when someone gets around to creating a proper page for the work (and removing the redirect). I created the redirect trick for Misa Criolla. What do you reckon? GFHandel &#9836; 00:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the redirect trick works well - very neat, reader gets a good landing that is less surprising than the other option. It also gives a better chance for a specific article to be developed. The (possible) downside is with the section link - someone once told me that there is a danger with these that they get lost in the future. (Not sure though that I understood correctly when this problem was explained to me.) Whiteghost.ink 01:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done for works 51 and 46. GFHandel &#9836; 01:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I just discovered the problem with links to sections. To try to connect the dots, so to speak, I added this composition to the disambiguation page for Kakadu and of course it redirects to the composer. Will that be a problem in the future when the article is created? Also, the redirect to the Sculthorpe section doesn't work so well as it does in the Missa Criolla because it doesn't land on a section with a heading that you expect. Since there is not even a blue link, it is not immediately obvious why you have been sent there. Can we create a stub for Kakadu (Sculthorpe) so that readers go there first? Anyway, it is not good that there is no article on it all. What do you think? Whiteghost.ink 02:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It won't be a problem "when the article is created" because it already has been created. Currently at the article is the following text:
 * #REDIRECT Peter Sculthorpe
 * When someone wishes to elaborate on Sculthorpe's piece, all they have to do is go to the page without a redirect (e.g. ) and edit the page to remove the redirect (and insert their contents). I think what has been set up is fairly standard, and meets the aim of encouraging others to move further down the path of article creation. There may be trouble from the "it's not notable" crowd, but we'll face that if it happens.
 * Yes, it would be better to create a stub, but where do you start and stop with this sort of thing? I'll add it to my very long list of things to do at WP. :-)
 * GFHandel &#9836; 03:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh good! Thanks for the explanation. I was hoping that was the case ("When someone wishes to elaborate on Sculthorpe's piece, all they have to do is..)". So all is well. Yes, I know what you mean about the long list - I started the day with the intention of making a dint in mine (and neither Sculthorpe nor Kakadu was on it) but (real) work and the music intervened. However, certainly the piece is notable and even without its appearing on this list, I can't imagine anyone believing otherwise! Whiteghost.ink 03:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)