This is an archive of past discussions with User:Intforce. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi - I've posted this message to Talk:Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven):
Can it be ascertained that this recording is definitely out of copyright? I ask because in 2010 I posted a sound recording from 1953, and was quickly reverted by XLinkBot for copyvio. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Germany
Hi Intforce, sorry that I reverted your edit. But I think it would be best to leave the article the way it was for the moment, until there's some conclusion reached and agreement. Nikkimaria has put a lot of work into the article, and I respect her opinion, even if I don't always agree with it. If the content is to be put back over her objections, I would like at least for her objections to be properly heard and debated. Is that ok with you? --IamNotU (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for more compositions, and with DYK. You don't have to add the DYK to an article talk, a bot does it. In the end, all of that can be removed because the credit contains a link to the by then closed discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Kia ora Intforce, I see you just got your pending changes permission. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted the change you accepted on the Melissa Benoist article. As a general rule when it comes to the names of family members, unless they also are notable (have an article here) or the name is widely known and reliably sourced, we wouldn't add it to articles per WP:BLPNAME. The presumption in favour of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects. Thanks and happy editing NZFC(talk)(cont)23:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi NZFC, I actually read WP:BLPNAME before making my decision. I believe that it does not apply in this case. Though "presumption in favor of privacy" usually holds, making an Instagram with the full name to your 4+ million followers sounds like intentional, widely dissemination to me. As the addition was reliably sourced, I have permitted the change as it passes WP:RPC, though I do not object to your revert. intforce (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I removed it because people, including you, keep trying to add that one in without consensus. If you add something, and people remove it, discuss it on the talk page before adding it again. Also, the file has been deleted on copyright violations. intforce (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there any way to add an alternative pictorial one that wouldn't be copyright? The show's confusing, but the pictorial tree has been very helpful for me.Rickclayfan (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
On 1 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Septet (Saint-Saëns), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Septet for trumpet, strings and piano was composed by Camille Saint-Saëns for a mathematician? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Septet (Saint-Saëns). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Septet (Saint-Saëns)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi, sorry to bother you. I noticed that you have improved the Form section of Violin Concerto (Tchaikovsky). Since I'm editing the article about the piece in in Chinese Wikipedia, I wonder if you can cite the sources so that I can advoid leaving the section unreferenced. Also, I wonder if the third movement has a development. I'm writing the section like a sandbox. Orz... Thx. --羊羊32521 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I wrote that in a hurry and the article still needs significant work. I can refer you to Steinberg's book "The Concerto: A Listener's Guide" (pp. 484–488) though, which includes some information about the form. (Sadly not enough.) Once I have more time, I'll dig up some more sources and expand the article. Right now, I'm quite unsatisfied with the Form section, which is basically nothing but a sequence of themes and tonalities. intforce (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I did some research and have expanded the form section with appropriate sources. To answer your question: no, the third section does not feature a development section, at least not a formal one. The form seems to be Intro → Theme 1 → Theme 2 → Variations on Theme 2 → Theme 1 → Theme 2 → Theme 1 → Coda (though don't quote me on this). Cheers, intforce (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it does seem like that. Though some books says that there are 2 themes in the secondary tonal erea (Poco meno mosso [C] and Molto meno mosso [D]), and Part D is in F#-minor rather than A-major... --羊羊32521 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I see you've been cleaning up some of these DAB pages. You've prompted me to create Op. 111 - several major works, though IMO the Dvorak is the weakest of his late tone poems.
My trick for finding the obscurities is to search for "Op. xx ." - the fullstop suppresses all direct links and redirects. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I've created a script to extract Opus/Op./op. from the first sentence of all pages on classical compositions. I'll be creating disambiguation pages for all opus numbers that have at least two composition pages on Wikipedia. Thanks, intforce (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
You've created Op. 173, which only has one piece in it, so I'm going to redirect it over to that piece. In these cases, the Op. xx page should just be a redirect. Please check over your creations again. Thanks. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 01:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: Hi, I'm not done yet. It seems that my script missed some pages, so I'm considering an alternative approach. Be assured that those disambiguation pages won't just have one composition in the end. Cheers, intforce (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
While this is a kickass idea for most of the dabs, I think your script might be doing a little oopsie (or perhaps, in this case, a little oppsie). A bunch of the pages getting created only have two articles in them; the actual guideline seems murky, but in my experience, 2-entry dab pages usually end up as redirects to one of the articles, and a WP:HATNOTE gets put on both of them. Just a heads-up -- if you're going to be adding more entries to these articles, this probably doesn't matter, but I figure you might like to know. jp×g01:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Whoops I guess, wasn't aware of that. The first 60 pages (Op. 1 to Op. 60) weren't created by me though; I've simply extended the idea. I'm done creating pages now. The work that remains is to expand them. intforce (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader: They're only doing one every minute or so, which seems to me like long enough to oversee each creation individually. They're only dab pages, after all; it's not like there is a lot of editorial discretion going on. If something stupid happens, they will be held responsible for it, and otherwise, who cares? jp×g03:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the reason for the policy is that they've been controversial before, so it's better to be safe about them. To be clear, I'm not saying to do anything now (the pages are already created, and I see no reason they should be deleted), just as a note for the future that this is technically classed as unauthorised bot editing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Just here to say sorry, you were right. Please note that this is a new state of affairs: The article was moved from Erlkönig (Goethe poem) on the same day that you first made the change in German humour. ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for first class work on Erlkönig (Schubert)—I particularly enjoyed the Arrangements section. I'm sure our Little Mushroom (his friends called him that) would be appreciative. I do hope you go for GA, and, since you created the article, perhaps the Four Award is a possible future as well. Best Aza24 (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Aza :) I feel like a lot of work still needs to be done for GA, but perhaps it will get there one day. Cheers, intforce (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Erlkönig (Schubert)
On 14 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Erlkönig (Schubert), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the vocalist in "Erlkönig", published as Schubert's Op. 1, portrays four characters that differ in vocal register, rhythm, and harmony? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erlkönig (Schubert). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Erlkönig (Schubert)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
As I noted in the last issue, I received a grant from the WMF to develop the global watchlist script into an extension. That extension has now been deployed on Meta. Visit m:Special:GlobalWatchlistSettings to get started.
I do not plan on any further developments being made to the user script. I have released version 9.1.0 to both the dev and stable versions, which includes a notification about the extension being available when you use the user script. You can dismiss the notification, and the script still works, but it will no longer be maintained.
On 27 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Octet (Bruch), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the String Octet by Max Bruch was premiered in a live BBC broadcast in 1937 and then forgotten for several decades? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Octet (Bruch). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Octet (Bruch)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
re: [1]. When you PRODed it, the article already had a source, so BLP is not a valid reason. However, the article as written fails GNG and so I'd endorse the prod if you were to change the rationale from BLP to GNG. Otherwise, the prod will likely be declined on technical reasons and we may have to take it to AfD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Piano Quartet (Schumann) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi intforce, the musical illustrations in the article are easy to convert into audio files, e.g. this one. Schumann - Piano Quartet in E♭ major, movt I. (first subject). Do you think the article would benefit from any being Included? I can easily produce them, but they are electronic. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the GA review. Sadly I could only find a freely licensed recording of the third movement, which I have now incorporated into the article. I'm not a fan of electronic performances (especially with solo string instruments), so I wonder if we could have short audio excerpts as under fair use. intforce (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
The article Piano Quartet (Schumann) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Piano Quartet (Schumann) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Violin Sonata No. 1 (Saint-Saëns)
Why are you deleting good faith edits that are accurate and relevant from the articles about alcoholic beverages?Sbelknap (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
You keep pushing changes when multiple editors have objected to them, and have asked you to stop. The content of your edits notwithstanding, you need to come to a consensus on each article's talk page if you wish to introduce any more changes. intforce (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Over the years, I have made many edits on this issue across several articles about alcoholic beverages. Other editors refined and added to my edits. My contributions have clearly been productive and have improved these articles. For whatever reason, some engaged editors objected to these edits on the whisky article. I ceased making edits on the whisky article and am engaging in good-faith discussion on the whisky talk page, as you would see if you took some time to review. I note that your reverts would appear to be disruptive behavior. I encourage you to carefully reflect upon your actions and to cease disruption of good faith, accurate, and relevant edits.Sbelknap (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone. As I noted in the last issue, I received a grant last year from the WMF to develop the global watchlist script into an extension. That extension has now been deployed on Meta. Visit m:Special:GlobalWatchlistSettings to get started.
That grant has ended, and I have requested another grant to continue development of the extension, and figured subscribers of the newsletter about the user script might be interested. You can see and comment on the grant request at m:Grants:Project/DannyS712/Continued work on GlobalWatchlist extension - if you support this, I hope you'll consider endorsing the request.
On 23 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Piano Quartet (Schumann), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Piano Quartet, composed by Robert Schumann in 1842 for piano and strings, was described by his wife Clara as "a beautiful work, so youthful and fresh, as if it were his first"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Piano Quartet (Schumann). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Piano Quartet (Schumann)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
An article you recently created, Sextet (Dohnányi), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources (?) and the page looks like it's a start. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the Submit your draft for review! button at the top of the page. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 18:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Give me a break. I was just about to make another edit, expanding the article with reliable sources. I've written dozens of articles, including a GA, I'm well aware. intforce (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I've already done it. Next time, don't move new articles within five minutes of creation, it is well likely that the creator is still working on it. intforce (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
That's messed up!
About "the" instruments around here. But it is convincingly conventional, from what small samples I studied. You've given me a lot to think about, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
After checking out your user page, I see I was right to defer to you on piano matters, congratulations and keep up the good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
AWB request
Hey Intforce, I recall you doing some AWB clean up in the past. If you get a chance, could you check to make sure all the articles in {{Bronze Age footer}} actually have the template at the bottom of them? It seems to be rather inconsistent at the moment. I'm not how long things like this take, but if its a substantial time then no worries. Best - Aza24 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm familiar with those guidelines (emphasize: guidelines), but you simply deleted that information and left the article without it! I know you'll think this is irrelevant, but I've created over 2,000 biographical articles, and this is the first time I can recall that this has been an issue. I'm assuming you have a special interest here because you've worked on the articles about TUM. WQUlrich (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@WQUlrich: I have no special interest in your article (it simply popped up on my watchlist), nor do I consider this a large issue. It is just a minor thing related to the MOS. An encyclopedia should have some sense of uniformity; that's what the MOS is for. Yes, they are guidelines, but as it says on the top, it is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I see no benefit in deviating from the MOS here, and a reasonable premise for an exception is not given. intforce (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, of course, you know better than the hundreds (thousands?) of other editors who have seen my articles over the years. I understand. WQUlrich (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
You seem to have taken offense at my edit, judging by your hostile tone. I was a simple edit and a polite notice on your talk page; I am entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. No need to make this personal. If you disagree, you disagree. intforce (talk) 12:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe it's because I'm an old hippie, but I get irritated when people cite chapter and verse...anywhere, not just here. WQUlrich (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken:WP:DTTR#AGF. An experienced editor would usually not change the lead sentence of a highly controversial and visible topic without acquiring consensus first, especially when there's a detailed comment right there advising not to do precisely that. intforce (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm bewildered that you are unfamiliar with the consensus process, even though you've been here for 15 years. The exact wording of the lead sentence has been carefully deliberated in the RfC. Suggestions included "island country", but consensus was reached for simply "country". If you want to change the wording, you'll have to start another discussion on the article's talk page, not treat this like a personal matter with me. intforce (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your edit. You quoted policy and then removed a see also section . Quoting policy fair enough, but at least complete the action by doing the edit to move the section. Don't just delete it. That is elevating policy above content, which is wrong. scope_creepTalk12:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. Three unannotated links to articles that serve no benefit to the reader can hardly be called "content". Integrating them into the body of the article isn't as simple as moving the section. intforce (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Citations for music
@Intforce: Greetings! I have a quick question for you. Being an experienced article creator on compositions, is it okay to use booklets of recordings as sources? Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I usually prefer book sources, but if a booklet meets the WP:RS criteria, there is nothing wrong with using them. Sometimes the booklets are even written by reputable authors. intforce (talk) 11:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Given Names for Chopin Etudes
Hi Intforce,
I noticed that you've requested me to give a citation for the name of a Chopin etude. I'm not sure where it had originated from, however they are certainly well-known for their given names. An example of famous etudes of Chopin's would be Op. 25 No. 11 "Winter Wind" and Op. 10 No. 1 "Waterfall". When I search up Op. 10 No. 8 on the internet or Spotify even, it seems like "Sunshine etude" is the name people associate the piece with, it's the same when searching up "Sunshine etude". In the online International Chopin Competition, the etude would be accompanied by "Sunshine". It didn't really sit right with me to give a source for what people have been calling these etudes for the longest time. Hence, I doubt that a citation is required for what the etude is known as, and I have also reverted . If it is possible, I would also like to add the names to the rest of the etudes' articles, as I like to think that their known names give the pieces a little bit more meaning.
This has been discussed before both here and here, and the main argument is that while all etudes have nicknames, only a select few are widely used. Some people call 10/8 the "sunshine" etude. But this nickname does not originate from Chopin, and you need to prove its usage through reliable sources. A Spotify or internet search does not qualify, neither does the website of a local radio station. A qualified source would be the Chopin Institute, which, as expected, only lists the most widely used nicknames: Black Keys for 10/5, Revolutionary for 10/12, Aeolian Harp for 25/1, Butterfly for 25/9, and Winter Wind for 25/11. intforce (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi. The Zurich IP was Chip-chip-2020 editing when logged off (as earlier edits on the article page show). Some while back, the sysop Johnuniq gave general advice to them on their user talk page and Johnuniq's comments on this article talk page are about exactly the same issue. In these circumstances you might consider reverting your changes, just for clarity. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Biased editing and unwarranted threats of China-Lithuania relations article
This user stretched Wikipedia's own definition of what constitutes a personal attack to try to deplatform me from editing the article on China-Lithuania relations, including unexplained removal of unrelated content in suspected back-door coordination with other editor(s) who have publicly declared their own bias on the subject in the past.195.135.49.168 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Your comments on the article's talk page are pretty much textbook personal attacks. You are trying to portray yourself as the victim here. You are not. A user has opened an ANI case on this; it would be best if you discuss this further there, not here. intforce (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Scores
@Intforce: Hello, Intforce! In my opinion, you have the neatest score formatting I've seen on Wikipedia. I imagine that you are pretty busy, but if you got the time, could you kindly help me with putting 6 pieces of score (first line of bars) on this set of pieces as you did on this FA piano sonata? It is based on this score, and I assume you are using Sibelius/Musescore to create the files and use the score as reference. Cheers - Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Intforce: Thank you so much! The "Canone" has a missing tie (the D) at the very end of the line, but that is completely fine and I don't think Wikipedia requires this level of detail. Again, thank you! Wretchskull (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Intforce: Hello again! Sorry for constantly bothering you with this, but the Notturno needs very minor adjustments. Could you kindly change the current tempo to Lento. (M. M. . = 50) - as seen here in page 10? Could you also change the last rest of the right hand in the second measure from 1 quarter rest to 2 eighth rests? Thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I've performed some adjustments. Modern engravings emit the "M.M." (Mälzels Metronom) text; compare for example, the early editions of Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata, and newer urtext editions. This is not an editorial decision but rather part of modern engraving guidelines. intforce (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome! intforce (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Orz... Thx. --羊羊32521 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 09:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Piano Quartet (Schumann) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
; see Talk:Piano Quartet (Schumann) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Violin Sonata No. 1 (Saint-Saëns) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
. = 50) - as seen here in page 10? Could you also change the last rest of the right hand in the second measure from 1 quarter rest to 2 eighth rests? Thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
