Talk:Glossary of Schenkerian analysis

[Untitled]
I wonder whether it really is useful to reproduce here the lead of the Schenkerian Analysis article. Isn't it sufficient that this article begins with a link to the other? I suspect that anyone interested in this glossary should have a look at the main article. The problem seems to be that if the lead is modified (improved, one presume) in Schenkerian Analysis, this change will not automatically be echoed here, and after a while the two leads might diverge or even become condradictory. In don't myself feel confident enough in Wikipedia's policies in this respect, but perhaps someone more versed might consider the question. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Several tags "Citation needed" have been added, dated June 2015. I began providing citations in the first entries (up to letter G), but at that point the whole job appeared pointless to me. Whenever the entry refers to a specific article, isn't this reference sufficient in itself? Or else should one quote the specific articles in full here?
 * Unless anyone is of different opinion, I'll remove the tags (and most of the citations that I had added).
 * Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

As announced, and since nobody argumented agains the idea, I removed all "Citation needed" tags and many of the citations. The entries fully refer to specialized articles (I checked all the references; some or the specific articles might need work, but that will be for later) and there is no reason to repeat here or to summarize what is detailed elsewhere. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)