User talk:Mscuthbert/archive01

April 2006 to June 2006

Hi Myke, and welcome to Wikipedia!

It is rare, and pleasant, to meet someone else knowledgeable in the area of early music; I just happened to be looking at Recent Changes when I saw your comment on Ciconia go up. Feel free to edit the article, of course; it's something I've been meaning to do for a while but haven't gotten around to doing. I also saw your comment at fauxbourdon and will move the article to the more common single-word designation. Once again welcome to Wikipedia! Antandrus (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome from me as well. Thanks for your comment on Trobairitz' Peer review. I figured for the "edition" (created from the facsimile) I would make it as easy as possible to read for people not experienced with early notations, and then if someone more experienced was interested, like you, they could just look at the facsimile, which is right there. Frankly, for myself the ideal is a cleaned-up version of the manuscript, ligatures and all, but I want it to accessible, so that's my compromise. Thanks very much, Mak (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Thanks for the compliment ... LOL, it might even be true, considering how Google finds all of our pages now. Yes, it's highly likely I'll be there: lots of old friends to see and catch up with. Hey, keep up the good work, and I hope to meet you then! Antandrus (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I'll have a look (though I'm fading fast for tonight) ... actually that page wasn't on my watchlist so I hadn't noticed your rewrite until you pointed it out. Wow, that could potentially be a huge article. It occurs to me-- Wikipedia could be a great source for guiding people to sources: and I notice that, for example, there is no RILM article (or RISM, for that matter). Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And thanks as well for your contributions to music history, musicology, and other music-related topics. I look forward to seeing more of them. Best wishes, MarkBuckles 00:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myke, I had no idea how much my experience as a cataloger had been informing my decisions in Wikipedia until hearing from you. It was while I was disambiguating Boccaccio that I encountered "trecento" and changed it to "Trecento." In the back of my mind was one of the capitalization rules for Italian in the appendix to AACR2: "Capitalize the proper names of centuries: il Cinquecento; il Seicento; but il sedicesimo secolo." A cataloger would follow that practice even if the rest of the title were not in Italian, e.g., Sienese painting of the Trecento.

After receiving your message, though, I consulted the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, and found the following under 8.77: "A numerical designation of a period is lowercased unless it is considered part of a proper name." One of the examples given is "the quattrocento." Rule 8.79 makes exceptions for names of periods capitalized "either by tradition or to avoid ambiguity," but the only examples of numerical designations there are "the Gay Nineties" and "the Roaring Twenties." Finally, I consulted two excellent dictionaries: one Italian-Italian, and one Italian-English. Both indicate that "Trecento" is capitalized in Italian when it refers to the fourteenth century in Italy, but the Italian-English dictionary gives "trecento" as the English equivalent. Knowing that Grove's usage isn't consistent, even in articles by the same person, makes me feel a little better, but it seems hard to deny that trecento, quattrocento, cinquecento, etc., have now been assimilated and should not be capitalized in an English-language context. Even so, to me, "the quattrocento" looks as strange as "a festschrift" (the Wikipedia article on that uses "Festschrift" and "festschrift" in the same sentence!), "weltanschauung," and "zeitgeist," but I guess I have to get used to it.

Perhaps I should revert my changes; there aren't all that many, really. What do you think?

-- Flauto Dolce 00:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I got bored last semester and noticed how scant coverage of medieval music was 'round here. I wrote a bunch of articles then (Montpellier Codex, Bamberg Codex, Play of Daniel, Tournai Mass, Chantilly Codex - I think that's all of them) - but most of my edits are on pop music. Chubbles 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a really obscure term, and I wonder how useful it is. The terminology of Western music theory is SO messed up, ramified and complicated, and variable by country and academic tradition. I think this is nowhere more evident than at Wikipedia. Nevertheless, Wikipedia has the opportunity to shine in this domain. I am pleased with the way Diatonic and chromatic is shaping up, for example, and even as it is now I challenge anyone to find a better source on the Web for sorting out those nuances and pernicious uncertainties in usage. It all takes time, of course. And more than that, it takes expert editors who are tenacious in their research, ready to learn and admit their errors (I've had to!), and also good writers and teachers. The democracy of Wikipedia is a wonderful thing, and an unprecedented experiment. In my experience, this democracy makes life hard for articles like Philosophy (in which everyone likes to assume the role of expert) and Physics (in which the many editors expert in physics typically lack insight into the broad role of physics among the sciences, and even into its foundations and definition). But that democracy may work in music theory. We start from a base of confusion, ill-founded comfortable assumptions, and glib expression. But that needn't deter us! Actually, setting aside all of that democracy, I'm tempted to write a short book on music theory that takes up this task of clarifying systematically. I know there are millions of books in the area, but most show no insight into the complexity of the task that the learner confronts. Like to collaborate? (Perhaps?)

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I could certainly use the bibliographic help, and if your friend could release that photo under GFDL that would be, to use the trendy parlance, "too cool." I could scan it out of the Scherr book and claim PD-art but that seems a little bit borderline. (Do you know offhand if it is visible to a Vatican visitor? i.e. I have a friend in Rome with a digital camera...) I have to fix up the refs to break out the individual authors in the Scherr book. You don't happen to own a copy of the great big book on Josquin by Osthoff, do you? Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing ... the works list was originally pillaged from one of the other Wikipedias, and I've found many problems already. It needs to be gone through for current consensus on misattributions, etc. That stuff seems to change almost day-by-day, and I have a feeling it's not complete. Antandrus (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Per your edit summary on rondeau (music): Self-cites are generally considered fine. See the policies at WP:COI, WP:NOR, & WP:Attribution (pretty much identical). They counsel caution & consultation when in doubt, but where you've published in a peer-reviewed forum (journal articles or even your dissertation), and esp. when the material is factual rather than interpretive, I say go to town. Certainly the music area of WP is nowhere near developed enough at this point for expert editors to be self-censoring. —Turangalila ^talk 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Egardus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 05:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I guess I really better had checked your user page first. I will certainly not cast doubts on your expertise. Having been only aware of examples from the renaissance and baroque eras, I mainly associated the crab canon with the age of polyphony, but I accept that I was wrong in this respect. Yet still, I would prefer a categorisation that would not lead to a false asumption of the crab canon being solely a medieval phenomenon. --FordPrefect42 21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Myke!

Yes ... there's a problem with medieval music being a constant target of vandalism. It's not as severe as Renaissance (the article on which I have more edits than any other on Wikipedia--about 400 I think--almost all vandalism reverts). Let me try semi-protection on MM for a week and see if anyone complains. Have you seen any good edits from anons there?

I have a musicology question for you, since I'm here, and thinking of it, and haven't anyone else to ask (unless I want to bug Dr. Planchart, who I ran into on the stairs of our music library the other day). I've seen several references to Josquin's Missa ad fugam as one of only two completely canonic, freely composed masses of the late 15th century (the other by Marbrianus de Orto, whose biography I just put up a couple days ago). The Scherr Josquin Companion contains at least one of these references (Jennifer Bloxham's article). Question: What about the Ockeghem Missa Prolationum (article needed...) Is it not completely canonic (though they be mensuration/prolation canons) and freely composed (as far as I know, the tune has not been traced to any source). Am I missing something? Are there not really three?

Cheers! Glad you're here. Antandrus (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay with me, but there was quite a lot of discussion on the WP:WPBB talk page about standardizing these roster templates so they all look the same. I'm relatively new to WP and don't know how these types of things are usually handled. I suppose if someone doesn't like it, they can always switch it back. --Sanfranman59 02:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

at the Neil rankin AfD, and I'll keep it handy. (smile)DGG 04:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 05:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael, pleased to make your acquaintance! I was actually just having a chat with Thomas Peattie regarding Wikipedia, and he mentioned that you're working a lot with it, as well as incorporating it into classes. I think that's a great idea, and we're trying similar things at Boston University as well; it's an excellent way to get some reliable and verified content out there for more people to see and use! -- Evan Cortens (Tagith 17:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The addition of defensive end Charrod Taylor to the was mine, not the guy doing the vandalism, and it was accurate.Chris Nelson 05:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment, "Is this how AfD works? If someone doesn't get an outcome they like, the article can be nominated again two weeks later? It seems to me that the most important reason to keep is to ensure that the debate just two weeks ago gets at least some sort of respect."

The two previous AfDs, which I was not involved with, regarded his notability. Somehow, it has been overlooked for years that this article cited NO sources, but only listed the NIST as an external link. Now it's been, supposedly, "significantly rewritten and expanded". All two extra sentences and three references from NIST.

This article should have been deleted years ago. But apparently they had to hold out for one more keep vote. How noble that yours was based off a previous AfD regarding a different issue. Regards, LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Mike, thanks for catching it! MikeGogulski 00:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice tidy up of that page, thanks. peterl 01:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- it was a nice article just to stumble on to one day, but I almost missed the bottom of the page because of the long list. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have written some comments at the talk page to an article which you have previously seen; would you like to add to them somewhat? Nice clarinets by the way; my Grandfather plays that instrument...if non-adeptly :). In my view the article is above that of a Start class; we will need a couple of opinions in addition to mine own to get it there. See what you think; here is the talk page. Thanks. - D-Katana 15:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. Appreciate that. :)

Did you get your JAMS in the mail about a week ago? Had some interesting stuff in it; I banged out a little article on that giant 40/60 voice mass by Striggio. Do you ever have any students looking for a dissertation topic? Here's a good one: the colossal polychoral repertory centered around the Medici court. We're so used to associating that kind of music with the Venetians that I think this is neglected. Striggio wasn't the only one to create a monstrosity for multiple choirs and over 40 voices; some rather obscure names come up, and I wonder if some more of these pieces can be dug up in the archives (that thing was in Paris all along, just mis-filed!!) Anyway, looking forward to more of your contributions this summer! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just got my JAMS today! It's great to get a summary of the best facts about the article and the Mass even before the article arrived here though! Wow. Though I can't say that Spem in Alium is a favorite of mine, so I'm not so sure how this piece will work. The harmony is just too slow for me once pieces have more than eight or so true parts.

Must finish this little WP article on six-four chords! Before getting to the good stuff. Actually, I need to contact you elsewhere about a little matter. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the pages you keep in order can have 2003-Present but others who do can't? What are you a flip-flopper? MetsFan153 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MetsFan153 is insane. He insists on having the current teams on the Former teams list even though he knows it's not correct. He likes to justify it by saying crap like "the 2006 Mets are a former team" even though he's not dumb enough to believe this was how the template was intended. He also says to "leave things as is" when he's been adding this stuff to player pages in the last week. Don't get into it with him, trust me.Chris Nelson 23:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, non-admins are welcome to participate fully at deletion review. It can be somewhat harder (inability to see deleted histories), which is why the link to the Google cache (if any) was added to the nomination template. GRBerry 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's useful to know. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

or you can ask a friendly admin. 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Geez, I'm so busy sometimes I just skip things...sorry! Sr13 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit in Josquin des Prez. If the composer is known as "Josquin" the article should be renamed accordingly. Otherwise I think the Wikipedia guideline should be followed. – Ilse@ 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please under stand the definition of a Metropolitan Area before you revert edits. You may want to look a t these articles to learn more about them:

• Greater Los Angeles Area
• Metropolitan Area
• San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Area
• Agglomeration

A Metropolitan Area is continues development focused around a central area. For example The San Diego-Tijuana Metro. Area is urbanization around the city of San Diego in the US and Tijuana in Mexico. Together creating an Agglomeration around each other. Escondido is like La Mesa or Chula Vista. Though they are separate cities, there is continues development and commuting from Escondido to San Diego is common. See the examples of how orange county and LA are on continues urban area similar to San Diego-Tijuana in the Greater Los Angeles Area article.

Cooljuno411 06:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a metro. statistic to any city article is common and part of the infobox table. If you look at Chula Vista, California or [[Santee, California] they all have the same metro statistic. Maybe you did not understand a metropolitan area, a metro. area is cities surrounding a the major city centre.

Some examples:

-San Francisco Bay Area: Many cities surround San Francisco. San Francisco is a major economic center of the area. Though San Francisco is not the most populous or the largest city in the Bay Area, is the economic city centre of the area and many people commute from cities in the metro area to San Francisco for work and economic purposes.

List of the largest metropolitan areas in the Americas is an article that lists major metro areas in America. Please consider reading to help understand the meaning of a metropolitan area.

I would suggest that the problem is a miss understanding of how the info box is using the term "Metro" see my rely in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southern California Dbiel ^(Talk) 20:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks -- I agree with every word you said, but I agree, best not to bait him."

Yes indeed -- maybe this infobox thing will simmer down on its own... Opus33 15:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for reverting your edit, which was duly noted. If there is some convention of prefering teams or former teams go with it. I have not been following discussions.--TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem going with consensus if it is a teams section instead of former teams. His infobox should be like everyone else's. Feel free to get change it back or I will the next time I get a chance. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You write:[1]

oddperfect.org has nothing that says it is probable that N > 10^500, only that they are looking.

My understanding is that the verification up to 10⁵⁰⁰ is done, and a paper is being written/revised/possibly reviewed for publication. I think in the meantime they're looking to factor roadblocks to a 10⁶⁰⁰ proof.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CRGreathouse -- it's a topic that I'm only a curious observer on; I was planning on adding a history section, since I know a bit on treatises on perfect numbers in antiquity and the Middle Ages (Nicomachus et al.), but I don't really know much about the search today. It just looked like an imprecise wording of a sentence given the information I had at hand. Thanks. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much interested in odd perfect numbers; I wrote an undergraduate paper about them and have followed them ever since. I would love to see your additions on perfect numbers in antiquity, though. Good luck! CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Myke; I've taken the risk of offending you, by adding both a "good article candidate" tag, and a WPBio banner (with B-class assessment), to the talk page of the article on Egardus. The WPBio banner is hidden in the Banners shell, along with a Composers banner. My reasoning for doing this was: as things now stand, opinions to the contrary aside, the likelihood is that the article would be tagged with a WPBio assessment sooner or later (beyond the control of either you or I at this point). So, since the degree of completeness of the article was brought up as an example, it seemed better to give it a correct assessment from the get-go, rather than leave it to possibly be incorrectly assessed later. If this causes you offense, I apologize for having done so, although I'd still believe I've done the best thing, given the circumstances. Cheers, Lini 11:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thanks for thinking of it. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that incorrect edit and thanks for pointing it out. I've added an exception so I won't do it again. Thanks Rjwilmsi 07:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Jogers (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I've reviewed it. Atropos 04:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. I had meant to remove that first one; good call. Atropos 18:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed Tony's request for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Analytical notation for 6/4 chords, but I don't think he bothered notifying the people he listed on it. If you think mediation is a good idea here (I do), you might want to sign it. - Rainwarrior 02:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Analytical notation for 6/4 chords. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

An editor is apparent determined to remove content from this page, and then force a merge of what remains at Digit ratio. He's been reverted at least twice today already by Trials and Errors and by me. Could you keep an eye on it. DGG 15:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input into the proposed naming convention for baseball players (made either here or here... or both). Hopefully, the final tweak has been made to the proposed guidelines. If you get a chance, please review them here and add any comments/suggestions/feedback on the talk page. If there are no major issues, we'll put this thing to a straw poll in a few days, and if successful will then submit for inclusion on WP:NC. Thanks again, Caknuck 04:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming along and saving that one. I looked at and could see that it was just a bad article needing improvement, so I had a go. I could have gone to JSTOR thought my uni account, but I stuck to Google, and I did find some good reviews. I too hate to see articles on academics get deleted. The bar for academics has been put very high by some editors, yet any professional footy player in a good teams's squad can get an article, even if he gets a game only every blue moon. --Bduke 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Actually I probably wouldn't have bothered if you hadn't added enough links to make me think, "whoa, there's probably a lot more here!" I agree about the football players vs. profs., but it does seem to me like over the past six months the AfDs have gotten at least a bit more friendly to professors. But the anti-academic forces on WP do push me away at times (which is probably good, since I should probably be writing journal articles for musicology instead). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]