User talk:Eijkhout

The article Machine (disco group) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki 15:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Birds in music
Hi, thanks for mentioning Biber. Unfortunately a YouTube link really isn't sufficient (generally unreliable, is the classification of that source), so it'd be great if you could add a citation --- to a textbook or musicology journal article, for instance. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Your comment included no link to the article or to how I can respond to you.

PS you seem to have removed mention on that sonata altogether, leaving a crippled sentence.

PPS so this is about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_in_music#In_earlier_classical_music


 * You can reply here, so we don't have multiple discussions. If later you want to discuss the article, please do so on Talk:Birds in music. However, for now, the YouTube mention isn't really usable; and getting people to watch/listen to media is not an ideal way to verify anything, especially as the media will not actually say "this is a representation of such and such a bird" anyway, i.e. it's not objective verification. Also, we don't embed external links in the text, to YouTube or anywhere else. We need proper sources to reliable texts where an authority says in so many words "Biber here represents bird ABC". Anything else is Original Research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I've replaced the youtube reference by an IMSLP. Reference. Unfortunately you have introduced a conflict so now I'm stuck. Please remove your edits until I'm done.


 * I've finished editing, please insert your citations. I can't "remove my edits" as they already completed, and undoing them will leave the article with broken and embedded links (no good) and won't enable you to recover your edits; the best you can do is to open another window on to the article, and to copy your edits into the article there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"Anything else is" how about "primary sources"? Are those not allowed?


 * Primary sources are generally deprecated (since anybody can claim anything), but if Biber wrote about his piece as a serious composer about his own work then I think that would be a reasonable usage in this case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah. I did say we didn't use "embedded links" but I guess the technical language went over your head. We require citations in ref tags, i.e. ; an embedded link like "bit of music" does not serve this function and is not allowed. Sorry...


 * What is required, to be quite clear, since this seems to be difficult, is something like


 * 'Musicologist John Doe wrote that Biber's Opus 91 in E flat major "ingeniously"[1] represents the calls of the eagle, nightingale, cuckoo and marsh duck using the breathy notes of the transverse flute and the clarinet.[1][2]'


 * Where [1] and [2] are citations to books, research papers or high-quality magazine or newspaper articles in the sort of template I just explained above, with page numbers and the rest. Why is it no good inserting links to bits of music directly? Because a) we don't put links in the text; and b) the music does not provide actual words describing the birds in the music, so assuming that would be WP:OR, as I told you already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand primary sources being deprecated. Primary sources are the actual things. They are. Any statement by musicologists is a secondary source, and therefore less valuable than the actual thing that the musicologist talks about.
 * Don't argue with me, go and argue with the Wikipedia policy on WP:PRIMARY. Sure, primary is real, but it doesn't tell us that birds are supposed to be in the music, for that we need secondary or tertiary; the closest we could use to primary would be the composer talking about his/her own music, which is primary in one sense but not in the other. I do hope this is clear, as it's fundamental to how Wikipedia works and you really can't edit here without it. I suggest you go and read the policy and see if it starts to make sense for you; alternatively, take what I say as an experienced editor on trust and supply WP:RS in the form of secondary sources. Please.

I didn't use embedded links with square brackets like you claim. I used double brace links like I found in the text already present. Can you give me the proper syntax for IMSLP links?
 * I'm not claiming anything, I'm telling you the rules and giving simple examples. If anyone else used links like that in the text, they were wrong also, I'll remove them now. I don't know when one might legitimately use an IMSLP link but it looks as if your syntax is correct as far as it goes; the bit would go inside ref tags, after the "." at the end of the sentence, if there was reason to use such a link (which I don't think we have in this context). It would look like "blah blah da da da birds in his music, said Doe." But a direct link to the music doesn't help us here, as we need evidence that birds were involved, which, yet again, we can't get from the music itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

"we can't get from the music itself." Yes you can. The bird names are in the score.


 * Look, I'm trying to help you and have given you a large amount of time already, so please don't try to make clever debating points. Reading the score is not equivalent to hearing the music, but never mind that; it would have saved a lot of effort if you'd said you were talking about "the score". The score is WP:PRIMARY, and as I said already, if it's the composer describing his own work, that's fine for this purpose, i.e. defining the composer's intention for the work. In that case you write 'Composer Bloggs annotated the score of his work Rainforest Birds with the names of the bird species in each movement: Long-tailed drongo (Trio); Pied cockatoo (Scherzo); ... and then you cite the score in ref tags after the dot at the end of the sentence. Of course this does nothing to establish whether the work is notable and worth mentioning in an encyclopedia; for that you certainly require secondary sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not a clever debating point. The reason that we know what birds are depicted is that either their names are mentioned in the lyrics, or they are the names of the movement or section. Both of which I thought would be obvious, but I guess not. I'll give it another edit. talk

Ok, I've added phrases stating that the composer actually put the animal names explicitly in the music. A point that should have been completely obvious from the scores to which I provided a link, so I don't understand why refernces to the scores were removed. talk

Speaking of eras: there is a section talking about "earlier music", which to anyone into classical music would suggest before 1700 or thereabouts. Prokofjev doesn't classify as "earlier music". I feel that mention of Peter and the Wolf should be somewhere higher in the article, but right now I don't feel like doing the move myself. talk


 * This has gone on way too long. I removed *embedded* links which are not allowed. What is required is (a) explicit mention in the text of what is being claimed, i.e. "Bloggs's score states..." rather than hoping the reader will guess; and (b) properly formatted citations. By the way, please sign posts using ~. If that is too difficult, please don't edit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)