User talk:Why? I Ask/Archive 2

Nice to meet you
Percy Grainger is an article I also watch, and I like your approach there. Only, per WP:BRD, you should not bring your new version in the article until consensus has formed. You could bring the discussion to project Classical music, because I am afraid that the composer isn't too well watched by others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment! However, I want to make clear that I was not bringing in a new version, but reverting the removal of the categories that had been there for a while. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I see better, thanks for explaining. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Please revert your "trim" and move of the article of works for viola. You can write "your" article with "your" title, but not eradicate the one that we had consensus to keep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Gerda Arendt: There was not a consensus to keep the article in the current state, just that lists of pieces (or repertoires) may be encyclopedic. I sorted through a lot of repertoire that was not encyclopedic, including over a thousand by non-notable composers with less than a thousand search engine hits themselves. Keeping those serves no one. And I don't intend to keep it incredibly small. You're welcome to add more pieces provided that they are well documented as important literature for the instrument. I even started a "Further reading" section starting with a certain user's book. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (you responded, and I missed it) Of course also revert your actions for the other articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * When I vote keep I mean the article in the state it is. I like you adding references, but again: you can do it for "your" article and leave the others alone. Did you know that I thought as you do about Busoni's list, and made a short one? But I made it in addition, not instead, and I urge you to do the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What other articles? I edited some categories, made a few MOS updates, and updated a template. Most of these should be changes you agree with. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I had - just waking up - only seen what you did to letters from A, not the articles for the other letters. Please undo all, and write a top article of an overview. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I started the deletion discussion to delete it: Articles for deletion/List of repertoire pieces by Ferruccio Busoni. Two lists with the same scope make no sense. And it's literally not my article. You know how ownership works on Wikipedia. Why not add entries to the list with citations or even create new articles about viola music? The entries I kept just happen to be the one's with articles as there were no pieces in the list cited (and I haven't gotten around to adding a couple with citations). You're the one shouldering the burden to show me those non-articles pieces should be included within the list. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Gerda Arendt: Just to be clear, I know that you plan to show me your version of the overview and then the full view of the Busoni catalogue. I don't think that's necessary. The issue I have with the viola list is that it's literally thousands upon thousands of non-notable repetoire by non-notable composers that I sometimes can't even verify the piece existed. Busoni has about 300 pieces (all well verified and cited); a far cry from over 10,000 for a very, very popular instrument. The selection criteria guidelines for lists make it clear that such lists should have objective, clear, and verifiable parameters. As I've said before, a list of "every viola piece ever" just doesn't do that as only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. I feel that the criteria I set in the comment were fair: you can add back everything you want if there are clear sources that prove the significance of a piece. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflicts:) English is not my first language, and I feel I don't understand you. Some readers will want a detailed list, and others a short list, and why not serve both? This was not meant as an answer to the last entry which I had not seen, but actually it is my answer. - I am sorry I forgot that we met before, blame my memory. - Please don't ping me to a discussion where I respond, - I need a ping only when I don't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia guidelines have set limits on how comprehensive those lists can be. Sure, you can have a large list for viola repertoire. That wasn't the main reason I nominated it for deletion; I can be persuaded to have repertoire lists (especially after looking at a List of blues standards). However, the sitewide consensus is that the lists need to have some sort of parameter and citations for notability and verifiability. The old list that I just replaced lacked all of that. A list that tries to contain every piece, by every composer, for a very popular instrument is, dare I say, indiscriminate. It includes literally everything; perhaps an upwards of a hundred-thousand entries if we simply focused on that list. That's not encyclopedic. (And, yes, I'll keep your preferences for pinging in mind. Some users like being pinged for these types of discussions.) Why? I Ask (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines are guidelines, not laws. We have IAR, no? I have not seen - in 13 years - a set of articles up for deletion, closed as keep, and then turned to a miniature version and redirects by the nominator. For some reason I can't explain, I resent that more for a different author than "my" Busoni, although I still believe that to have that sortable list, instead of only the monsters (three lists for Busoni, also adaptations and recordings), would be an asset for readers. It was modelled after Reger works, and was planned to become more complete, but didn't live long enough for that to happen. - "Your" new article leaves much to be desired, but my time is limited. My focus is on people who recently died, such as Ruth Lapide. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I love the IAR rule. And I don't plan on keeping it incredibly small, as I said. This is just the start. Like all instruments, there's a decent bit out there for sources on repertoire that can be used to add to the list. However, most of the entries of the 10,000 strong list were pieces that I could not find any sourcing for. I'm sure I can add back all the big name composers and their full viola pieces in time, but trimming down the list was necessary for both navagability and to keep it an actual encyclopedic list. I don't understand why you want it to be exhaustive and contain some tens of thousands of entries by nobody composers. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We are back to my first entry in the AfD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? Why? I Ask (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. I said that I "see no reason to deprive the few readers who cherish this overview from a rich detailed factual source of knowledge", and wasn't understood. I also said that I try to stick to two comments per discussion. Let's end this circle please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright then, hope to collaborate in the future on something we actually agree on. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC
I am not comfortable with making a discussion an RfC. Had it been an RfC, I would have replied somewhat more formally. It's not easy for someone coming in later to detect, which comments were made before it became an RfC. - I am also not sure that your three options are the only options. Several articles we have don't belong in 2 or 3, but in between, for example List of works for piano left-hand and orchestra. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I asked the talk page at RfC if that was acceptable or frowned upon, and I didn't get a negative response. You can always change your response, you know; I only turned it into one at the recommendation of Liz. And it doesn't matter if articles don't fall neatly into a certain option. This is about what option they should fall into. Right now, I'd say the page falls into Option 2 with some lede text and extraneous entries. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

j'accuse!
Per WP:INVOLVED, I think. I think you could have let the discussion run the allotted time, let someone else close it as keep, and still be as happy. Either we have rules here or we don't. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Chris troutman: But do you really feel that continuing the discussion would've have been worthwhile and not a waste of time? Consensus was overwhelmingly "Keep", and your vote was not a very compelling one. (I don't think anyone wants WP:TNT; the page either is or isn't.) (Also, see WP:IAR.) Why? I Ask (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to IAR as it creates perverse incentives. An editor like you who already !voted keep is probably not the one to be closing a discussion early to support that outcome, as it creates the appearance of impropriety. Indeed, I see how the collective cowardice has begun as !voters shift toward what they think is emerging political consensus. As for me, I don't see how a discussion is a "waste of time". If you don't think the outcome is in question, there's no need to expend words on it. Hence my question of why the rush? Did you need those pixels on the AfD page for something else? Perhaps I should question your motives. You could, of course, revert yourself and apologize. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you really want to, revert it again. I don't care. It just seems silly to keep open a discussion that was withdrawn by the nominator and most likely has no chance of being changed. I don't care. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Stevens grip
Hello, Why? I Ask,

I'm not exactly clear what was going on with these page moves you did but you can't just move a page to a different title and not change the content in an article. If the article refers to a term, that term has to agree with the page title or it might as well be moved back to the original title. Please do this carefully, do not just do a "find and replace" word search. And, ideally, before moving this article, you should have brought up the move request on the article talk page. This is what is done for articles that have been a different title for 17 years now. In 17 years, no one thought the title should have been changed so it's not a casual decision to move the page. Please do propose a move first on the article talk page in the future with any page moves of long-standing articles. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I did orginally change the article content (as well as several redirects), but due to an error I made, I had to request a page mover to reset it back to what it was prior and then move it. I haven't had time to go back and change it, and will get to that when I can. But as a whole, nearly all of the literature written on Stevens grip (of which I plan to add with the correct changes) calls it Stevens grip. The original reason for moving the page back nearly two decades ago was that "The inventor prefers the term", but that is not a policy based reason for the title. Per WP:COMMONNAME, it should be "grip" and not "technique". Thank you for your attention to detail, though! Why? I Ask (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Subcontrabass flute
I added some sources to this article, could you see if those sources met the requirements? QiuLiming1 (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @QiuLiming1: Sorry for the late reply, but Dictionary for the Modern Flutist is a great reference book to cite (I use the percussion version often). The Classic FM source is not the best however, clearly lacking in-depth coverage. I plan to add sources later, but can't really do much right now as I am constrained to a phone, away from a computer. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Carolina Crown Drum and Bugle Corps
Thank you for catching my error. I didn't see where it had already been included in the history section. I thought it was decent information to have, but certainly didn't merit its own section as was originally posted. Bgsu98 (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bgsu98: Of course! Thank you for all your efforts into making the corps' show summaries look great! Why? I Ask (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have an idea about how to simplify those tables, but I'm not sure how it will go over. I think I will do The Academy's tomorrow, because they're first alphabetically and there is less to work with, and you can let me know how it looks. I'll let you know. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Modified Format for Drum Corps Tables
Check out what I've done with The Academy Drum and Bugle Corps... My goal was to shorten the length of the tables by eliminating one column, which theoretically allows more space horizontally for the repertoires, which tend to be the lengthiest component of these tables. Please let me know what you think. I did just this one as a sample. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bgsu98: Again, sorry for the late reply (I should be more active now in these upcoming weeks). But I think it looks great! All it does is put the show title on top, and that looks fine in both mobile and desktop for me. Keep up the great work and editing! Why? I Ask (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It also addresses the fact that a lot of these earlier shows didn't have titles, so there are huge blocks of totally empty cells. Bgsu98 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Crossmen Drum and Bugle Corps
I saw where you were able to resuscitate the Crossmen article. I may not be good for very much, but I can properly format a Wikipedia table. 😉 I have formatted the table to match the others, but we still need the repertoires for the last two years. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Boom and done! Thank you for your wonderful formatting! Why? I Ask (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a source for the statement about the Crossmen being disqualified in 1976? I cannot find one, and we cannot include a statement like that without a citation. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Please revert List of Viola Compositions A to B (and other letters of the alphabet) changes that you have made
I have been out of pocket for about a week and a half but am following up on the many concerns raised regarding the changes that you made to this article. Per Ritchie333 talk page, I am reiterating that bold changes have been objected, and could we please revert and discuss. I am not an experienced editor, but if you do not revert yourself, I will follow up with the process to revert myself (asking for assistance as needed.) Dbynog (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)dbynog


 * Sorry, pal, but there's growing consensus at the local WikiProject that none of these lists will even potentially exist in the future. I'm getting ready to make it an official RfC, and you'd be welcome to vote on it. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NCORP for Arizona Music Educators Association
Just a friendly reminder that one ref doesn't meet WP:NCORP nor does WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES, bare notability for associations should have multiple refs that are completely independent, secondary, reliable, and constitute significant coverage. I'm unsure where you could find the refs for Arizona Music Educators Association, but my WP:BEFORE search only found trivial ones, such as 1, 2, 3, 4. If you do have more refs (also pinging, ) that I didn't find (unfortunately), please add them in the article! However, as there has been no active improvement in eight hours, I've converted it back to a redirect. Ping me when you reply, and many thanks for your efforts and work in creating articles and AfC reviewing; if you convert the redirect again without improvement, I'll take it to AfD.  VickKiang  (talk)  21:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with @VickKiang MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @VickKiang: No, I planned to add more sources later tonight, as I was away from my computer. You can check newspapers (this is an historical association), look up information of its constituent parts (e.g., the "Arizona Band and Orchestra Directors Association" that is part of AMEA gets you some sources), and use alternate names and the abbreviation. Really, all of the band associations for each state are independently notable, with their own research journals, history, procedures, and influence on music education. Pretty much every high school and college band and director in the state will be a part of it.
 * This is a page that has been around since 2004. I understand if that one source wouldn't be good enough for AfC or a newly created page, but this should have really been discussed before making it a redirect. A dissertation is just a hold over step for later research. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage. I have done a thorough check. This subject does not meet NCORP. There is no difference between notability standards for an AFC or existing article, a subject is either notable or it is not. Given the lack of sourcing I consider this decision uncontroversial. I also forget if I created this redirect or not - however I do recall redirecting a number of associations directly to the parent organisation during new page patrolling. It is within the scope of new page reviewers to create a redirect when appropriate, and in my judgement this was one of those instances. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, ; it's quick and well said. A search on Newspaper.com found lots of articles, see 1, 2, 3, 4, some though are more routine announcements that might not be SIGCOV. See here, the loads of papers IMHO make the subject potentially notable. Though, we should also note that The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. While Arizona Daily Sun doesn't fall into this, others such as Holbrook Tribune News and The Winslow Mail are probably more local. Secondly, I disagree with that all of the band associations for each state are independently notable), as well as This is a page that has been around since 2004 as an argument. Dozens of pages AfDed have been around since 2004/2005, and ended in delete/merge/redirect. Though, notability might be borderline now.  VickKiang  (talk)  22:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @VickKiang: I don't think the page's age is a reason to necessarily keep it, just that to redirect it without prior discussion as a long-standing page is premature. (Especially without first requesting on the talk page for sources). I also don't understand why @MaxnaCarta doesn't believe a full doctoral dissertation is not a significant or reliable source. At the very least, it shows that its been seen worthy of research and should at least put a hold on "clearly not notable".
 * While I haven't finished collecting sources, there are continuous mentions of AMEA in research papers (usually as criteria for selecting what music educators to study), such as this one or this . Furthermore. there are about 500 mentions in the state's largest newspaper, The Arizona Republic, but I have not had time to sort through for what could be useful. It is a controversial redirect.
 * I do want to mention that the name of the organization has changed a bit (the drop of "Arizona 'State'..." and the change from "Educators" to "Education"), so keeping that in mind can help make sure no sources or missed. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS. Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. Therefore, if it's a primary source, we could doubt if it contributes to WP:NCORP, which requires secondary ones. The Proquest PDF you linked is also a single-sentence mention. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  22:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @VickKiang: It's been peer reviewed and most of it is pretty clearly secondary coverage. (I honestly think that portion of RS needs to be amended; different subjects may be often either primary or secondary. It's pretty much impossible for a history dissertation, as opposed to a chemical science dissertation, to be primary.) Why? I Ask (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As it has consensus, amending it would be a difficult job, but that shows that it's debatable if the dissertation you provided would be undoubtedly meeting WP:NCORP. Further, WP:RS on dissertations state Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Could you provide evidence for the latter, rather than assertions of secondary? Many thanks for your time!  VickKiang  (talk)  23:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @VickKiang: Can you not just view the committee that approved it or see the citation count on ProQuest? Really, newspapers are often primary sources, too. Doesn't mean that they all are. This paper clearly fits WP:SECONDARY. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed I can, and here's a FYI- it was cited just 3 times. I'd be hard pressed to see that 3 citations would constitute cited in the literature, could you elaborate?  VickKiang  (talk)  23:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @VickKiang: Notice the use of "or..."? It obviously meets the supervised requirement per WP:RS and is secondary. I also don't see a requirement for how much something needs to be cited, especially in a niche (but not unencyclopedic) field. It has been cited in literature about the history of music education organizations by other scholars. (Also, in all fairness, the ProQuest adds two citations to that for five.) Why? I Ask (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's clear that we differ in what should be interpreted as supervised by recognized specialists, so I'll abstain from this discussion, and you don't have to reply to this comment. However, here's another FYI- all of the citations are from dissertations, 1, 2. This makes It has been cited in literature about the history of music education organizations by other scholars false, as other dissertations should too be judged on a case to case basis. I don't see why these dissertations should be automatically judged as secondary and peer-reviewed because they're simply on Proquest and pertains historical topics.  VickKiang   (talk)  00:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @VickKiang: Out of curiosity, what do you consider "supervised by recognized specialists". I'm sure the professors at an R1 university meet that criteria. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * However, WP:RS points out that the theses are subject to a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor. Supervised by recognized specialists in the field IMHO denotes a detailed peer-review process, but as I couldn't access the full PDF I'm uncertain about it here. Additionally, even if we assume this source counts as one for WP:NCORP more is still required. However, I've already stated I'll abstain from the discussion, so please refrain from pinging me again.  VickKiang  (talk)  01:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Concerning an article you accepted
Hello, Kindly read as well.  Gabriel  (talk to me )  21:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Gabriel601: I edited it a decent deal to provide better sources and remove some puffery after moving it to the main space. I don't think it really matters if it was created by someone paid as long as the sourcing proves notability and the article is neutral. (I also highly doubt that Afí-afeti is a paid editor to begin with.) Why? I Ask (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay.-- Gabriel  (talk to me )  00:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello
I have been noticing your efforts on musical-instrument articles with interest. I too have been working at improving these. I tend to write more than trim, which is one thing that prompted me to reach out. The Template:Musical instruments sidebar used to have international flavor, but now looks like a western-instruments-only club. Would you mind sharing your vision, because I find that change disturbing. I don't necessarily object, as it has been hard to find anyone to work with on the Wikiproject Musical Instruments. There needs to be effort to improve these across the board. Best wishes, Jacqke (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jacqke (Let me know if you do not want to be pinged!): Yes, that was a fairly bold edit, and I had originally drafted something for the talk page about it, but decided to just go ahead and see if anyone objected. My thought was that the string instrument section had a lot of atypical listings, to begin with (e.g., listing multiple types of guitars, both electric and acoustic cello, etc.). So I tried to condense it (e.g., most bowed Chinese string instruments are part of the Huqin family which is listed). Avoiding systemic bias is of utmost importance of course, but an overview of Wikipedia musical articles does not require such specificity to include instruments such as the Kenyan Nyatiti or the Italian Lirone. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your bold move is a good one, but perhaps too much. I am considering its effect on the page String instrument. The box, placed on that page gave access to a comprehensive list with worldwide orientation that was easily accessed for those not wishing to wade through category links. The list, however, was daunting because it lacked basic organization. I'm not sure what would be most useful, perhaps by geographic region? You've made a first step. Maybe we can consider a way to move to subpages of string instruments? Jacqke (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe create a new sidebar template consisting of just strings that goes into more detail? I'm not too certain. Too many sidebars would also look cluttered. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Colts Drum and Bugle Corps
I see someone has resuscitated the Colts’ page… I will try to fix the table this weekend to match the others. Bgsu98  (Talk)  12:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:Drum Corps International Open Class Champions
seems like a similar situation as DCI WCC? Frietjes (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I forgot about that one; thank you for bringing it to my attention. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Why? I Ask!


Happy New Year! '''Why? I Ask''', Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)