Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:12, 22 July 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Redheylin has not edited Misplaced Pages since June 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Reliable sources

Hi, this discussion may be of interest to you: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Scholarly_sources_vs._news_sources; do participate if you feel like it. Jayen466 13:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Somali clan

Just a reminder that if you do things like this it's important to clean up by checking the "what links here" tab and fix the double redirects, here, here and here. I also moved the page over to preserve the editing history. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Which discussion page? If you move an article and the target does not exist (or does but has had no edits) then the talk page should go with it. However, if the target has had edits such as Talk:Demographics of Somalia then the talk page won't go with the move, see Talk:Somali clan, which really should be a redirect now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, if the target page has had more than one edit made to it then it needs an administrator to delete it first, then the page can be moved, see here. Next the deleted parts are restored and the page is put back in the correct version, see here. Now if you look at the history all the editors of Somali clan and Demographics of Somalia are listed in one place. I was referring to Help:Merging and moving pages#How to rename a page. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No for the redirects that you are doing the history is OK where it is. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it but I really think the "Somali clan" article should have been merged and redirected to "Somali people." I'm basing my reasoning thusly: (Somali clan = Somali people) but (People in Somalia != Somali people). If you want to weigh in on another discussion (and I understand if you don't) I've left comments at Talk:Demographics of Somalia#Article merge. I'll also leave a note for CBW. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Rating of Kaula article

Hi Redheylin. I saw your in depth edits of article Kaula and I was wandering if it is ready for a rating reevaluation. If not, what can be done to raise its level? I am the author of the original form of this article, when it was 44K long. Visarga (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, and sorry you had not approved the edits before. The article will be further improved by use of scholarly sources, especially historical and with "all India" approach. A while ago I received the following - you might contact Vritti. Please leave any detailed comments on the Kaula talk page. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed your nice work on the Kaula article. Thanks for steering it away from the Kashmir Shaivism perspective, which is actually a different thing and different word. Good work. -Vritti (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

My signature

I was just looking back through my talk page and noticed "By the way = no thanks, I just put one out." I think you are the first person who ever got the meaning of my signature. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Steven Toushin Edits

Hi Redheylin! Thank you for picking up the Steven Toushin article in the midst of a COI debate. I appreciate the work that you did to make it more balanced. However, I am concerned that the current version makes no mention of the Miller Test, which was the applicable law that governed Toushin's predicament. Toushin is a notable figure in large part because the U.S. Government was unable to convict him for obscenity despite the fact that his movies were extremely disturbing. It seems that his attorneys convinced the jury that extreme violence is not punishable under Miller. As the wiki article now stands, there is no mention of the Miller test. Can you take a look at the article? You did a good job balancing out the article, but there needs to be more discussion of Miller to understand the defense and its social relevance. Thank you! De Bergerac (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD process

I notice that you're trying to nominate categories for deletion. However, the procedure you're using is not correct. Please study the directions at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion before attempting any more nominations.

In the case of categories that have no pages in them, there's a simpler process, called speedy deletion that can be used. Empty categories qualify for speedy deletion under criterion C1.

If you have questions about any of this, please contact me via my talk page. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Tamburica

First of all, sorry for my late answer.

I deleted the Bulgarian section in Tamburica article because it's not a Central (or Eastern) European tambura (tamburica) it's a South European tamboura as I know. And your map is correct but you cut off some territory on North.

I would suggest you may create a new article for the Bulgarian tamboura.

Outesticide (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How can we better categorize these dance music genre articles?

I've read the above and am still trying to suss out your music genre hierarchy strategy, but I'm getting a little tangled up in it because I'm not seeing the big picture. Rather than get into the philosophical details, though I really just want to get your input regarding how to categorize a certain few articles which are about genres which don't really fit neatly into the hierarchy.

• Balearic Beat was, in the early '90s, a specific genre of downtempo electronic dance music, under which a number of artists, labels and recordings will fall. But earlier & overlapping that period, Balearic Beat was a style of DJing emphasizing the selection of mostly downtempo/midtempo dance music from different genres -- electronic, rock, jazz, funk -- in order to create & maintain a certain tropical, laid-back vibe. There are DJs, compilations & labels devoted to this eclectic selection and its continuation under the umbrella of Ibiza/Balearic-themed "chillout" music.

• Afro and Cosmic (Cosmic Disco) are a pair of somewhat intertwined styles of DJing emphasizing both the selection and technical combination of different styles of rhythmic music drawn from different genres -- electronic, rock, jazz, funk, reggae/dub, disco, classical -- in order to produce a midtempo mix of psychedelic dance music, even when the source material isn't dance music, per se. There is sonic overlap, and the terms Afro and Cosmic get conflated (and even joined) quite a bit, hence the presence of an "Afro/Cosmic music" article and a possibly-to-be-merged "Cosmic disco" article.

Is there a generic dance music category we can put these under?

Additionally, there's the questionable, maybe deletable articles

• post-disco
• alternative dance
• dance-pop

and maybe a few others, all of which I believe have all been created based on the taxonomy at allmusic.com. As far as I know, allmusic's strategy is to produce a simple, flat tree of genres, and their contributors have no qualms about inventing genres just to bridge gaps or make it possible to tag every artist with a single genre.

"Post-disco" is a good example. It's a half-hearted attempt by one editor (who is now no longer credited on their site) to declare three genres of dance music that were popular between the fuzzy end of disco and the fuzzy beginning of house to comprise a genre, themselves. I recently made significant edits to the post-disco article on Misplaced Pages to expose what a contrivance it is, but I'm hesitant to nominate it for deletion, because it actually encompasses a legitimate (well, verifiable) genre called "boogie", which is 1979-1984 R&B containing elements of funk, disco, electro, and pop, without being overtly any of those. I'm thinking it would be better to just rename the post-disco article to Boogie-something after better content is added (probably by me).

Notwithstanding the credibility of those allmusic "genres", I'm not sure how to categorize the Misplaced Pages articles about them. Right now you've got post-disco under disco, which sort of makes sense in that it's a genre defined in relation to disco, but it's a bit like filing Postmodernism under Modernism... the idea is that it's not disco, but rather a reaction against and evolution beyond. And alternative dance is filed under the dance-pop category, as is, well, dance-pop... but shouldn't they be under dance music somehow? —mjb (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thankyou

I don't have too much information to offer regarding Chinese history and culture, but I'd be happy to help on any China-related article that may need some fixing up. GraYoshi2x► 17:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I found the text a bit lacking at first, but now on inspection of the sources it doesn't seems too bad. I'll remove the tag. A quick search on the so-called "Further reading" also doesn't seem to turn up anything. Eh, I'll probably just remove that too. GraYoshi2x► 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your 3O on St Mary's College, Crosby

Thanks very much for your thoughtful feedback on this situation. You raised a point about unsupported claims on the talk page about possibly living teachers, FYI I decided to redact the names so they are just "A", "B", "C" and "D" now. I've written to two still-active editors whose comments I've changed—the other comments were by accounts (mostly IP users) who haven't edited wikipedia for over a year, so it's probably best to let sleeping dogs lie in their cases. - Pointillist (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Astral projection

You have done a fine job of improving the lead of astral projection. I'm sorry that we could not have worked in a less confrontational manner with one another. I have, however, recently retired from the project. I wish you the best, and no hard feelings. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Parzival

Red, please don't take this very minor disagreement to heart. Note that I did not revert your edits, I only removed that one clause about Parsifal. Notable, sure, but it hardly needs to go in the introductory sentence, does it? I have added to the intro and the influence section so that Parsifal is mentioned up front, and placed a hat note lest readers confuse the two works. Please don't think I'm out to own this (or any) article; it needs a lot of work and any improvements are wanted and desired. Cheers and happy editing.--Cúchullain /c 20:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Then Play On

I appreciate your point, but it would be extremely time-consuming to notify everyone who added unsourced material to an article that "citation needed" tags were added. I advise keeping articles you are interested in on your watch list. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The source is ok, and will do until a better one can be found. I'm sure you understand that uncredited performances on recorded music have to be carefully sourced. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually now that I think of it, I believe that Peter's girlfriend, Sandra Elsdon, played the recorder parts. I'll try to find a reference. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, understood. I do the same sometimes. I too noticed that the refs you just added are the only ones on that page, and your involvement in that article also revealed some other slightly dubious statements that I will endeavour to address at some point. I have so many articles on my watch list that some articles go a bit wild without my noticing, and that is one of them. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right - online stuff is pretty thin. Green's biography is a decent source, otherwise interviews in magazines etc are good sources, particularly Guitar Magazine-type publications. The other stuff that needs sourcing is some of the blurb about the various different pressings of the album. It is WP:OR (I remember when the editor wrote it) and could do with cleaning up. Also the other uncredited contributions - Spencer, McVie and Horton. Spencer's piano is a fact, but needs a source. McVie's piano is less certain, and I've no idea about Horton. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"Tomorrow Never Knows" and other edits

I watch edits to Beatle-related articles and I think your recent edits are (mostly) great. I have seen a couple cases, however, where I think you have introduced material into statements with existing citations where the new material is not supported by the source. For example, you added "creating the effect known as 'chorus'" in "Tomorrow Never Knows" as part of a statement attributed to Spitz, The Beatles, page 603. I think that part ought to be sourced. Please be careful with this. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I applaud Cirt's work on this article, which is now far better than before - thank you very much. This comment about my work on the article Alford plea is most appreciated. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Musical terminology

Hi. I've reverted a couple of your edits which I have found difficult to understand. I guess you are trying to depopulate this category. Can you tell me why? Have you discuss this with any of the projects? I'm on some of the CM related ones but I haven't seen anything. Anyway I'd appreciated it if you can explain the reasoning. Thanks and regards. --Kleinzach 14:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Re "Please note that your reverts have removed genuinely useful categories." Can you clarify whether you have discussed this with any projects? This is important. Many editors will not notice these rapid Hotcat edits until sometime after they have been made. --Kleinzach 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have posted to various category lists over the past year but seldom got any response, unfortunately. Nevertheless, I feel able to determine, for example, that melodrama is a theatrical genre and maestro is an Italian loanword. Please note, particularly, that a large number of edits are made according to standing wiki principles, such as the non-use of nested categories so that, where "Opera terminology", for instance, is a category that is a member of "Musical terminology", a given page ordinarily ought not be a member of both. I'd draw your attention to the lists of Italian terms, etc, included in the category and recommend that important terms be checked for a bluelinked presence there: please also add any article that sets out to explain a significant amount of music terminology. The picture's very patchy in this respect; there certainly ought to be a "Jazz terminology" page. But I have been at this for a year and it may easily take another year. I am used to a reversion every 500 edits or so, but there's so much to do, others can fight over the small change. I have to say that, when they do, I think "Musical terminology" will end up as a category of articles on....uh..... Redheylin (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an important category so I have raised the matter here. --Kleinzach 00:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy festivities

Happy Yuletide to you Redhaylin,

All the best to you and yours in 2010.

P.S. I am going to get you a talkpage archiver for the new year. Off2riorob (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Move requests

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Category:Catholic Liturgical Rites. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Musicnotes.com

Hello Redheylin, I hope 2010 finds you well. Would you have time to help me out with a music-related query? It's at RSN, Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Musicnotes.com. Best, --JN466 23:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input. (By the way, if you ever want to get into doing GA reviews, WP:GAN#Music has a large backlog currently. There are also several music articles at WP:FAC that need more reviews before the delegates can decide whether to promote or not.) --JN466 09:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Civility

I hope you know that I take great pains to never, ever be uncivil towards any editors on the encyclopedia--- my comments about "morons" etc were directed at literature sources, not at any editors. WP:Civility is to protect editors from hostility, not to protect literature from informed judgement.Likebox (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason I replied here as well, a discourse on policy is a little off topic. You are not right about civility--- if I say "This source is junk! Its written by incompetent morons who don't know the field!" There is no incivility. The only way it can be construed as uncivil is if the author is editing, which would be an even worse violation: a Conflict of Interest.

In saying this from your own judgment you are relying on OR: you need a source that says so, or you need to refer to RS discussion if you want removal to be accepted. Unilaterally to revert on these grounds is a disruptive and incivil action that invalidates your calls for other editors to seek your own agreement. Edit war results. This leads to blocks, it is not a question of the rights or wrongs of the substance of the argument. Redheylin (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying this from my own judgement to other editors in edit summaries and on the talk page. This is not a policy violation--- it is good sense. This is how content disputes are resolved: you talk about the sources honestly (there's no need for sources about the sources), you determine their reliability and you figure out what should be in the article.

To make removal accepted, you argue until convergence. Only if there is no convergence do you need to appeal to bureaucratic rules. If you are honest, and do not misrepresent the literature, usually there is no need for haggling over policy. Certainly there was no need in this case.Likebox (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Orgone

Hey, Red - I kinda liked SA's new picture. very much on point. why did you remove it? --Ludwigs2 02:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edit to Category:Canadian styles of music

Redheylin, I reverted edit 284816122 done by yourself on 15:14, 19 April 2009. Your edit removed Category:Musical genres by region and added Category:American styles of music to Category:Canadian styles of music? What were you trying to do? Maybe I can help. In fact, the Category:American music is lacking some cat's. Reply here. I like to keep discussions in one place. Thanks Argolin (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Following wiki policy of categorising as accurately as possible, to move "Canadian styles" to its proper place, alongside "USA styles", "Mexican styles" and so forth into the continent-wide folder "American styles", as every other country ought to be shelved under its continent. This seems obvious - what is not so obvious is your reason for reversion. A "by region" folder should only contain a set of regional categories. Redheylin (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I sort of, kind of, thought that was your intent: that's why I'm asking. Your edit was not clear. When I looked at Category:Musical genres by region which you removed, I saw For more information on regional music see Category:Music by nationality. I know that Category:Canadian music is already linked up to this nationality cat. I'm aware of a North American category out there. The "top level" Category:Canadian music is linked to it. Is there not a "North American styles"? The "American styles" is "obvious" as you point out a U.S.A category not a continent-wide folder.

I did not mean any offence by my revert. I came across your edit right in the middle of setting up Category:Canadian rock music. I was flabbergasted that we (in the Canadian music group sense) did not have one. There was quite a lot of work that I had to do in setting it up. Again, your edit didn't seem correct after looking in to it (above). Regards, Argolin (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a few USA editors act as though America = USA. Perhaps a few act like USA is the whole world! If you find that is the case, that is what needs to be fixed. Not that you leave the thing like that, wrong, and put Canada isolated in some no-man's-land just to make it clear that "Canada is not USA"! I have made a few new "USA" categories in order to fix this problem - if you find some more are needed, please make them or call me for help. Please do not put your energy into reinforcing and formalising thoughtless categorising by geographically-challenged USA eds. But please note that "Canadian styles" should not include, say, "Tango in Canada", since this is still not a Canadian style as such. Redheylin (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• You seem to be going off topic. My points:

1. My revert of your edit 284816122 done on 15:14, 19 April 2009 was correct to do (see number 4 below). I am giving you the courteousy of telling you about it so that your other edits involved may also be corrected.
2. I don't know enough about such upper level categories. A category something like Category:North American genres of music as a aub category of Category:Musical genres by region would seem resonable to me. You should ask at the Portal:Music.
3. You moved many other national styles of music categories to Category:American styles of music. They have to be investigated and either reverted or moved to a new cat (as above).
4. Category:American styles of music is linked to article Music of the United States. I am a member of Portal:Music of Canada not of any other. The members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Canadian music decide what what is best for Canadian articles and categories. If you want to change Canadian cats maybe you should join the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Canadian music and talk about it first.
5. You quote wikipedia policy and refer to categories but don't provide links to anything?

Thank you. Argolin (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:American styles of music is linked to article Music of the United States. Yes, that's what I mean: there's what does not make sense. To say Canada is in the continent of America does make sense - it does not need a vote. I can quite see why you feel the situation needs sorting out and I'd be happy to help, but I do not think we need to discuss whether Canada is part of America, but rather why someone else has assumed that America = USA. I have made a few such changes but not all, as you have discovered. In fact, I just looked at the cat page and found that "American music" is a member of "North American music"! This is crazy, obviously it really does need sorting out. Redheylin (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done I'll post something to Portal:Music. Conversation finished.

This Category:American music has to be moved to Category:Music of the Americas....I will leave it to one of you..if not i will do this soon..I have gotten a few complaints about how this cat is set up and named... You two ok with Category:Music of the Americas? or is there a better title!....Moxy (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't think I can; don't know enough. Until now, I have been dealing with items under Category:Canadian music only linking to other "international" cats as needed. Bottom line: no, not me sorry. Argolin (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that distinction has been used and I don't object but an application must be made to change a category name. As things stand, anyhow, "American" is the only valid adjective meaning "of the Americas" and has to be used as the top level continental cat at present but may perhaps cause problems, inconsistencies, permanent surveillance etc. Will support your application if you make it and let me know. Thanks for input. Redheylin (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

what? "American is the only valid adjective meaning "of the Americas" ..That is completely wrong. American means the people of the United states..I think you mean to say America pls see American and Americas...anyways i will ask to get it moved soon ...i have to talk about it to a few others first see if that naming is ok before i submit it... We will use the normal term like Category:History of the Americas and Category:Archaeology of the Americas etc.....Moxy (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wiktionary for "America" gave "of the Americas" first and "of the USA" second - the entry for "AmericaN" gives the reverse. Hence the confusion, which neither of us has made. Both can be taken to mean both. However, "American" remains the only adjective of "the Americas" and is used in music as such, as in "Latin-American", which obviously is not "of the USA". But I see the confusion so, as I said, I'll support the change of name if you submit it, particularly if you say that's what has been generally done elsewhere. It's odd nobody has asked for "the Australias"! Redheylin (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

yep i guess your right - not all see the same meaning,, kind of like Indians vs Native vs First Nations vs Indigenous or Aboriginals...all the same meaning somewhat, but people have great reservations on what should be used for who.. Moxy (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that. "people have great reservations" - what, the Indians/Native/First Nation/Indigenous/ Aboriginals? But yes. Redheylin (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of MTR Professional Audio

A tag has been placed on MTR Professional Audio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Redheylin/MTR Professional Audio

I looked at the discussion and the page at the link above. Looking at the article at the time of deletion I'm not sure that I see an assertion of notability. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 19:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The page was userfied as per the link in the header of this section, see here. The point that you linked to is a guideline and not a policy. From Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles #A7 "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." and from the hang-on template "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria,...". And yes it appears that the section you noted in the notability guidelines and the CSD policy are in conflict. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 22:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfair I live in the Arctic and it's still below freezing. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 22:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

An adminmin, Henry? No, Min, not an adminmin, Min. I didn't say "an adminminmin", Henry, I said....

One way around it is to create them in your user space then move them to article space. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Red

Read my response to your proposed redirection of Metempsychosis. I intend to fight for this, and I suggest you educate yourself if you are interested. 'I know Latin and Greek - do you?' LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Cheraman Perumal (Islamic convert)

you seem to misunderstand wikipedia

it is not a forum for your views to be upheld until someone challenges them with references. you are a hypocrite, operating in a mode akin to policies you denounce. if i myself cannot due to time constraints supply relevant links you must apply a 'citation needed' tag to points in question rather than delete them wholesale. that your "knowledge" (laughable as it is - "i know latin - do you?" (which will forever bring a smile to my face)) is the basis for the non-existence of the metempsychosis page, when many philosophical dictionaries make room for the term, is far too insufficient for the definitive change you wish to effect. we can duke it out. smarter (if not cooler) heads will prevail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wiki music

Category:Wiki music, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Manfred_Mann

An article that you have been involved in editing, Manfred_Mann , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Filter categorisation

Why are you taking entries in Category:Filter theory out of alphabetical order? I cannot fathom what you are trying to achieve. I can kind of see the point of highlighting one or two key articles (but even then, it would be better to link them in the lede of the category page) taking out a large tranche of them is not helpful. Certainly, the one I just reverted, Mechanical filter is not a key article for filter theory. If you are working to some kind of formatting master plan, you really ought to get some consensus for the plan before making widespread changes. SpinningSpark 11:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I also have problems with a lot of the other recategorisation you have done to these articles, but I won't revert any more until I hear from you. Taking m-derived filter as an example: why have you removed it from category:linear filters when it clearly is a linear filter; why remove it from category:filter theory when it forms part of image parameter theory; why does an article which discusses electronic designs not belong in category:electronic design; why remove it from category:electronics terms when, obviously, it is a term? SpinningSpark 12:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello - thanks for your note. I'll answer your questions:

1) Why are you taking entries in Category:Filter theory out of alphabetical order? I can kind of see the point of highlighting one or two key articles

It seems to me there are around a dozen, some of which overlap severely: at least one major article seems a POV split duplication. I'd like to discuss these cases soon; anything unnecessary can be put back, I will not leave the town trashed, but at the moment it is hard to navigate the subject. I began over at Category:Sound technology and found there was no category there for the various audio filters used in amplification - some of which are name products, some generic terms. Especially sound synthesis articles must be able to access info on filter transfer function classes (band forms), cut-off freq, impedance and famous topological applications like the Moog capacitor ladder.

So I created the Cat Category:Tone, EQ and filter - you will see that Filter theory has been a member of that for months, which is illogical but I could find no obvious ways to link audio with filter electronics, because, although electronics filters are commonly classified by topology, linear function class, technology (eg analogue, digital) and application (eg audio domain), there is no such categorisation at present and so no way to link through to these relevant subjects or to review the articles available while avoiding wrongly categorising articles on, say, radio-freq antenna filters or digital bitstream filters under "Sound". Rather, many formal logical inconsistencies are visible, such as that Linear filter appeared as Filter theory but Nonlinear filter did not. Similarly, articles on elementary topology are not consistently classified. Internal links and refs are few. Please bear in mind these evident facts and the desirability of some work.

I'd like to class articles according to topology, application, technology and math function in order to give meaningful entry and overview to readers entering from those contiguous domains. These categories will, obviously, themselves be members of higher classes such as Filter design. Otherwise, there is no way for me to say "I have looked at everything on wiki to do with audio filters in sound technology" without reading absolutely bloody everything on all filters whatsoever - which I am prepared to do, but only so that nobody else has to.

I cannot follow this, despite rereading several times. The reason for non-alpha sort still escapes me. The creation of Category:Tone, EQ and filter is fine, but the relationship to the sorting issue is not obvious. I am suspicious of the idea that all filter categories must be a tree with "filter design" at the top, this may not work out in every case. Categorisation is designed so that it does not have to be a tree structure. There is overlap with "history" and "applications" for instance. SpinningSpark 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, the one I just reverted, Mechanical filter is not a key article for filter theory.

I find it important in the short term to be able to see all filter technologies articles, though this should really be highlighted under "design". This means I can ensure all such technologies are linked/mentioned in the appropriate articles and can even consider a "filter technology" category. As a distinct technology, mechanical is important - and it is also of some historical significance, which is another important vector of entry to the subject. But the real place things seem to have come unstuck in the past is "is digital electronic?" To me, analogue, digital and electromechanical are subsets of electronic, which are subsets of "signal" filtering, which is a subset of filtering per se. You ask;

I am particularly concerned with the Mechanical filter article because it is being prepared for FAC. This is a sister article of Distributed element filter which had an enormously difficult FAC but eventually got on the front page. The last thing that is needed is an ongoing dispute about categories, but also, a categorisation scheme that is not intelligble to reviewers is not acceptable if it leads to questions that cannot be easily answered. I agree with you that mechanical is an important technology and there is a problem with the articles based on technology. The article Electronic filter was originally intended (according to some of its authors) to be the "discrete component" technology. However, it slowly accumalated lots of other stuff including filter theory transfer functions. I have started to address this with the creation of mechanical filter and distributed element filter but you are right to point to digital filter and, I think, there is also an issue with crystal and acoustic wave filters. To my mind, it was better to create infrastructure with badly covered areas first before attacking existing articles.

I do not consider the top level article to be filter design, but rather filter (signal processing) where the various ways of categorising filters are explained and lead the reader to the articles they may be interested in. SpinningSpark 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are working to some kind of formatting master plan, you really ought to get some consensus for the plan before making widespread changes.

Well, this is the outline of the plan, above, and, since you have obviously done lots of work and do not want it to turn out wrong, you can say how you think it should be and bring in anybody you think you ought to - I have already created "Category:Electronic filter topology" and so may as well populate it - it can link all over the place. And I need to create "Category: Electronic filter applications" so that I can make my little "Tone EQ and Filter" category a member of it and make the page Audio filter (see, I finally found it!) its main article. Finally, general linear function terms such as "high pass", "order", "cut-off freq" should perhaps be collected separately from those polynomial mathematical functions, such as Butterworth's, that already have, not their own category but at least their own sidebar. Perhaps that's the way to go with the more general articles I mentioned - the ones that most sound engineers will look up first - though subcats can still be used too. I'd appreciate your thoughts on that - subcats and templates to give ease of access to filter theory for someone who wants to understand the virtual parametric EQs and sweeping 24Db per Oct resonant bandpasses on their virtual instruments, guitars, preamps....***((SEE BELOW!) Meanwhile, I hope it will be unexeptionable to populate these two subcats, for the moment, of the "filter theory" cat while awaiting consensus on my audacious stunt.

You want to make "Category:Electronic filter topology" and "Category: Electronic filter applications" both members of "filter theory"? Maybe "topology" but "applications" does not really fit. Why not have a top level category of "signal processing filter" to fit with the top level article? As I said above, I think you ought to be opening a discussion on this at a Wikiproject (Electronics, or Telecommunications, or somewhere and advertise it on appropriate pages) as what you are doing is quite far reaching. A relational diagram of what you are proposing would really help. SpinningSpark 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking m-derived filter as an example: why have you removed it from category:linear filters when it clearly is a linear filter;

It's a member of a subset of linear filters, and categorisation policy says avoid nesting - which really helps, when you're trying to find out what is actually there, but the same articles are everywhere. Plus, it's a medium-complexity linear filter topology and, now that category of article has its own category, it can be listed in any convenient way you like while making more general articles such as "image parameter theory" even easier to find in a higher-level category. In the same way the new category is already a subset of "filter design", etc. so that individual topologies do not need to be - this is policy but it makes sense, it helps, I support it. So, unless you want to go to "categories for deletion", I'd better populate those I started, and you tell me what you think and what you do not think, and I'll do the work. Regards Redheylin (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I had not realised there was a nesting issue. Thanks for pointing it out. An appropriate edit summary would help avoid problems in the future. SpinningSpark 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • I found your "Bandform" template, so I hope I can take it you agree this is a good idea and shall add the template to the bandform pages. I also created a category "wireless tuning and filtering" uner "applications", since there's also a load under telecommunications that did not link to general theory. Redheylin (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wireless" is a bit obsolete. Simpler and more succint would be "radio filtering". SpinningSpark 19:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I found that they use the term on wiki to comprehend, radio, TV, microwave etc, whereas "radio" tends to be the braodcasting medium, so I went along with it. It's like "Tone, EQ and Filter" - it looks a bit comic-book from this side of the curtain, but it tells the person at the other end what to expect, and stops me getting grief that "TV is not radio"! I am creating categories that span two linguistic domains. Otherwise I'd have done what you'd have done. Redheylin (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Point taken of "TV", but "wireless" is still a horribly bad choice. "RF filters" is better. SpinningSpark 20:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"The reason for non-alpha sort still escapes me." - if it still bothers you in 7 days, I'll put everything where you say it should be, OK? I am just trying to understand the issue of technologies, where the divisions are.

"Categorisation is designed so that it does not have to be a tree structure. There is overlap with "history" and "applications" for instance." Agreed - the subject in itself has roots both in experiment and in maths. Parts of the theoretical content branch off rapidly into the former, discussing coils and crystals, while others, like the concept of roll-off and filter order, go immediately to differential equations. Experiment was different in different domains. I am keen on history of science - did some work on developmental biologists - and would like to see a smooth transition from that direction too. I'm looking from bottom up, outside in and do not have any G.U.T. on the basis of which to impose a heirarchy. However, clearly, some aspects of filter theory, like the pure maths, have a certain general validity across technologies and applications, whereas others, like topology, only inhabit the subset of analogue electronics.

Why not have a top level category of "signal processing filter" to fit with the top level article? I completely agree - as I said, the "theory" category was simply the only place available. It seems a no-brainer to me. Redheylin (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that you are proceeding at such a rate of knots that it going to be difficult to later unpick and I can see some disagreement on this. Why not seek a consensus? SpinningSpark 20:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Because nobody has sorted out these problems for years, thousands of category edits have made me bold, nobody seems to care but you, you obviously know your stuff and I am thinking what you are thinking - so! Redheylin (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe others haven't noticed - or are too busy. If you are thinking what I'm thinking, why am I reverting so many of your edits? SpinningSpark 21:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"I am particularly concerned with the Mechanical filter article because it is being prepared for FAC....The last thing that is needed is an ongoing dispute about categories" - Sorry to have caused you anxiety. "I think, there is also an issue with crystal and acoustic wave filters." - Yes - there's no classification by technology. But for that matter, should all analogue and electromechanical devices be classed linear? Take the case of a spring reverb in which an analogue signal is passed through an electromechanical device - this imposes a mechanical formant filtering upon the signal, which seems non-linear to me. Synthesiser filters are made to self-oscillate, creating nonlinearity. Actually I came back to this because I am seeking a circuit to filter low odd harmonics from a signal, which made me consider a mechanical device in inverted phase - can you point me anywhere more, erm, conventional? Redheylin (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the spring reverb is linear. In what sense do you think it is non-linear? But you are right, not all analog is linear, all passive analog is though. The phase cancelling filter is called a transversal filter, this is usually digital, but an analog delay line works just fine. The idea is that the signal is tapped off the delay line at the point where the frequency to be rejected is in antiphase and then added back in to the output. Several different taps can be added to obtain the desired response. This is ideal if all you want to do is kill specific harmonics. Of course, analog delay lines are expensive and bulky which is why DSPs are so popular. SpinningSpark 21:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In what sense do you think it is non-linear? Because the formant is not a linear function of the input signal - you have modulation that cannot be expressed in a simple transfer function. But anyway - this delay line would have to adjust its delay time to the incoming frequency to achieve phase cancellation, no? Redheylin (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a rational function of the input signal (because of the transmission-line-like nature of the innards), so the transfer function cannot be expressed in polynomials, but it is still a mathematically linear function. It must be, because the spring reverb is entirely passive linear components, basically Hooke's law. You are right, that a changing input frequency will require changing the tap-offs of the delay if you want the harmonic relationship to remain constant. This requires detecting the value of the fundamental, which is still possible, but again a lot easier to do in DSPs than in analogue. You also need to consider what you mean by "third harmonic" in a complex signal. This is straightforward for a monotonic instrument but for harmonies needs some thought. A two part harmony singing an interval of a fifth apart, for instance, will have the higher voice second harmonic right on top of the lower voice third harmonic. If all you are trying to do is remove some soft-clipping (which is what odd harmonics suggests to me), it would probably be more productive to try improving the linearity of your source. SpinningSpark 19:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate your explanation - I had assumed that the input amp of the spring (which needs a big signal) was driving the imposition of the "foreign" harmonics but what you say makes sense - most likely my maths is not good enough to understand the linearity. As for the rest, I am working with a single, monophonic fundamental over about two octaves. I have considered introducing soft clipping into the negative side but I am afraid it will increase with frequency, whereas what I need is control over the 3,5,7,9 in that order of amplitude and let the upper partials pass or, at least, for the effect to roll off. So I am currently looking at harmonic synthesis, though I hear great things have been achieved with finely-tuned diode ladders. Redheylin (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you so much for your professional input on Kourosh Zolani's article. This discussion really needed an expert opinion. Thank you again, Thomasshane (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Can a user delete Iran's history of classical music and art from WP?

Hi,

The same user who was highly involved in Kourosh Zolani’s AfD discussion and deleted a huge part of the comments from the opponent side on August 15 and Agust16, has nominated almost every Iranian musicians articles for deletion or speedy deletion today. Here are links to two pages of names: (page 1) and (page 2). The user is proposing to delete almost all the history of Iranian classical music from WP. This act sounds totally racial and discrimination to me. Is there any policy in Misplaced Pages to stop this user’s suspicious act? Thank you, Thomasshane (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kourosh Zolani

I was disappointed you did not take the opportunity to remove off-topic comments on other editors you made during this AfD. I was further disappointed that you chose to suggest I was using " bullying language and unfounded allegations" in your reply. If you genuinely feel that my comments were in anyway "bullying" or unjustified you're free to take the matter to WP:ANI or, indeed, to initiate a WP:RECALL. My comment stands however: in AfDs limit your comments to the merits of keeping or deleting the article under discussion. TFOWR 20:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)