User talk:Vaux

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 00:40, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Mensural notation
Thank you for your recent edits to Renaissance music. It would be great if we had an article on Mensural notation, because not only this page, but Time signature and Note value touch on it very superficially. If this is an area you know a lot about, it would be a valuable addition. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 23:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:Mensural notation
I'm adding a sort of co-dependant system of links about the beginnings of such notation to the Medieval music page, also. Mensural notation is definitely one of the things I'm going to work on in the near future. Vaux 19:19. 3 Jun, 2005 (EDT)

Petrus de Cruce
Nice job on Petrus de Cruce! He's been on my to-do list for more than a year now. I'm looking forward to your mensural notation article. Was your area of speciality for your M.M. early music? Best, Antandrus (talk)  14:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the further wikification, Antandrus. I didn't actually get around to reading the bio style guide till later on last night. My master's thesis was actually about The Etude, but I've always been involved with early music since my favorite professors were. I've sung a lot of it, and studied it pretty extensively. 16:43, 4 Jun, 2005 (EDT)

Mensural notation article
Hi Vaux

I just came across your article on Mensural notation and some related ones. That's awesome stuff there, congrats! - Nevertheless, I'm thinking about developing that article further. I have the feeling it could do with a bit of restructuring, and possibly abridgments. The structure currently feels rather discursive, not very encyclopedia-like in parts, and some crucial information is hidden quite far down the text in sections where one might not expect it. And of course the whole article is already quite long.

Examples of what I'm thinking of:


 * The whole explanation of how note values are dependent on context (through imperfection/alteration etc.) is only begun in Section 4, "Franconian notation", and continued in 5.1. It might be nice to move it more towards the front, as it's really the heart of the matter of what distinguishes mensural notation from modern notation in the first place.


 * These sections are separated from the ligatures section in the beginning, by several sections dealing with clefs, accidentals, and musica ficta. It might be useful to re-group this so that everything dealing with rhythmic values (the stuff that's really specific to mensural notation) is in one place, and everything that deals with the pitch dimension (clefs, accidentals) etc. is in another.


 * The section on rests might go better with that on "regular notes".


 * Actually, some of the pitch-related elements might even be moved entirely elsewhere, especially the "musica ficta" stuff, which duplicates a separate (though currently shorter) article Musica ficta.

I'm posting this to your talk page because you seem to have been the only substantial author to this page so far. If you're interested in working on this with me a bit, we should probably take it to the article talk page. Let me know what you think. (BTW, my own knowledge of mensural notation is probably a bit rusty - I took my degree in musicology back in 1996, but then went on to do a PhD in a different field, linguistics.) -- Best, Lukas 13:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski


The article Thomas Schmidt-Kowalski has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 06:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Since it looks as though Vaux, or someone, did add references to the article before it was deleted (see this wikipedia ripoff site for proof), I have asked the administrator who deleted it to undo that deletion.  Incidentally:  I wish people wouldn't propose articles for deletion unless they think the article shouldn't exist; that seems to me like it would be a good sanity check, at any rate.  If an editor thinks an article urgently needs to be improved in some way, proposing deletion is clearly not, in itself at least, the correct course of action (even if some policy seems to suggest one can get away with it).  Destruction is usually easier than creation or amelioration, but it's also... more destructive.  The 'shoot first, ask questions later' attitude I've seen expressed by many editors, and even reflected in certain policies, of late, is a bit worrying.  False vacuum (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So, the Schmidt-Kowalski article has been restored as I asked. It now has a tag asserting that it "needs additional citations for verification;" I'm not sure I agree, but I am sure that the deletionists will.  False vacuum (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1432 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Ascending modal ligature 1.png


The file File:Ascending modal ligature 1.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:
 * File:Descending ligature.png

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Modal ascending ligature2.png


The file File:Modal ascending ligature2.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Ligature table for mensural notation article.png


The file File:Ligature table for mensural notation article.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)