User talk:GFHandel/Archive 2008

Handel[edit]

Nice work, my friend. I've touched up one of the tables. Have you seen Wikipedia:Featured_list_criteria? And you might consider reviewing a few Featured list candidates if you can manage the time: they could do with a strong contributor, and it's a task that can be broken into little bits (each nomination). An objection can be lodged merely on the basis of failing to meet one of the criteria; full reviews are welcome, but not necessary to make an impact on the culture there. Tony (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violin Sonata[edit]

The definition of a classical Violin sonata is for violin and piano, so there is no need to put the piano in the name as per Violin Sonata No. X (Beethoven). Although I will put the piano back into the article. Centy – reply• contribs – 02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome!

Hello, GFHandel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Centy – reply• contribs – 03:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

took long enuff![edit]

Finally, your welcome. They should have a bot to do it automatically and promptly. The MOS hierarchy issue crashed and burned because it brought out every little ego that's attached to the sub-pages, and that doesn't want to hear of MOS central prevailing over them by default when there's an inconsistency. Dumb. Tony (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page filling out[edit]

Nice, HW. Now perhaps a pic from the Commons—surely there are one or two really good ones of Handel, or of Handelian themes. Tony (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "Commons", I meant "WikiMedia Commons" [1], a huge repository of copy-left images and other media. You're free to use them on your user page or anywhere else. Here's the Handel category. Tony (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like these, for example:

The Handel House at his city of birth, Halle

And this nice performance:

dash it[edit]

Dashes as interrupters: many styleguides say it should be an unspaced em dash—but that's thought old-fashioned by some folk, who prefer a spaced en dash – MOS allows both, but hints that spaced em dashes — like this — are not the norm. My preference—you know—is for the unspaced em.

Me, I hate those spaced em dashes, coz they're just too likely to hang at the end of a line — besides, they're so wide that they're visually intrusive.

What do you think? You might wish to have your say here, where Noetica is trying to garner consensus for proscribing the spaced em dash – leaving just the standard two options.

PS Here's the stark difference:

diddley squat - yadda yadda [hyphen – not allowed]
diddley squat – yadda yadda [kewl]
diddley squat—yadda yadda [yumm]
diddley squat — yadda yadda [yucko]

Tony (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't decide between the spaced en dash and the unspaced em dash. The unspaced em dash seems to have hyphen-like overtones, whereas the spaced en dash loses effect when it breaks a line (non-breaking spaces could always be used). But, if push comes to shove, I'd probably use an unspaced em dash (as opposed to entering  – ). HWV258 21:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the hard-space is necessary only before the en dash, if at all. Sandy fought hard for that to be a rule, but I don't think we went along with it in the end. More folks nowadays prefer the space en dash than the slightly old-fashioned (unspaced) em dash. Me, I'm old-fashioned. Also depends a little on the font: some fonts display HUUUUGE em dashes; and the column width (which is why most newspapers avoid em dashes). Tony (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handel Categories[edit]

I usually wait until there's a few articles before I create a new category, but I suppose that's just an editorial preference of mine. I just didn't want to leave the article with a red link (basicallly uncategorized), so I put it in a category that existed. Its hard for editors and bots to find articles that are not categorized (and not many really check the stub category). If you end up eventually creating the psalm settings category at a later date, then you can recategorize it then.DavidRF (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules[edit]

Is it possible to mention the Greek legend from which the story is drawn? Tony (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Down Under[edit]

Hi, HWV258. Tony1 mentioned you to me. I see on your user page the following philosophy: "I fully encourage any contributor to create a page, no matter how little it is of 'note' to another reader. The point being that if it isn't 'notable' it won't be found by people who aren't looking for it. One person's trash is another person's treasure". Welcome to my club!

Which leads me to let you know about an article I recently created, Posthumously born notable people. It’s in danger of being sent off to AfD for its alleged lack of “notability”, and I’m having some difficulty in justifying (in WP terms) why it should remain. I wonder if you can take a look at the talk page and let me know your thoughts, or add them there.

Oh, in case you haven’t already seen it, I’ve proposed an edit concerning Handel’s date of birth, which may interest you. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick support. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks[edit]

Greetings, you noted in your response to my question at Tony1 (talk) that you'd be willing to help. I approach you for that reason. It is difficult for me to objectively evaluate the text because I spent time writing and researching the article; perhaps too much time :) . I feel that I am a good writer, but at the same time an article of such prominence as the Louvre (it is of top importance in WikiProject France) must offer something better than "good" to our readers. Specific worries of mine are that some of the text may not be adequately explained or not flow logically from thought-to-thought. Such things are difficult for the content-writing editor to notice because his mind automatically "fills in the blanks" with his prior knowledge of the subject. Anyway, I would greatly appreciate any assistance. Lastly, I like your point about wikilinks; it is not something I had thought of earlier. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Kleinzach....[edit]

Not to engage in talking behind his back or anything (which I guess this is...though he could easily be watching this page too), but I'm happy to see I'm not the only one annoyed by much of what he does, and I'm not just imagining things. Though I do think that you are forgetting about the WP:BOLD rule: a change without consensus is allowed just fine, it's just a matter of doing exactly what you did -- reverting and putting the discussion on the talk page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. If you feel inclined, please let me know of some of the things that have annoyed you. I hate this sort of stuff, but things are getting closer to a point where other actions may have to be taken. I'm in favour of being bold, but it is still possible to be bold in a sandpit area in order to demonstrate to the wider community the necessity for change. To blissfully disregard all the reasonable points made as one steam-rollers through the work of other editors is not being bold—it is being confrontational and boring. HWV 258 06:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy visit[edit]

Hi H. I am interested in your contributions at WT:MOSNUM. Please don't overestimate any difference of opinion we appear to have. WP is riddled with problems: political and technical, technopolitical, and politicotechnical. We all hope for grand solutions that will sweep away lesser concerns; I too am an optimist by temperament, but experience with Wikipedia's blinkered technocracy has hardened me.

I am also interested in music articles, as you are. I am a serious music theorist, and passionate about rigour: so I am especially passionate about rigour in the music theory articles. Alas, as things stand these are an Augean mess. I initiated one article, Diatonic and chromatic, to shine a fifty-footnoted searchlight on one grey area in which confusion reigns, throughout the literature and throughout the web. So difficult! The prejudices and evasions were a marvel to behold.

Anyway, we try. When we can muster the energy and determination. Just one small thing on your page: the original and most accepted expression is to home in, not (as many think) to hone in. Best wishes to you!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems at all. I too am starting to experience some of the difficulties involved. HWV 258 21:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]