User talk:Turangalila/Archive 1

Thanks
Thanks for giving me the feedback at WP:RFF, I've just made a reply, could you please take another look (providing you have time)? Cheers, S. Miyano 06:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * thank you for the welcome & all the links. -- Turangalila  (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

^_^
Your new signature looks delightful S. Miyano 09:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. I stole the code from User:Alison's sandbox.-- Turangalila  (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Turangalila/Images
Please do not use fair use images outside article namespace. I have removed both images at User:Turangalila/Images because they both were used under fair use. Please see WP:FUC for the restrictions of using fair use images on Wikipedia. (This instance is a violation of #9). Thank you for your cooperation. MECU ≈ talk 19:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry about that. thx for setting me straight; still learning the ropes a bit...I can still link though, right?  (ie Image:xxx.  I'll ask at your page to double check.
 * It's okay, it's a very abused item and admins even violate it. You can link to them, absolutely. You shouldn't use them, even in a temporary sense in a sandbox, because you may forget and leave it there and then it's there permanently. You can use Image:Example.jpg for that purpose, and even leave it there. Welcome to Wikipedia! --MECU ≈ talk 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * okay. thanks again. -- Turangalila  (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert Spano and Raymond Premru
First of all, I want to say you're doing a great job, especially for such a new Wikipedian. There are thousands of articles to be assessed, so I don't have time to comment on each one of them. I'm very happy to answer individual requests for review. I made a few suggestions on the talk page of Robert Spano. I think it's ready to be submitted to WP:GAC. Considering it takes them a week (maybe more) to review it, you can submit it now and continue improving it. My main concern for Premru is the length. Although I'm not familiar with the topic, it doesn't seem comprehensive. The references should be using citation templates. Have you taken either article to Peer Review? They're not always active there, but sometimes they can give good advice. Let me know if you have further questions or need assistance. Cheers. MahangaTalk to me 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely acceptable to nominate your own article on GAC. In fact, just about everyone does it! You'll want to review the criteria and if you think it satisfies it (I think so), then nominate it. Good luck! MahangaTalk to me 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Classical work infobox
Thanks, Turangalila! I'm glad you took the initiative on this. Opus33 15:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * no problem. just stumbled across the thing...-- Turangalila  (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
...for the vote of confidence here:  much appreciate it. I worked hard on that article, and still am (just added another image today, and I'm busy writing articles on his more important pieces). I should probably grit my teeth and put it through the PR/FA process.

By the way, great username you have: I love that piece, quirky and passionate by turns. (We could sure use some articles on more of his works! -- from Catalogue d'oiseaux to Des Canyons aux étoiles...) Cheers, and happy editing:  good to meet someone else active in this area! Antandrus (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Luto 3
Sounds like fine work. I saw the great master rehearse and conduct the work in the late 1980s. Unlike most composers, he was a natural, effortless conductor. It was one of my most cherished experiences. Found my score: the percussion section comprises xylophone, glockenspiel, marimba, vibraphone without motor, bells, five tom toms, two bongos, bass drum, side drum, tenor drum, three cymbals (small, medium and large), tam tam, gong, and tambourine. When I was a music lecturer, I used several excerpts from the work as exercises in the aural identification of instruments. They weren't easy. Tony 21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing large articles
A couple of times I've run across this problem: I try to make a (minor) edit on a long article; the edit window comes up w/ warning at the top, e.g. "This page is 31 kilobytes long.". When I try & insert text I hear my computer's audio "error" sound, & the browser jumps to the bottom of the page w/o making the edit. Most recently this happened while trying to add a wikilink in Witold_Lutos%C5%82awski.

Is this just a deficiency in my browser? I'm working via Internet Explorer 5.1 on Mac OS 9. (I know, I'm living in the stone age, but it works ok for most stuff.) Thanks. -- Turangalila (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've experienced the same issues with Internet Explorer 5.x on a Mac. Older browsers don't allow more than a certain amount of text in an edit box. Editing in this case could lead to you cutting up articles past the point of what fits in the box on your system. I suggest you try upgrading to IE 6. I've lived in the stone age too and on Windows 98 IE6 never caused me any problems. - Mgm|(talk) 22:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See: WP:SS and WP:SIZE. --Teratornis 22:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * [above copied over from Help Desk -- Turangalila 4/1]

Can one customize the TOC function?
(Copied below over from Village pump (technical))

I came across this page: List of musical instruments by Hornbostel-Sachs number, and wondered...

Is there a way to make the auto table of contents render differently? For a page like this one, the TOC is potentially helpful, but here the TOC's numbering clashes w/ the numbering of the HS system itself, rendering the TOC nearly unreadable. I would think there would be other pages w/ this type of issue. Is there a way to make the TOC list stuff by headings w/o the outline numbers? ie could one make it render as just
 * Thing
 * Sub-thing

instead of
 * 1 Thing
 * 1.1 Sub-thing

I tried Category:TOC templates but couldn't find anything. Is this a "request-a-template" situation? Thanks &mdash; Turangalila (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why does the headings have their own numeration? That is what the heading levels are about. You may be able to create it manually with, however you will have to update it manually and casual users would not be able to do that. -- ReyBrujo 16:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The headings have their own numeration because the article is about a numerical typology – hence the title of the page. Having headings w/ the numbers of the typology makes some sense in these types of articles, though I looked at others such as DSM-IV and Dewey Decimal lists & they seem to have fudged & left the #'s out of the headings – perhaps because of this issue.  If it really is impossible to keep the automatic compilation feature & lose the outline #'s in special cases then cool.  It's probably not worth imposing a complicated manual process on editors.  &mdash; Turangalila  (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You could request at MediaWiki_talk:Common.css an un-numbered class for wrapping your TOC in, such as:

.nonumtoc .tocnumber { display:none; } .nonumtoc #toc ul, .nonumtoc .toc ul { line-height: 1.5em; list-style-type: square; margin: .3em 0 0 1.5em; padding: 0; list-style-image: url(/skins-1.5/monobook/bullet.gif); }
 * ///(or a variation thereof). Which could be placed with . Note that you'd have to be rather convincing to get it ^_^. --Splarka (rant) 07:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ballad (music)

 * Great work on "ballad", I really enjoyed reading that. —Kevin 22:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (sniffle)...You...like me, you really like me!!!(snif)....seriously though, thanks. I hope it can get reconciled/coordinated better w/ the other ballad articles, esp. ballad itself...&mdash;Turangalila  talk 22:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Josquin FAC
Thanks. Can you think of images that might help? That's something people often ask about during the FAC process. Maybe places he worked ... cathedrals ... I already looked for pics of the cathedral in Condé-sur-l'Escaut but it's not there any more. Antandrus (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Nicklaus Peer Review
Thanks very much for your comprehensive review of Jack Nicklaus, it is much appreciated. Myself and other editors will try and improve the article around these areas. Once again, thanks. Grover 04:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kein Problem. good luck. &mdash;Turangalila  talk 05:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
Actually, it was instigated by me at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, but I really don't want to bring extra grief down on Antandrus or the FAC by grinding my own axe there. Mak (talk)  01:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hey, thanks! That definitely made my morning ... funny, I had just gone to bed last night right after blocking one of the nastiest trolls currently active on Wikipedia, and I was sure my talk page would be full of abuse when I looked at it this morning, so that makes it even nicer. Thanks again.

I'm slowly starting to address Chubbles' critique on the Josquin article. I'm not sure I agree with everything but I will do what I can. Phrases like "historical forces" actually weren't mine: those two words appear in Reese, which was footnoted there. Maybe I should put this on the Josquin talk page ... Oh, and one other thing (in response to your last edit summary on Josquin) -- yes, I do own the 1980 20-volume Grove so I can put in page numbers if you like ... Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

beethoven list of compositions
i've contributed a little to this article. it was in bad need of a shakeup. i just wanted to make sure that if u changed the titles for individual compositions that u linked them appropriately as well so none of the articles about the individual compositions are missing. --Alex Ov Shaolin  01:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't modify any of those...the piece titles in article titles seem to be standardized thses days, & no major pieces seem to be redlinks. I can try & double check on those redlinks there are to make sure they're genuine...might take me a couple of days.  thx&mdash;Turangalila  talk 02:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Beethoven list
Wow, I haven't edited this since 2004! I'm amazed you noticed. But hey, it's a nice list, and good luck with your nomination. Opus33 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Opus. It's a great list; there are few minor consistency issues, but that stuff's easy to fix.  Would that all composers had works lists this good on Wikipedia.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Voice leading
Perhaps you and User:Tony1 can help me figure out what's going on with User talk:Hyacinth? Why are some comments green? Who said those? Hyacinth 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, Tony does that to set off quotes and whatnot. It's the text in the wikisource that does it. If you don't like it you can remove that from the source, and maybe mention it to Tony. Mak (talk)  18:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah...
Thank you ... that wasn't so bad, the FAC process. I think I will now open that bottle of Scotch I've been saving. :) Appreciate your help!  There are still a few things to fix on the article, but having it go to FA definitely feels nice... Cheers!  Antandrus  (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: FLC
No need to hog me to my talk. I keep watch of my votes on featured candidates (unless it's hopeless). Circeus 18:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

English horn, French horn, etc.
Just what you need&mdash;another nitpick!

Well, since I noticed you intervened in the "cor anglais/English horn" brouhaha, I'm wondering about your choice of capitalization, since you put in "english horn" and "french horn". Now I'm wondering which is correct: that, or my (somewhat reflexive) "English/French" horn.

I re-read my Chicago style manual (the little one on term papers and theses, not the bigger Manual of Style), which says that terms like these that have passed into standard usage should not be capitalized, arguing in favor of what you wrote.

So what do you think? Do you even care? Thanks. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ludwig van Beethoven
Hi Turangalila,
 * (restore to Navbox generic, now with category. **please note that "v-d-e" functionality is broken on the Navigation template.)

Functionality seems fine here (Firefox browser on PC); what problem do you experience...? Curious, David (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)