Talk:B-flat minor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Image links

30-May-2007: In 2006/2007, Wikipedia images required both attributes "thumb|250px" to show a caption, as in:

[[Image:MyPhoto.jpg|thumb|250px|right| My picture.]]

By itself, size "250px" ignores the caption "My picture" (confusing many people), which is considered bad form in computer languages (should warn & be corrected rather than ignore). Just remember to include "thumb" (or "frame") for a caption in an image-link.

Image hints in 2007:

  • Limit most images to "thumb|300px" to avoid crowded text-wrapping.
  • A small image followed directly by a big image often chops text.
  • To resize larger than the original ("oversizing"), omit "thumb" (oversized images cannot have captions in 2007, yet).
  • Beware "left|thumb" (for "right|"), because left-side images appear immediately to left of the text.
  • Most images (99.99%) should be quick JPEG for rapid display.
  • Avoid resizing PNG images (2007): might become 10x larger resized.

Overall, omitting "thumb" is the most common problem.

There are many formatting issues in the Wiki software (used worldwide), with a long list of problems to fix, but in the software world, errors often persist, only to be upstaged by a totally radical new software version, rather than just fixing the irritating problems fast. Note that numerous software systems (not just Wiki) have frustrating issues for years. -Wikid77 16:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other issues

[ Discuss other unnamed issues here. -Wikid77 ]

I still don't want you taking songs away!

[edit] Well-known music in this key

I plan on deleting any unsourced entries from this in a few weeks. (Listening to a piece and trying to figure out the key is not a source, and is also WP:OR.) Torc2 (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This can be difficult because many times when you buy sheet music, they've transposed it to an key that is easier to play on the piano. Any recommendations on source ideas? Kingturtle (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's going to be more difficult than that. Per Wiki rules, even buying accurate sheet music and interpreting a key based on that is WP:OR. Somebody's going to have to find a reliable source that has done the harmonic analysis and published what the key is in. I think your best bet is to move all the "Music in this key" lists into one article and hope it survives an AfD. What key the song is in is better left to the individual song articles anyway. Torc2 (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferencedsection

That was dated January 2008. Surely, February 3, 2008 is much to early to remove them. Kingturtle (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Three weeks with zero progress is enough time to remove the information from the article. The list is in the history; if people want to readd it with citations, they can. Torc2 (talk) 01:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The list should at least be here in the talk page. Kingturtle (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It's in the edit history, and there's really no reason to spam up the talk page. Your best bet is to link to the diffs. Torc2 (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussing content of an article is not spam. Kingturtle (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Then substitute the word "clutter". Either way, including a big chunk of unsourced information in a Talk page probably isn't the best way to solve the problem. It might be more appropriate to drag the lists into your user space and work on it there. Torc2 (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Future editors of B-flat minor are not likely to peruse my user space, nor are they likely to go hunting in the article's history. But they are likely to read the talk page. Kingturtle (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Include a link here to where the list is. There just isn't any reason to turn the talk page into the place to leave unreferenced material that is unsuitable for the article itself. Torc2 (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a very good reason: It is a main purpose *of* talk pages. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states clearly: "The talk page can be used to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found. New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article." That is the case here. Kingturtle (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Putting it in your userspace and linking to it here is the best way to do exactly that. The guideline also says: "Keep the layout clear: Keep the talk page attractively and clearly laid out. Avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Talk pages with a good signal-to-noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation." Keeping a huge, unsourced list of songs isn't the best way to do that. Torc2 (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We can put the list of unreferenced information here clearly, in just one thread, and written well. Providing this list here may attract new participants. And remember, the talk page is a great place "to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found. New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article."
Of course the other thing we could do is put the list back into the article. The {{Unreferencedsection|date=January 2008}} was there for less than a month. By removing the tag you are also removing the article from [[Category:Articles needing additional references from January 2008]] - that prevents the editors of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check from seeing it. We really should consider giving those editors a chance to find these references. Kingturtle (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We gave them nearly a month on more than 30 articles to make changes. Not a single one was made - zero, out of a few hundred opportunities. That doesn't say they're working slowly, it says they're not working at all.
Even if sourced, the inclusion of this information is questionable at best. Noting that some pop song is in B-flat minor adds absolutely nothing to a reader's understanding of B-flat minor any more than a list of movies shot in 16:9 adds to an understanding of 16:9, or a list of programs written in C adds to a user's understanding of the C programming languag. Your best bet is to assemble all the songs into a single article called List of well-known songs by key and work on the sources there, and hope that the article survives an AfD. Torc2 (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Pop songs in B-flat minor can give the reader or researcher valuable insight, and can be used as a launching pad, just as learning about orchestrated pieces.
By the way, is there a double standard here? Don't we need a reference for Eine Alpensinfonie and for Adagio for Strings? No where in Adagio for Strings does it say B-flat minor. Kingturtle (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No, that a pop song or classical work is in B-flat offers zero insight into the key of B-flat itself, unless there is something unique or revolutionary about the way it used key. How would you assert it does? A launching pad for what? The fact B-flat is used might provide insight into the song, which is why such information would belong in the song article, not here. Why assume a double standard? You don't think it's possible that in editing 30 articles I might have just missed something? These articles have a long, long way to go to get them up to any kind of encyclopedic standards, and there are a ton of them. Torc2 (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Someone could gain insight into the use of B-Flat minor by finding out what pieces were written in that key. One with DJ and mixing talents might be able to use the information for a project. Kingturtle (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on lists of pieces

}} Most of my arguments against this are above. Possible solutions are:

  1. Allow lists if they are sourced.
  2. Allow lists only if they are sourced and provide insight why use of the key in the piece is notable.
  3. Create a central article of List of musical works by key, as we do with List of musical works in unusual time signatures.
  4. Disallow lists here and mention the key used on the individual articles for the works.

I prefer #4. Torc2 (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer #1, with a hint of #2. The list that was on the article was useful. I've been working to re-add items on the list as long as I can find a reference. Kingturtle (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer #2. Sources can easily be found without at all encouraging listers to provide any insight. In these articles on the various keys, we don't want the list to outweigh the paragraphs, nor do we want the criteria to be taste (e.g., Smith's Symphony in B-flat is much better than Johnson's). Anton Mravcek (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer #2, as well, for the same reason mentioned by Anton Mravcek. --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 01:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's not too late to comment: I'd much prefer #2, but given the way people are, #4 might be more practical. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
RFC comment: Go with 1. If sourced, it stays. I would even consider sheet music a source since it can be cited as far as I know. - LA @ 07:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Sheet music, especially for pop songs, might not be accurate. A lot of songs are transposed for playability: I have two versions of "Linus and Lucy" at home that are both published and in different keys. Also, sheet music still requires analysis and interpretation in order to determine a key, so it's still in violation of WP:OR. —Torc. (Talk.) 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer option #2, but I disagree with the need for 'sourced'. The purpose of the list is not to 'prove' the work is in a particular key - that is a job for the article within WP to which the list entry must be linked. If something in the list is incorrect or not 'notable' enough, it will be corrected in time (the fundamental basis of WP). In summary then: 'linked', not 'sourced'. I would also support option #3.  HWV 258  23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The source stating the key will still need to be cited in this article. Wikipedia generally cannot cite another Wikipedia article for a reference. —Torc. (Talk.) 23:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
In this context, what do you mean by 'generally'? In addition, you have not addressed the issues I raised. The more I think about it, the more it is obvious that it is incorrect to quote sources in lists of music such as these. Once again: the list is for example and redirection (not proof). However, I'm happy for experts to edit a list based on what is correct or notable (e.g. nobody wants thousands of works in C-major).
Are you saying that Beethoven's Piano sonata No. 24 is not in F-sharp major just because there is no citation? This is an example of something you recently (summarily) deleted without discussion. That link could encourage people to investigate a work to discover more about it and how it uses the key of F-sharp minor. You have made it harder for people to have that experience.
As another example, have a look at the list of compositions by Antonio Salieri. To take a completely random example, his Fugue in C major for two instruments has somehow miraculously remained in the list on that page, and yet there is no citation to 'prove' its form being a "fugue", its key being "C major" or indeed there being "two instruments" in the work. When will you be deleting it?  HWV 258  02:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
By "generally" I mean, "there are exceptions, but this isn't one of them". If you are adding a piece of music of an example of a key, you have to provide a citation that it is actually in that key. Otherwise, an editor could add something like "Go Your Own Way" to List of musical works in unusual time signatures and then shrug and argue there is no evidence required to support the assertion. List of musical works in unusual time signatures used to be the cesspit of unverified information that the key articles were, then the regulars there cracked down hard on the list. Now every entry includes a citation proving its eligibility on the list. The article is much better, because it isn't a repository for people to link to their favorite "weird sounding" song. Our task is exponentially harder, because we can't just look at sheet music and see 5/4 printed to justify inclusion. Unlike determining the meter, determining the key actually takes harmonic analysis, which is off limits per WP:OR.
Are you saying that Beethoven's Piano sonata No. 24 is not in F-sharp major just because there is no citation? I'm saying what you or I think or believe is true about the piece is irrelevant; we either prove it, or we omit it. That's the requirement per WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Where you're getting the idea that items on a list do not have to meet WP:V? Adding an item to a list defined by specific criteria is an assertion of a fact about that item; that assertion can be challenged, and is held to the same standards as any other fact. Including the pieces on a list or including them in running text results in essentially the same content; there's no way facts can escape WP:V simply through formatting choices.
For that matter, this is not something I deleted without discussion: I tagged every single one of these lists over a month ago, and left a message in every talk page that the sources would be required, and gave editors four weeks to provide them. None were added.
The Scalari argument is faulty. The inclusion of "Fugue in C major for two instruments" makes no claims about the work itself other than that it exists and is known as "Fugue in C major for two instruments". If you disagree with either of those assertions, please, feel free to challenge it using the {{fact}} tag or some other appropriate tag. But, to bring this to a somewhat circular resolution, that "generally" exception I mentioned earlier does apply to the relation between Topic X and List of Topic X (or List of Compositions by Topic X articles; such list articles are often viewed as subarticles or part of the parent article that exists on another page due to size or style considerations. That is one of the limited circumstances where sources on the parent article can be referenced on the subarticle; even then, it doesn't hurt to copy references to the list page (and some editors still insist that is required). Such a relationship is not accepted otherwise.
Aside from all that, what does Piano sonata No. 24 really tell us about F♯ major? How is that piece any different than the tens or hundreds of thousands of other works in that key, or other works in other keys? You said you didn't want a list of thousands of works in C major, but you've offered no criteria whatsoever for what the threshold should be, or what would stop thousands of works from being added to the list? Creating a list of pieces (in equal temperament) that are in F♯ major to the article on F♯ major is like adding a list of paintings that use blue to the article blue. —Torc. (Talk.) 10:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)