Talk:Salt Lake Tabernacle organ

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Salt Lake Tabernacle organ article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Salt Lake Tabernacle organ was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pipe Organ High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pipe Organ, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pipe Organ on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pipe OrganWikipedia:WikiProject Pipe OrganTemplate:WikiProject Pipe OrganPipe organ articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Copyright violation claim, and subsequent rebuttles[edit]

I am only using the website in question as a reference and am in the process of editing the original text and adding much more of my own, including adding many more references and text. I just need time to do so

--Carter Driggs-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterdriggs (talk • contribs) 06:27, 20 September 2007

Although I'm not terribly impressed by the unobjective tone of this article so far, I do think that the topic probably satisfies the notability requirement if a substantial article can be created to justify an article separate from Salt Lake Tabernacle. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 06:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa—I just noticed that the tag was for copyright violation and not notability. This has simply been copied from the website, and must be deleted. If you want to write an original article using the method you desribe, don't do it in WP. Use a word processor or something and then copy it into WP. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 06:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the tag was placed on I have edited it significantly and intend to continue doing so. I feel that my additions already warrant the tag to be removed. I think it's clear the article will see much expanding and editing. Please help. Carterdriggs 07:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to assist, but I've had to remove paragraphs that were copied verbatim from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir website. Even if we add material before and after the paragraphs that were copied, it's still copyright violation. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needing More Information[edit]

Please add any photos you can, or any more history or general information to make this article truly excellent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterdriggs (talk • contribs) 09:36, 22 September 2007

See commons:Category:Salt Lake Tabernacle for more images already available to en:WP. -- 159.182.1.4 18:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected[edit]

What's up with the semi-protection on the page? I don't think there has been any serious "vandalism" on the page, unless you call my removing copyright-violating material "vandalism" ... Am I missing something? Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 09:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the bot deleted it. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 12:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... considered to be one of the finest organs in the world ..."[edit]

I have added a fact tag to this that is repeated getting deleted. Why? I'm marking it so editors know to get a citation that says something like this. It doesn't mean I think it's not true. In WP, we need sources, and that's all I'm indicating. Without a citation or at least a source tag, this is clearly a POV statement and should be removed. But I'm not removing it—I'm adding a citation tag. So leave it there, or provide a citation. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 10:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had it previously referenced to another WP article, which you removed in your tirade of editing this article. I have since reviewed several of your articles, only to find that you reference WP articles as well. Leave mine alone if you can do it. --Carterdriggs 10:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Notes Carterdriggs 10:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference to WP that serves as a cite on this or any other article I have written. Nice try, though. You may be confusing have WP links in articles and having a WP page itself serve as the source of for the information you are citing. I may put a link in a footnote—if the author of a book has a WP page, for instance—but it is the BOOK being cited for the information, not the WP page. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 12:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In WP we cannot use other WP as a citation. That is why I deleted it and I said so in my edit summary, if you'd care to look. We need a non-WP article, book, or other citation. You need to familiarize yourself with some of the WP policies before you take offence at what others do. (Your cite tag was removed at the other article because it related to a fact that was already well-cited in the article. Quit playing tit-for-tat.) Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A WP article was added as a citation again. Do you understand the principle of what WP requires for citations, Carter? We need a NON-WP source. I.e., a book, an article, a newspaper story, a TV program transcript, even a neutral website. Just not another WP page. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 12:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WE need? Are you an administrator? I think not. YOU may want, but won't receive. Carterdriggs 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol—what? I was using "we" in the sense of "we, the WP community". I'm not sure why you have a chip on your shoulder about this: I'm trying to make good faith edits and hopefully help you understand the meaning of the tag and what qualifies as a reliable citation. Take it or leave it, but please don't engage in WP:ATTACK. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 01:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carterdriggs, if you want to understand the WP communities standards for citations (a core principle) please start with WP:V and WP:CITE. -- 70.59.240.37 02:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

I had a read of this article and i can't foresee much more information being added, unless someone wrote a book specifically about the organ of something. I think maybe it's notable enough for it's own article but might be better presented in the Salt Lake Tabernacle article. I think we could have a great article on the tabernacle, with the organ having it's own special subsection. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems the notability of the organ is directly linked in with the tabernacle itself. Most church/cathedral articles include information on the organ in this way, e.g. St. Paul's Cathedral and Boston Music Hall (the organ this one is based on). Though, arguably, these articles are quite lacking in places and each case should be judged on its own merits. What are other's opinions on this? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of the opinion that the notability of this organ is insistent upon its origins, construction, and overall quality as opposed to say the other organs you mentioned. This is just my opinion, but I think the article is good where it stands. Carter | Talk to me 15:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing[edit]

I just did a little clean up and noticed that the article heavily relies on one source: The Tabernacle Choir website, in fact, outside of the American Organist citation, it's the only reference. This is quite problematic as WP notability demands reliable, third party references. I don't think the website fulfils this quality. I am in no doubt that it is a fine and marvellous organ but are there other sources to quote? If it truly is notable then i assume it must have been mentioned in National Mormon newsletters/magazines at the very least. If such sources cannot be found then I'd be tempted to quick fail the GA nomination. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Salt Lake Tabernacle organ/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'd like to mention that this is a really short article in general. Is there really nothing more that can be added to it?
The entire "Uses" section is unreferenced, leading readers to believe that it is Original Research (WP:OR). Please reference it accordingly.
Remove the fixed width of the first image; there is no need for it to be so big, especially when it overshadows the text.
Even though the article is short, the lead still needs to be expanded to better summarize the article's contents.
Format the references according to WP:CITE/ES, preferably with {{cite web}}.

Gary King (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7 days have passed and these issues have not been addressed. This article has therefore been failed. Gary King (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Slc taborgan1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

	An image used in this article, File:Slc taborgan1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put the tag on the picture because I found the site it came from. Simply cropping a copyrighted picture doesn't cause it to lose its copyright status. The website is not connected to the uploader (at least in any obvious way) and nothing indicates the photo is in the public domain, so I removed it from this article as well. Only pictures that are clearly in the public domain or licensed under the Creative Commons licenses are appropriate for uploading on the Commons. Copyrighted pictures should only be used on Wikipedia when a free version is not available or possible. The picture I replaced it with is a much larger picture and the lighting allows the details of the woodwork to be visible that weren't visible in the previous picture. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bump the list?[edit]

I found the List of pipe organs and was suprised to see that neither this organ nor the Conference Center Organ are on the list, despite their articles claiming they are both "among the largest organs in the world". How do these two organs compare to the ones already on the list? Are they even close to, say, the top ten? If so, I think they should be included in the list. I would do it, but I know next to nothing about organs or their notable characteristics. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over that article & cant figure out their inclusion criteria, so I asked at Talk:List of pipe organs#Inclusion criteria. We'll see if anyone can give a good explanation there what it it, so we can see if we can add these two there. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]