User talk:Parkermusic

Signa (opera)

Hi, I've marked your article Signa (opera) as a candidate for deletion, as per wikipedia policy original research is not permitted. For more information, please see Wikipedia:No original research. --bd_ 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have removed the db tag (which is incorrect, per the template instructions anyway) I have listed your article in Articles for Deletion. Please do not remove the tag, however you may share your thoughts in the discussion page. --bd_ 17:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When faced with a speedy deletion notice, it is enough to mark an article with {{hangon}} to prevent summary deletion - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed theh {{hangon}} tag that you placed on Signa (opera), because the article is no longer a speedy deletion candidate. It's nominated at articles for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signa (opera), where you can comment. The discussion will last for 5 days, so there is no rush. Leebo ^T/C 13:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thorgrim

The OR tag was used advisedly. Your own edits state "I have this article based on work from my unpublished Ph.D thesis". That's about as clearcut a case or original research as onee could find. - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that the above statement gives the impression that these articles are based on 'original' research, however, the reality is that all the facts presented are available in published sources or in sources available for public inspection. These articles have, therefore, been gathering together by the process of writing my Ph.D., and nothing stated could be considered an 'original' statement. Indeed, there is nothing stated in any of the articles could be considered anything other than factual or that is not backed up by evidence from several sources. I apologise for my poor use of terminology in my profile which has led to this confusion.

Christopher J. Parker 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous talk page, I have now deleted the 'Plot' element to comply with these wikipedia requirements and have added additional references to clarify the sources of the information in the article.

Christopher J. Parker 13:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGN

Please sign your comments on Wikipedia talk pages. (Just type ~~~~ after your comments in talk pages). Then they will look like this ----> - Tiswas^(t/c) 17:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, am now doing so, sorry, I am new to this.

Christopher J. Parker 13:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for plot summaries

When you write about fiction, and you seem to have created a number of articles about various operas, the articles should not be plot summaries. It's acceptable to discuss the plot briefly, but more important is encyclopedic information like the operas' cultural impact. Most of the text of the opera articles are summaries of the plots. I recommend reading the Manual of Style for fiction before creating additional articles on operas. Leave me a note on my talk page if you have any questions. Leebo ^T/C 17:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my previous talk page, I have now deleted the 'Plot' element of all four of Cowen's operas to comply with these wikipedia requirements and have added additional references to clarify the sources of the information in the articles. I hope this is sufficient...

Christopher J. Parker 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parkermusic, it was not my intention for you to delete all of the plot summaries completely. It's okay to have a plot summary (as I said above), but it should be kept to a length appropriate for the article. An article detailing a work of fiction should have a brief summary of the plot, but it should not be the sole focus of the article. See the Manual of Style for fiction for more information. Leebo ^T/C 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research, referencing and plots

Further to my observations elsewhere, I have now clarified the original research issues that have been raised (see my comments elsewhere, and I hope that the articles will be kept unchanged. I have added further reference data to all the articles that I have contributed: Frederic Hymen Cowen, Pauline (opera), Thorgrim, Signa (opera) and Harold or the Norman Conquest. I have deleted the plots as per wikipedia instructions.

Christopher J. Parker 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Opera Project

As you will have seen I have tried to verify your articles and remove the OR tags as appropriate. I'd like to suggest joining the Opera Project so that we can help you with any editorial problems you may encounter.

Specifically synopses are a normal part of opera articles - as they are of films and plays etc. and of course other encyclopedias like Grove. An example is Parsifal which has just been given Good Article status. We encourage writers to contribute there own and not copy-and-paste from other sources. I hope you will restore yours. - Kleinzach 03:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and verifiability

Hi again - It's perhaps worth pointing out that citing your own, as yet unpublished, Ph.D. thesis, means that any citations are ultimately unverifiable, which is one of the biggest wikipedia no-nos. If you can cite publically available material, the issue would be moot. - Tiswas^(t) 15:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Hymen Cowen

i'm just inquiring on your sources for the spelling of Cowen's middle name. --emerson7 | Talk 16:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lost chamber piece?

Greetings. Are you still around on Wiki? Did you see the note on the talk page about a mention of a piano quartet (possibly lost)? -HammerFilmFan 50.111.2.158 (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]