Hi,
Having finally checked the Recent Changes last night and read some of the "Year XXXX in music" articles, I agree with Mr. Manske. I think this is not a good idea and foresee this followed by "Year XXXX in painting," "Year XXXX in dance," "Year XXXX in literature." Further, the articles are rather summary, listing publication of songs, performers' highpoints, deaths etc. I would think this information will be incorporated in Wikipedia in some other form eventually, if it isn't already. For me. it is hard to find much meaning in these entries, as events appear out of context. For this reason, I think we should consider whether this is a good idea, before it goes much further.
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
Someone's creating articles like "1974 in music".Can't that just go under [[1974]]?
Magnus http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_in_music
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I didn't care for it from the beginning, especially since it seems to be solely dedicated to The Year in Rock Music, and all other genres are ignored. Also, I don't like that he's predicting the future with "2003 in music", etc. Zoe rose.parks@att.net wrote:Hi,
Having finally checked the Recent Changes last night and read some of the "Year XXXX in music" articles, I agree with Mr. Manske. I think this is not a good idea and foresee this followed by "Year XXXX in painting," "Year XXXX in dance," "Year XXXX in literature." Further, the articles are rather summary, listing publication of songs, performers' highpoints, deaths etc. I would think this information will be incorporated in Wikipedia in some other form eventually, if it isn't already. For me. it is hard to find much meaning in these entries, as events appear out of context. For this reason, I think we should consider whether this is a good idea, before it goes much further.
As Ever,
Ruth Ifcher
--
Someone's creating articles like "1974 in music".Can't that just go under [[1974]]?
Magnus
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Whoever 216.234.195.244 http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=216.234.195.244 is (from around Fort Worth), (s)he is adding births and deaths to these pages, which should be on the year page.
We can 1. Move all contents to the year pages and redirect 2. block the user (I don't want that, but how to get his/her attention?)
Magnus
Zoe wrote:
I didn't care for it from the beginning, especially since it seems to be solely dedicated to The Year in Rock Music, and all other genres are ignored. Also, I don't like that he's predicting the future with "2003 in music", etc.
Zoe
*/rose.parks@att.net/* wrote:
Hi, Having finally checked the Recent Changes last night and read some of the "Year XXXX in music" articles, I agree with Mr. Manske. I think this is not a good idea and foresee this followed by "Year XXXX in painting," "Year XXXX in dance," "Year XXXX in literature." Further, the articles are rather summary, listing publication of songs, performers' highpoints, deaths etc. I would think this information will be incorporated in Wikipedia in some other form eventually, if it isn't already. For me. it is hard to find much meaning in these entries, as events appear out of context. For this reason, I think we should consider whether this is a good idea, before it goes much further. As Ever, Ruth Ifcher -- > Someone's creating articles like "1974 in music".Can't that just go > under [[1974]]? > > Ma! gnus > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikipedia-l mailing list > Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org > http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com
He's back with another, similar IP. Now [[2003]] already contains:
* [[2003 in film]] * [[2003 in literature]] * [[2003 in music]] * [[2003 in sports]] * [[2003 in television]]
IMHO this is *way* too far out.
I left him a note at Talk:List of musical events http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_musical_events, lacking a better place. Someone please make him stop, before we have to clean up all year entries again.
Magnus
Zoe wrote:
I didn't care for it from the beginning, especially since it seems to be solely dedicated to The Year in Rock Music, and all other genres are ignored. Also, I don't like that he's predicting the future with "2003 in music", etc.
Zoe
*/rose.parks@att.net/* wrote:
Hi, Having finally checked the Recent Changes last night and read some of the "Year XXXX in music" articles, I agree with Mr. Manske. I think this is not a good idea and foresee this followed by "Year XXXX in painting," "Year XXXX in dance," "Year XXXX in literature." Further, the articles are rather summary, listing publication of songs, performers' highpoints, deaths etc. I would think this information will be incorporated in Wikipedia in some other form eventually, if it isn't already. For me. it is hard to find much meaning in these entries, as events appear out of context. For this reason, I think we should consider whether this is a good idea, before it goes much further. As Ever, Ruth Ifcher -- > Someone's creating articles like "1974 in music".Can't that just go > under [[1974]]? > > Ma! gnus > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikipedia-l mailing list > Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org > http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now http://rd.yahoo.com/mail/mailsig/*http://mailplus.yahoo.com
If you have knowledge of other genres of music, there's no reason you can't add information on them at all. The disposition towards rock is merely because that's what's currently being added, presumably because those working on it know more about it than other subjects. If you have knowledge of jazz, classical, whatever, there's no reason you can't be adding that information.
On Wednesday 25 December 2002 11:52 am, Zoe wrote:
I didn't care for it from the beginning, especially since it seems to be solely dedicated to The Year in Rock Music, and all other genres are ignored. Also, I don't like that he's predicting the future with "2003 in music", etc. Zoe
I see nothing wrong with the "the year in music 1981" entries. Most of what goes there would not go in a "1981" entry. It would be fine to link Joan Jett's "I love rock and roll" from the rock and roll anthem page to the year in music, but I don't think you'd link it to 1981.
Nor do I see anything wrong with having parallel entries for "the year in dance", "the year in books" or whatever anyone might want to put together.
Like the regular year entries, they are sketchy now, but I see no reason that the year in music (pottery, anthropology) shouldn't start with a brief essay on the overall year.
For instance, "the year in music 1966" might say that the Beatles had six songs in the top ten (whatever it was) but the most popular song of the year was "The Ballad of the Green Berets". There's an awful lot of social history flowing together in "the year in music 1966".
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
|From: rose.parks@att.net |X-Authenticated-Sender: cm9zZS5wYXJrc0BhdHQubmV0 |Sender: wikipedia-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 17:37:04 +0000 | |Hi, | | Having finally checked the Recent Changes last night and read some of |the "Year XXXX in music" articles, I agree with Mr. Manske. I think this is |not a good idea and foresee this followed by "Year XXXX in painting," "Year |XXXX in dance," "Year XXXX in literature." | Further, the articles are rather summary, listing publication of songs, |performers' highpoints, deaths etc. | I would think this information will be incorporated in Wikipedia in some |other form eventually, if it isn't already. For me. it is hard to find much |meaning in these entries, as events appear out of context. For this reason, I |think we should consider whether this is a good idea, before it goes much |further. | | As Ever, | | Ruth Ifcher | |-- | |> Someone's creating articles like "1974 in music".Can't that just go |> under [[1974]]? |> |> Magnus |> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_in_music |> |
I see nothing wrong with the "the year in music 1981" entries. Most of what goes there would not go in a "1981" entry. It would be fine to link Joan Jett's "I love rock and roll" from the rock and roll anthem page to the year in music, but I don't think you'd link it to 1981.
Nor do I see anything wrong with having parallel entries for "the year in dance", "the year in books" or whatever anyone might want to put together.
I agree. I'm busy putting the year in books pages on my own website. By the time you go through the bestsellers for a year, important books that weren't best sellers, link to authors bios and website, you have a pretty intereresting page that includes a lot of detail that would just clutter up a year page.
Fred
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org