Talk:Index of music articles

Music basic topics

Shouldn't this article be combined with music basic topics, or vice versa? -- Merphant

Possibly - the idea originally was that this page could serve as a "Recent changes" for the musically obsessed - if all music related topics are listed here, you can click on "Related changes" (which used to be labelled "Watch links", if memory serves) to get all the recent edits on music related pages. Music basic topics, on the other hand, is quite an old page that was meant to be a guide for what articles needed to be written on music - however, in my view that page is nearly obsolete - most of the things listed there already have an article, and many of the ones that don't should never have an article in my opinion; andantino, for example, doesn't need an article - the phrase should be covered under andante or maybe under a more general heading of tempo. So I wouldn't mind if music basic topics was gotten rid of altogether, to be honest. --Camembert

That sounds like a good idea; the reason I asked is that there's a fair amount of redundant linking between the two pages. If there are no objections, I'll copy over the links to existing articles from basic topics, and change the links on the main music page (and others; there aren't too many) to this page. Then the basic topics page can be "officially" :) considered deprecated. A while back someone posted the most basic encyclopedia article topics and complete list of encyclopedia topics on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion; they were rejected "for historical reasons," whatever that means.

Also, is it a problem if I turn this into a bulleted list? It's easier to read that way IMHO. -- Merphant

Not really a problem, though it will make it a rather long page in terms of sheer "physcial" length. But sure, go ahead. As for getting the "basic music topics" page deleted: it's probably better to make it redirect to here - I doubt anybody disagreeing with that. --Camembert

Ok, I redirected Music basic topics to here and all of the articles (minus talk pages) that link to it as well. Everything on MBT was already here, except for composers. I didn't link those, because we already have extensive lists of composers.

But that raises another question: what about musical instruments? We also have a list of musical instruments, but piano and violin are on this page. Saxophone is not. This isn't a major issue, but I don't think they should be here, since that encourages duplicate info. I'll put a notice on the page saying not to add stuff that might be on those other lists, and then delete the instrument links. -- Merphant

---

List of instuments / Function of this list?

Sorry - not quite sure of the function of this list. I couldn't resist the temptation to try to fill in all the letters of the alphabet, but noticed that xylophone has been deleted. Fair dos - it should be on the instrument list. But what then about piano, flute, and some of the others? Also ukelele which I added has been left untouched! So, somewhat confused about how this page is to be used. -- User:David Martland

I added those comments before I saw you doing that; it was just a coincidence. I actually just found this page a few days ago too, but started changing things anyway since I am chronic meddler. Guess that's why I'm here ;)

But seriously, I think that not duplicating info on other lists is the right thing to do, even if it means that this page is less efficient. I've deleted most of the instrument and instrumentalist links, although there might still be some lurking in there. -- Merphant

---

Self-link

I put the self link back in the list. It should be there so we can track changes to the list page itself. -- Merphant 09:30 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

I've just reinstated it. The trouble is, self links are viewed as a Bad Thing and are listed as such on the maintenance page. A user zooming around trying to be helpful and tidy up will tend to delete them. I've done this myelf once or twice, but have been prevented from doing so by some in (e.g.) some maths topics where a note in the text asks you not to. Of course a note in Talk ought to help, but if the tidying-up user doesn't know it's ever meant to be there they just might not look. Is there a policy on this that would help? Nevilley 11:29 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

What then is the purpose of a self-link? - Patrick 11:56 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue! But I assume that cleverer people than I do, and have asked about the whole subject in the Village Pump. You might want to add your request for clarification to that? It is something to do with it being easier to monitor changes, but I am not sure how. Nevilley 11:58 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph on the page says that the list exists so that people can click the Related Changes button and see which articles have been modified recently. Thus, since octave is linked from the page, it will pop up at the top of the Related Changes list when somebody modifies the octave article. Having the self link makes it easy to see when somebody modifies the List of musical topics. This probably should be explained on the page. I'll do that now. -- Merphant

---

Music theory topics

There is a list on Music theory of music theory topics. This seems to duplicate part of this list unecessarily. Does anyone see the need to have that as a seperate list? Otherwise I will get rid of it.Hyacinth

The real problem with the music theory page is that it is just a list of topics. All of those subjects should probably be mentined on and linked from that page, but they should all be worked into some descriptive prose. I'll work on it within the next few days unless you beat me to it :) -- Merphant 18:41, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Non-musicians

Where do non-musicians such as record producers, audio engineers, promotion and distribution people, get listed? Not all on List of musicians by genre. Hyacinth 00:23, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's a List of record producers. I suppose you could make similar lists for engineers, promotors, distributors and so on if you wanted (I don't think such lists exist at the moment), though how many record distributors would get articles written about them, I don't know. --Camembert

Gamelan

Should gamelan and jegog be removed from this list, as they are genres? Hyacinth 20:37, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Gamelan should be on the list, because it's really the name of the ensemble rather than the music played (so it's comparable to "orchestra" rather than, say, "microhouse"). Jegog could maybe be removed, I don't know enough about it to say for sure. --Camembert

Jegog is both the name of an ensemble and a genre of music. I wrote the Jegog entry, so when I went to link it I noticed that Gamelan, Orchestra and Musical band were on this list. I also noticed that quartet, quintet, trio were missing. I didn't imediately see a clear distinction of what should and should not be on the list. Thinking about it, I decided to take the broadest view and decided that Jegog is music and Jegog is a topic, and suspected that the list just hadn't been fleshed out fully.

After further review of the list, I have come to the view that it very difficult to come up with distinctions that would not be ethrocentric in determining what should or shouldn't be on this list. For example, I could add dozens of terms relating to Indonesian music. Couldn't the decision just be to have something removed from this list if it can be found on another list that is linked to this one? If that is the case, Jegog and Joged Bumbung should go on a list of types of Gamelan Ensembles (which I might add is needed in the Gamelan entry).

Another suggestion I have is to be clear that there are many LISTS that are linked to this page. That was not clear to me at first. Perhaps LISTS are the only thing that should be linked to this page. I would then call it something different, like "Index of Musical Lists". Is there policy about this sort of thing already?

I'm kinda new to all this, so I just say my piece and see what happens... --SamuelWantman

Proposed additions

• Criticism
• Promotion
• Performance
• Stage
• Audience
• Audio engineer
• Distribution (business)
• Lyrics
  • Hyacinth 05:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Since 'string quartet' is on the list, I added 'string quintet' and 'string sextet'. Hyacinth promptly deleted them, but not string quartet. I think consistency demands the inclusion or exclusion of all the ensembles. (And the 'List of musical ensembles' is not, properly speaking, a list at all, though this is a quibble.) Can we work out a uniform policy here? Physicist 15:43, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is it time to delete this?

Does anyone maintain this list? Does anyone find it useful? Is it time to delete it? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Should there be an exception for indexes?

There's a discussion on what the reference requirements for lists like this one. The Transhumanist (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Music and the brain

another addition, Music and the brain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_the_brain Microcosmmm (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Massive makeover, August 2019

Firstly I'd like to congratulate Cote d'Azur for the huge amount of work they've done here in the last week or so – looks like 1100-1200 edits – wow!

Secondly I'd like to query whether it matters that Cote d'Azur appears to have repurposed the article somewhat. The discussions above, and the hidden text (HTML comment) at the top of the article, talk about the original intent and ask editors not to add stuff that is in other lists: I only realized this when I went to add piccolo trumpet and flugelhorn. There are other examples, both above and in the HTML comment. Cote d'Azur appears to have ignored this ... but ... maybe it doesn't matter!

Most of the people above are long gone. I see an earlier manifestation of myself discussing it >15 years ago, Camembert is in there, and they're hardly here at all any more (and much missed) etc etc. And even then there was doubt about its usefulness. So maybe it really doesn't matter at all if you just change it into a different concept. What I do think you should consider, though, Cote d'Azur, is putting something on this Talk page stating your intentions for the list, and editing the HTML comment so that it is no longer contradicted by the list contents! I very much doubt that you will find anyone with the energy or commitment to argue with you over it, but at least it would set your stall out clearly and update the current purpose of the list.

I certainly won't be arguing with you about your purpose here; I don't really feel that I have a dog in this race any longer. I'd just be happier to see the changes accounted for and, I suppose, in effect agreed to by being mentioned here and not being disputed!

Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no purpose/intentions for this index. Please edit as you deem appropriate. Best regards, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Erm ... OK. I mean, these ~1400 edits, increasing the size from 13K to 39K, do look to me a tiny bit like they could be related to a purpose or an intent, and they do seem to run counter to previous discussions and the HTML comments but, as I say, none of this may matter and I'm dogless here and probably missing the point as usual, so I will just say: enjoy! As for my editing, well, I see you've already added the two instruments I was thinking about so: thanks. With all good wishes, DBaK (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

In view of all Cote d'Azur's work and the lack of input from anyone else, I am happy to leave it as it is, and have edited the HTML comment to reflect the current reality. I'm not up for a fight over this either way and am satisfied that we've at least aired the issue: YMMV. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)