User talk:Graham1973

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Eruption Commment[edit]

Most recent eruption should always be mentioned. It doesn't matter if it started last year. There are volcanoes, which started erupting some fifty years ago and erupt ever since but we still state the latest year of eruption, which is 2008 in this case. Details can always be mentioned in the article itself. -- Darwinek (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism 2[edit]

Thanks for your feedback! --Catgut (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply about Explorer 33[edit]

I left you a reply at my talk page: User_talk:CosineKitty#Explorer_Articles. CosineKitty (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fictional astronauts[edit]

I have a hard time answering this one, since I've never read the book and I can only find brief descriptions of it. Based on what I know, I'd go ahead and put it in the Gemini section for the appropriate time period, but with a note about this not being a Gemini rocket. RandomCritic (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome to Mars[edit]

Since, according to your description, it's about a teenage genius and his girlfriend operating (I assume) outside the boundaries of a space program, I am doubtful whether the protagonists can be called astronauts -- it sounds like it puts the book into a different sort of subgenre, the kind that deals with genius inventors like Hans Zarkov or Richard Seaton or Tom Swift, Jr..

Thanks by the way for a lot of very good and helpful additions to List of fictional astronauts! RandomCritic (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009[edit]

Information.svg Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Military space shuttle, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Law Lord (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Information.svg Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Military space shuttle. Thank you. Law Lord (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Saber[edit]

Is the spaceplane in question supposed to be orbit-capable? Is the mission experimental/exploratory, or is it routine? RandomCritic (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, according to this and this, The Adventures of Captain 'Space' Kingley is a 1951 publication. It looks to be in the same category as Dan Dare. RandomCritic (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

BeethovenGate[edit]

Please don't interpret any deletions as personal attacks; they are simply attacks on words, which are welcome to be attacked back (so we get a good article) :)

As for the Melk cadenza, I didn't see that in the bit I deleted although I did notice it in the footnotes. Now, I don't think cadenzas written by various people are themselves notable, unless they have features of interest or are of historical importance. But if you think this cadenza is important then put it back in!

Tell you what, let's have a section/paragraph about cadenzas written for this work and we'll put that in too. OK? Then it will be useful for people looking for cadenzas for it.

Thanks for your contributionsPhilip Howard (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good! I put in a lot of cadenzas that I found on the IMSP page for this work. I or you can add the others you mentioned, though I haven't seen those. Philip Howard (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop![edit]

Please stop what you're doing to the season articles. I think it's making the appearance worse. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, I was talking about this, where you added the unnecessary Image function. As for the spacing of the TOC, that's a good call. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Nah, I'm sorry I overreacted. I'm glad, actually, that you are working on the older articles. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yea, this edit is what I'm talking about. What you did is added an unnecessarily large white space in every single infobox, whereas before the image was centered. Think about the time period - there is no chance we'll get any other images to fill in that space. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply about Apollo at Go[edit]

I've left you a reply at my talk page: User talk:Gildir#Your additions to the List of Fictional Astronauts. Gildir (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

And, once again, I've left you a reply at my talk page: User talk:Gildir#Your additions to the List of Fictional Astronauts. Gildir (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
In answer to your reply, you're welcome. :-) Gildir (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Between us, I believe we have now updated the citation formats for all the references to books and journals on the list. :-) Gildir (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Explorer 33[edit]

Hi there! As part of an attempt to clear our backlog of article assessment requests over at WP:SPACEFLIGHT, I took a look at Explorer 33 as you requested. I believe it is currently start-class (and meets four of the six B-class criteria), largely due to the short length of the article. If you would like me to have another look at it once its expanded, drop me a line! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


National Airlines Flight 27[edit]

I noticed you did some tweaking to this article. Most of which were done to edits done by this editor.[1] There are two big problems with the article, which aren't your fault, but I am just bringing to your attention.

1- The edits by Fi11222 propose a theory for the crash that doesn't match the NTSB report.[2] If the NTSB didn't blame the pilots, why is wikipedia?

2- The edits are copied largely verbatim from here and without sourcing.[3]. Take for instance this paragraph-

However, it is clear that the captain and flight engineer's irresponsible actions were to blame. They were experimenting with the autothrottle system, which supplied the instruments that measure the rotational speed of each engine's low pressure compressor. The cockpit voice recording contains the following conversation just prior to the number 3 engine exploding:


See WP:Plagiarism. After discovering this I reverted the article basically back to what it was before Fi11222 did their edits.

Something I've learned to do when I see suspicious edits- Check the article's edit history, check who the editor was, and if they don't have a long background at WP, do a google search to see if the article was copied from elsewhere.- William 14:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space[edit]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Graham1973/A Cambridge Mass has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A Cambridge Mass, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
A Cambridge Mass, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

 JoeGazz  ♂  13:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


Bordesley railway station[edit]

Hi there, I have nominated the Bordesley railway station article for the 'Did you know' scheme. Best Wishes, Martin H. Heron (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

rubinstein Eroica[edit]

Just listening to this (for the first time) on YouTube, and it seems pretty awful, well-inclined as I am to Rubinstein. Apparently Rimsky-Korsakov described it as "either bad Beethoven or poorly-orchestrated Mendelssohn", and this seems fair enough to me. I haven't identified any thematic connections with Beethoven's 'Eroica'. Did not Rubinstein's title simply mean 'Heroic Fantasy', rather than 'Fantasy on the Eroica'. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Try this (recorded at the music festival I run in Slovakia). I am away from my books till end August but if I find anything more about the Fantasy I will let you know. Best, --Smerus (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: 1878[edit]

Hey there! It's getting there, but I don't think it's quite C-class yet. It's missing a lot, unfortunately. It only relies on three sources. The meteorological history could be longer, and there could be more info for different areas. If you need any help getting sources, let me know! Keep up the good work though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  • [4] - here is the official re-analysis info for the storm.
  • [5] - Virginia-specific info
  • [6] - Impact in Florida
  • [7] - Monthly Weather Review, check page 5 and 6

Mostly, it just seems that the meteorological history is a little short (compare with this), and the impact should be a little more comprehensive. Also, the impact appears to be missing sources. It's just a lot of one-liners. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yea, that source is probably your best bet. And yea, that article has been around for a while. It's only if you're trying to get it to GA that you should use all of those links. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice, it's a neat format. Keep it up! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the new 25th Armored Division (United States) article and for working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of military-related topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Insignia[edit]

I found some useful sources for many of the insignia for the British fictional units! Diagram of the fortitude patches and a list of some of the others. The latter list mostly contains real units - some of which were later re-activated for deception. Oh, to answer your question about barnstars - just copy/paste the whole of the barnstar code to wherever you wish to display it :) --Errant (chat!) 09:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Deception formations[edit]

Sorry; was acting in accordance with WP:BOLD. Should say that I do not believe deception formations should have their own independent articles, because they show in the categories and elsewhere as 'real' formations, and cause confusion. You may have seen British deception formations in World War II as a grouping article; I intend to create United States deception formations in World War II as well. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How can my edits to Operation Pastel be 'vandalism' if I'm *adding* data that is not questioned by anyone as true, and it's sourced? You simply cannot just keep reverting when it means that these non-existent corps are showing as real corps. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
In accordance with the suggestion at ErrantX's talkpage, I've just started a thread at WP:MILHIST#Notional versus real military formations. Please go ahead and make your argument there for wider discussion. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my disappearing in the middle of this discussion :) I see it was archived on the MILHIST page without any firm resolution. Just jotting my thoughts down here... I'm not too worried either way about the existence of these short articles, although if it will only amount to a couple of lines then it is probably best redirecting to a list (which doesn't exist in article space as yet so perhaps for now stubs are not the worst option). Some of the articles are more substantial (the units were more important, or had complex uses) - these might be worth merging into operation articles, however some may have extra info worth keeping. In the Middle East, Clarke used and reused many fictional formations as part of his order-of-battle deception. So some of those units were used multiple times for many different things. I'm still uncertain how best to arrange those for the reader. One thing I am firm about though is the use of "fictional" over "notional"; the latter term has a definition more centred around "Speculative or theoretical". If these were merely paper units communicated only via special means, then I could agree notional is a broadly apt term. However, many of these units were actively portrayed - either via wireless communication, visual deception, etc. In some extreme cases the formations could actually be argued to have existed (for example, some of the desert brigades existed as formations of dummies). So I think "fictional" is a more broadly applicable term. It would be good to discuss and agree a "guideline" for which word is most appropriate (FUSAG, for example, was a complex fiction. But, at the other end of the scale, the British Sixth Army was a paper formation and very much "notional"). Finally, categories. It would be useful to get an idea of how to categorise these units. I concur that including them along with real formations is, in the most part, not useful. I've yet to look in depth at the extent to which we will have standalone articles in this set, and also at the current real formations categories, but one idea might be to broadly emulate the structure of real categories, but with fictional/notional (or whatever word we pick) tacked on. --Errant (chat!) 10:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ErrantX for your thoughts. One area where we disagree is 'fictional' versus 'notional'; 'fictional' implies, for the non-specialist readers that Wikipedia is specifically directed to be intended for, those written about in popular fiction: No. 633 Squadron RAF, or Leo Kessler's 'SS Assault Brigade Wotan' etc. We *cannot* use 'fictional' because they will appear to be part of the avalanche of post Second World War fiction!! I'm not attached to 'notional'; 'deception' would be a great alternative, or others you might propose. The thing is we have to distinguish them as non-existing, and I respectfully suggest they were actually all 'notional', while R Force etc were the actual staff sections/signals units that were portraying them. These units did not exist; the deception enablers such as the special signals battalions did. Anyway, suggest using 'fictional' is the wrong option. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Quartet edits[edit]

Hi Graham. The edits I undertook are very much a matter of taste, of course; my intention was just to bring the articles into line with some consensus current WP practice for classical music articles. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there aren't any cast-iron rules as such. The guidelines page gives general background advice. Existing articles vary in quality - older ones that haven't been revised are often out of step with the present consensus. I don't put myself forward as an authority on WP style, so treat anything I say with the same detached interest that I would were someone giving me their opinions! Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
one tip, put the sources in alphabetical order of author surname - Best ---Smerus (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast[edit]

Breakfast!.jpg
Hello, Graham1973.

You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


Orphaned non-free media (File:On The Beach66.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:On The Beach66.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Deception units[edit]

Thanks for your message Graham1973. Really I'm a bit at a loss; while saying during the discussion that you had a fix underway, which would result in a new article covering all the units in one, to avoid the pseudo-unit issue, you then went away and did other things. I checked your contributions before I rolled up the deception XXXV Corps again and you'd done nothing further. Really - what do you expect me to do?- you ask everyone to hold off doing anything because your new article was to cover it, do no more on the new article, and then attack people who attempt to resolve the issue in the absence of any action from you. Happy to talk about this but as I say I'm not sure what you think I should have done. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is really that we're working at two different speeds - mine much faster than yours. Would you consider my finishing your draft article and mainspacing it?- that is a reasonable solution to both our concerns(?) Then I won't remain irritated by nonexistent formation articles and have the nagging temptation to do something about it.... Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you do not wish to act, do not complain about others doing so, when I have suggested a reasonable solution that would attempt to address both our concerns. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your message Graham. You may be interested to read Nick-D's comment on the same thread at my talkpage. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, please note that Nick-D is giving you very good suggestions on Buckshot's talk page, and continuing in your current line of editing is getting tendentious and disruptive. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Graham1973: I would invite you to clearly indicate what you feel you need an apology for. As other editors have indicated, I am begining to feel your conduct is becoming disruptive. I have attempted to suggest compromises, reflecting our different editing paces, and your responses could be considered taunts and Personal attacks. Please get to the point. Regards, Buckshot06 (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Classical Music WikiProject[edit]

Hello Graham, the Classical Music WikiProject looks very inactive. Volunteers are needed to help get it back on its feet. You appear to be quite active currently. Let me know if you're interested. Thanks. Bubka42 (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to British Eagle may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • //www.britisheagle.net/Routes-Maps-CE.htm |title=The Home of Eagle ... — Cunard Eagle Route Map] |publisher=britisheagle.net}}</ref><ref name="Eagle_34"/><ref name="MidAtlanticReturn"/><ref name="
  • //www.britisheagle.net/Aircraft-By-Type.htm |title=The Home of Eagle ... — Eagle Aircraft by Type] |publisher=britisheagle.net}}</ref> formed part of the fleet during Eagle's 20 years of operation:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saudia Flight 163 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • title=Family Suing in Saudi Airliner Fire; Crew Found Partly at Fault]|last=Witkin|first=Richard|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=17 October, 1980}}</ref><ref name="

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation templates[edit]

Hi! I am aware of the "cite news" citation template, but I am not in the habit of using them. I have read that the best articles usually stick to one or two citation styles (template or no template) so I am fine if the editors decide by consensus that, for that article, templates should be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sinfonia Concertante for Violin, Viola, Cello and Orchestra (Mozart)[edit]

Hi Graham. I added a web cite ref to the article, and do not know if this would need tweeking. Pls R+R. Cheers. Sam Sailor (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Information on Ice[edit]

Hi, Graham. I finally finished reading Ice by Shane Johnson, and the Apollo 20 CSM and LM are not named. Also, the reason only the commander is listed for Apollo 20 on List of fictional astronauts is that the other two crew members are historical astronauts (Slayton and Irwin). The Aitken Basin is referred to in the book by the fictional name "Marlow" as part of the book's alternate history. The fictional Bruce Cortney also served as CMP on Apollo 18 (alongside Haise and Gordon) in the back-story of Ice -- should that also be on the list? Gildir (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Syros may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[http://www.festivaloftheaegean.com/home.html Festival of the Agean] (Official website of the music festival that has been held on the island since 2005.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Études Op. 42 (Rautavaara), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seventh (music) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Queens Super Express Bypass[edit]

I found:

  1. "the super express bypass line to Forest Hills in Queens", \
  2. "three lines in Queens- the "super. express .bypass"-from Sunnyside to Forest Hills, the south. east Queens line and the Jamaica Avenue "L" replacement", $"This Iink is known as the "super-express" bypass and would be built parallel to",
  3. "The Queens bypass is the so-called "super express" and
  4. "Soon, MTA officials said, such projects as the Queens Express Bypass may be trimmed substantially. This subway was designed to extend the 63d Street tunnel" at the NYT and I think
  5. "The Queens bypass thrown out by Mayor Koch 10 years ago would not disturb those neighborhoods." at Newsday.

Do those help? Yngvadottir (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember, do not feed the Troll[edit]

Hi: You seem to call me a "troll" regarding wolf page and you revert my edits. I've discovered that a prime info source for page actually rates an appendix in what is probably the most significant federal document on wolves ever written. I'd like to have this fact discussed at some extent on the article's talk page. You want to revert my comments as a "troll." That's DAFT.

Please don't revert this discussion. Thank you. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wolf attacks on humans. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Death and the Maiden[edit]

Thank you for adding the fascinating link to Professor Hogwood's lecture. It was interesting that his talk follows our article almost point by point - even using some of the same quotes - yet his conclusion is almost the exact opposite - while we lean (along with most of the sources) toward a quasi-programmatic analysis of the piece, he adheres strongly to an abstract approach. Ravpapa (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Tattenham Corner railway station[edit]

Where in Template:Unreferenced does it say that refs in the infobox don't count? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The references only cover disabled access and how many people use the station. Neither of them cover anything that written in the main part of the article.Graham1973 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, where in Template:Unreferenced does it say that only the refs in the main part count? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Changed it to ref-improve.Graham1973 (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Fine. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Classical Music, Composition Task Force Revival[edit]

Hello, I'm Tal Brenev. I've recently left a message at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force, in an attempt to revive the WikiProject. I will try to send a message to everyone on the list of participants, so as to get more suggestions and/or ideas. If you would like to participate, leave a message at the WikiProject Talk Page, or on my talk page. Thanks!

---Tal Brenev (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Knowles Paine may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[As You Like It Overture (Paine)|''As You Like It'', Overture, op. 28

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarinet Quintet (Täglichsbeck)[edit]

You added a page for this work (by another composer I've never heard of)... but I really suggest it would be better to add this into the composer's page. I think that unless it is likely to become an immensely popular work, or to be very greatly enlarged, the amount of content is simply not enough for an article. If this is one of those "unknown gems" then just add a section to the composer page (at a glance I sensed that most of what he wrote was not very significant).

I am not a WikiPro, so ignore/correct if you wish. I just added a composer, possibly even more obscure: Walter Schulthess if you are interested.

Please reply here in sequence. Thanks! Imaginatorium (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you replied on my talk page, I have left a message there. Please 'watch' the page. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Two pieces for wind quintet (Ropartz)[edit]

Thanks for your message. Whilst I don't oppose the creation of articles for lesser-known musical works, and am all in favour of collaboration, I do think that it is bad practice to create stub articles and just hope that someone else will add the references for you. If the work is notable, it should be possible for you to find the references yourself and add them when you create the article. Deb (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I am very much in agreement with Deb here... of course the material is useful, but I do not think huge numbers of tiny pages (really not amounting to *articles*) are the most effective way to add this. In the case of an obscure composer, like Guy Ropartz, Thomas Täglichsbeck, or Walter Schulthess‎ (for example), it would be much more helpful to put the information directly into the list of compositions on the composer's page. After all, it's basically a list of movements, a composition date and a very short note. (Personally, I would just go to IMSLP to look at works.) I know there are musical works well worth a single article, but even away from the obscure: if you look at Brahms piano solo works... List_of_compositions_by_Johannes_Brahms_by_genre#Two_hands then surely one really good article on the "last piano works" (117, 118, and 119) would be better than rather scrappy articles at present. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I agree with the others here. But first I want to ask: are they any performances? Are there any recordings? In general we cover in detail each work only for major works of clearly major creative people in any field, and in separate articles for all of their works usually only the ones who could by some stretch be called famous. Even by the extraordinarily broad criteria for popular musics we wouldn't have this article. Nobody is going to come here to look at this by title of the work--they would automatically and naturally look for the composer. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
DGG asked me about this. Per him and the others, I feel articles like this (especially for relatively minor composers, but even for major ones) shouldn't be started unless there is evidence of performance or recording and preferably published commentary on the composition. The above article doesn't even tell you what key it's in. Where you have only minimal information, it's much better to add it to the list of the composer's works. Some are in articles on the composer, others are free-standing with various degrees of complexity from the relatively simply laid out List of compositions by Johannes Brahms by opus number to the rather complex List of compositions by George Frideric Handel. It does a disservice to readers when they click on the link in the article on Ropartz, only to be taken to a sub-stub that tells them little more than what is already in the list, less in fact, because the list of compositions gives the composition date. I also tend to agree that it's bad practice to create an article if you're not willing to put in the minimal work to make it of service to the reader and expect other editors to do that work for you. Perhaps it would be worth opening a general discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music to get more views. Mine may not be representative. Voceditenore (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
PS I've "expanded" and referenced Two pieces for wind quintet (Ropartz), as much as is probably possible, i.e., not an awful lot. Voceditenore (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to String Quintet, Op. 4 (Beethoven) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • a second trio was added to the former and a new alternate theme was inserted in the latter.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.allmusic.com/composition/string-quintet-in-e-flat-major-after-the-octet-op-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

List of fictional astronauts[edit]

Graham -- Forgive me if this is inappropriate, but I've been feeling concerned and guilty lately that you haven't been editing the List of fictional astronauts article. I realize that you might simply be doing other things, but I'm afraid that the amount I've been adding to the article lately, and the length of my to-do list on the talk page, might be intimidating. (The nature of my job gives me a lot of time to read, so I've been reading lots of novels about spaceflight.) Your contributions to that page have been exceptionally valuable, and I wouldn't want to interfere with your work on it in any way. Once again, apologies if this was inappropriate or overstepping. All the best. :-) Gildir (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have included an edit summary for my last edit. :-) Gildir (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Dan-Air[edit]

Hi Graham1973, and thanks for this. It's a very unfortunate situation. In the past months, GraemeLeggett, SonofSetanta and I have been editing the article to solve a WP:CITECLUTTER problem. Regards.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Graham1973. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
Message added 19:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Submarine 1922 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of Indonesia|accessdate=2006-12-31 |work=Centre of Volcanology & Geological Hazard Mitigation}}(</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Kalinnikov[edit]

Hello Graham1973, I removed 2 Miniatures from the Vasily Kalinnikov page as it was composed by his brother Viktor Kalinnikov. Hrdinský 15:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Piano Quartet No. 1 (Fauré)[edit]

Your attention mending a broken link is appreciated, but please don't bulldoze your preferred citation style: please read WP:CITEVAR and redo. Regards, Tim riley talk 17:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced section[edit]

Hi Graham1973! In this edit, you added {{unreferenced|section=yes}}. Since {{unreferenced}} doesn't support |section=yes, could you please use {{unreferenced section}} in the future? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)