User talk:Eusebeus/Archive 1

New user name
Hello, Eusebus... just saw your post on Encephalon's talk page, and I wanted to commend you for your total lack of caring about editcounts. Good on ya. Blackcap | talk 20:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Lo doc, replied here. Blackcap | talk 00:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * (Copied from User talk:Encephalon)
 * Hi Encephalon. Saw your kind and remarkably swiftly delivered words on my user page following my 'Ciao.' However, be assured (or nervous maybe) that I am just switching usernames for the purposes of harmonising my cross-language wiki activity, esp as I am planning on trying to get more X-language articles done.  (Working on Gottfried Semper at the moment).  Since my edit total was low (maybe 1500) it was just easier to create a new account.  I'll get my delete votes discounted from AfD for a while, but that's okay, since they are usually ignored anyway.  What's up with you? drso, aka Eusebeus 16:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * All right then, I shall promptly be assured (and suitably nervous ;)). I responded quickly because I saw you go "Ciao", and if there's anything I hate happening on WP it's first-rate editors leaving. I will not pretend that I wouldn't have been sorely disappointed to see you go, so this message has me all happy and stuff. :) By the way, would you like to change names and have all your edits transferred? That's something a bureaucrat can do for you, if you ask. Very kind regards encephalon  04:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC) PS. Shoot. I've just remembered that this can't be done if the account you're moving to already exists (ie. one has to ask the Bureaucrat first, who'll create the new account and then make the move). encephalon  04:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC) PPS. I concur with Blackcap's suggestion to log in as the D-man and do the re-direct thingy, just to make it official and all. See ya around :)  encephalon  04:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant, glad to have been of service. Blackcap (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

How Google samples
In the AfD against Checkerboard Nightmare you said "When you perform a google search, it collects a sample of 1000 pages (based on pagerank). What you are seeing is the total number of unique pages per the thousand collected. A rough extrapolation requires therefore that you take the total number of unique hits x the total# of pages, divided by a thousand." Do you have a cite for this? I'm very (as in professionally) interested in making sense of the widly varying results of google-searches you see :) --Kaleissin 12:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Shosta
Hi there, yes, I agree about the article. It could be listed as a FARC, but I guess you're keen to see it improved as a FA. I could work on it, but although I like Shosta's music a lot, it's not my specialty, and would require considerable research around the topic. I'm currently working to get the JS Bach article to FA standard. Are you going to work on Shosta yourself? I could take a look from time to time. Tony 12:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, the way to do it is to put a note on the discussion page that the article needs to be significantly improved in the following ways (bullets follow), and that 'we'll list it as an FARC on, say, 1 January, if these matters have not been addressed. We are taking this action to ensure that composer articles on WP are of the highest standard.' Tony 01:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to show me the list before you post it; it will form the basis of the FARC listing, I guess. Are you aware that twice over the past few months, I've posted complaints on the talk page, although not direct threats to list as FARC. You may wish to add my name in the text when you post the warning. Tony 01:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you might consider giving MarkAlexander a little longer than the end of the month to fix the Shosta page, although I'm still keen that notice be given soon and guidelines posted for what needs to be done to it. I intend to put JS Bach up as a FAC in the next month or two, and there will already be lots of knives out for it because of my record in running a tank forwards and backwards over other FACs. MarkAlexander has just reverted vandalism to the JS Bach article and has a stated interest in it, so I don't want to antagonise him at the same time or before Bach runs the gauntlet. Tony 23:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If you've made any progress with the list, do post it; I'm in the process of making various changes, and it would probably make sense to integrate them. Mark1 22:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Bach
Yes, help much appreciated. Let me work through it and then I'll call for criticism by others who've been involved. It would be nice to nominate it as an FAC with a few other names as contributors. At the moment, though, I'm worried about then length, given that that's an issue with Apple Mac and the FARC of Windows XP. Tony 09:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

List of works by Johann Sebastian Bach
Thanks for the compliments :) Jashiin 08:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * English Suites looks good, except that I'm not sure the suite movements' order was an Italian tradition.. Wasn't the suite form developed in France? In other articles I used to refer to it as either the "standard model" or Froberger's (although the latter is controversial). Jashiin 09:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you even did an article for the Partitas! That was great! :) Jashiin 09:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for letting me know about the efforts to organize the Bach information, and I agree with your removal of my merge tag on the JS Bach Keyboard works article. I was doing newpages patrol and I'm still getting started at WP, so thanks very much for your feedback. The article caught my eye in the first place because I'm a classical pianist. (Currently working on Bach WTC I, among other things.) I've been looking for some guidance on how to help with the classical music section. Music Theory is my primary area of expertise, and it seems the content in that area is a bit thin. I haven't really started working seriously yet, I'm still doing a lot of RC patrol and newpages cleanup in an effort to 'learn the ropes' around here. Suggestions on my talk page would be very welcome, thanks. Ben Kidwell 18:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Bach daughter articles
Hi Eusebeus

So glad to know that you're in a position to collaborate! Unfortunately, my time on WP is very restricted until early March (work commitments); I can only pop in occasionally and do little things. BWV (JS Bach) may be the best title for the BWV article; conflating organ and harpsichord into keyboard makes a lot of sense, given the indistinct boundary between them when it comes to some works.

However, it would be best to raise these issues on the discussion page: a number of contributors have a stake in the article. You could cut and paste the body of the message you sent me onto that page, perhaps, and see what people think.

There is not yet consensus on whether the main Bach article should comprise two sections (bio and style), or three (incl. summary of works). I've written a draft style section (see link on the discussion page), but there has been criticism of it from a few collaborators.

Wahoofive, Jashiin, Sesquialtera and Kemet are the interested parties, apart from you and me. They have not expressed solid opinions on the structure/length/daughter articles issues, apart from what you see on the page from Jashiin. I haven't yet formed a firm opinion, except that I'm concerned that when the main article goes to the FAC room, the length will be criticised.

Tony 08:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the messages (lots of things happening on my watchlist ;), I have to think more about it and right now I'm in the middle of studying for university (I'm a student). I'll do my best to reply with something coherent later today. I'm posting this short response so that you knew I saw your message. Jashiin 12:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In re: JS Bach KB music, thanks for pointing out that my material on WTC is rather duplicative of the main entry - which I assumed didn't exist, because it wasn't linked to from the separate KB music article. I notice that the WTC article seems to focus mostly on the issue of tunings and temperaments. There are a couple choices: the material I have on the KB works page could be shortened, with anything not duplicative that's more than the page needs getting merged into the separate WTC article. Conversely, the existing WTC page could be renamed to WTC-tuning or bach-tuning and the non-temperament material could come live in the JS Bach KB works article. I don't have enough history with these articles to feel like I should be rearranging the organization, but if you have an idea, feel free to do w/e to my WTC content, including deletion if it ends up being unnecessary. Ben Kidwell 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)