CZ Talk:Music Workgroup: Difference between revisions
imported>Michael Scott Cuthbert (dividing and high on the todo list.) |
imported>Matthias Röder (I agree with Myke) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I also think that most of the articles we currently have on the list tend to have pretty good WP articles, so there is less incentive to write an article here. Where WP tends to have awful music articles are those that cover the history of a genre or style. Those tend to be the articles where every anonymous editor adds his or her two cents, where every obvious assertion needs to have a footnote (hypothetical Baroque Music ex.: "Bach was an important baroque composer, according to an article in Newsweek 2005"), and otherwise where Wikipedia's policies tend to lead to bad writing. So I'll suggest that those larger history sections be high on the to-do list. [[User:Michael Scott Cuthbert|Michael Scott Cuthbert]] 09:19, 7 August 2007 (CDT) | I also think that most of the articles we currently have on the list tend to have pretty good WP articles, so there is less incentive to write an article here. Where WP tends to have awful music articles are those that cover the history of a genre or style. Those tend to be the articles where every anonymous editor adds his or her two cents, where every obvious assertion needs to have a footnote (hypothetical Baroque Music ex.: "Bach was an important baroque composer, according to an article in Newsweek 2005"), and otherwise where Wikipedia's policies tend to lead to bad writing. So I'll suggest that those larger history sections be high on the to-do list. [[User:Michael Scott Cuthbert|Michael Scott Cuthbert]] 09:19, 7 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Hey Myke! Welcome to CZ! :-) Yes, I totally agree with what you suggest. Let's split the Workgroup and focus on articles that cover genres or styles. [[User:Matthias Röder|Matthias Röder]] 10:00, 7 August 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 09:00, 7 August 2007
Based on the experience on WP and elsewhere, I think that one of the first things we should do is sub-divide the Music Workgroup's "to-do" list into at least popular and classical, or popular, classical, and world. There are few people who are experts in more than one of these fields. This would help us figure out better what the most needed articles are.
I also think that most of the articles we currently have on the list tend to have pretty good WP articles, so there is less incentive to write an article here. Where WP tends to have awful music articles are those that cover the history of a genre or style. Those tend to be the articles where every anonymous editor adds his or her two cents, where every obvious assertion needs to have a footnote (hypothetical Baroque Music ex.: "Bach was an important baroque composer, according to an article in Newsweek 2005"), and otherwise where Wikipedia's policies tend to lead to bad writing. So I'll suggest that those larger history sections be high on the to-do list. Michael Scott Cuthbert 09:19, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
- Hey Myke! Welcome to CZ! :-) Yes, I totally agree with what you suggest. Let's split the Workgroup and focus on articles that cover genres or styles. Matthias Röder 10:00, 7 August 2007 (CDT)