Hi TlonicChronic! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Many thanks for all your work on ECM albums! Are you actually plowing through all of them?

As an old fart, I have happy memories re. some of those recordings, when they first came out in the 1970s.

Anyway, thank you, and best regards,

Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doing my best! I first learned of the label when I was given a copy of Le pas du chat noir when I was eight or nine, a few years after it had come out. Trying to work through the wiki to find some of the classics, and give back a little. Recently discovered Holland's work (grew up on In a Silent Way), Maupin's The Jewel in the Lotus, and a couple others.

I'm hoping to create a few articles for the New Series eventually, there's a sorry lack of them, and so far they're some of my favorite ECM recordings (I had never heard of Arvo Pärt before—it isn't ECM but I can't stop listening to this saxophone quartet recording of Anima).

What have some of your favorites been? TlonicChronic (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - that's a huge task. I admire your patience and persistence.

Re. favorites: there are so many, and I keep stumbling across more amazing recordings! I like the Towner Solstice albums, Gary Burton's Ring, Holland's Emerald Tears, the Gateway releases, Old and New Dreams, etc. etc. but also the wild Evan Parker Electro-Acoustic stuff. I remember hearing "Red and Orange" from Abercrombie's Timeless for the first time, and thinking "this drummer is good!" ...then discovering the huge DeJohnette discography, of which I was ignorant at the time.

Again, thanks for all your hard work!

Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just listened to Emerald Tears this morning! The Electro-Acoustic Ensemble caught my eye recently; some of the avant thread of ECM gets pretty out there, Roscoe Mitchell et. al.

I still have yet to sink my teeth into DeJohnette, he has such a massive discography; always catches my ear every time he shows up on a project. I keep thinking about starting, but it's hard to find the right entry point—I think he's recorded over 40 albums just with Holland.

I'm excited to try out that Burton album!

Have you listened to any of the scattered middle eastern recording Eicher has produced? I've been enjoying The Wind lately. TlonicChronic (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with either Kalhor or Erzincan, and will definitely check them out asap. Thanks for the recommendation! Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I saw your questions/concerns re. Tyran Grillo on another page. I hope you don't mind my chiming in. I've seen his reviews in DownBeat (for ex https://downbeat.com/reviews/detail/scopes), All About Jazz, the New York City Jazz Record, and other places, so assumed he's legit. His reviews are also cited in books like The Oxford Handbook of Music and Medievalism and at least one book on Arvo Pärt. I also got the feeling that the people at ECM wouldn't say nice things about his book if he was not legit, but maybe I'm wrong. Just my 2 cents...

Thanks again for all your hard work!

Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you post this, or, do you mind if I copy this over there? That completely answers my doubts.

I've enjoyed reading the blog, for what it's worth, but it's always felt more like a fan blog than a music journal. TlonicChronic (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you read quite a bit about music, and interesting books too! Did you study music in college? Is it a passion? What's your library like? TlonicChronic (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're heading out of town and I'll be offline for a while, so will have to catch up when we get back. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude! Please do whatever you like with the info re. Grillo. Thanks, and take care. Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. I studied music but spent decades working as a software engineer and doing music-related things on the side. What about you?

Your persistence re. the ECM project is incredible!

Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I hope you and yours had a pleasant journey!

I played piano, strings, and a little guitar before college. I suppose recently I consider myself more of a fan of recorded music (1949–present) than a musician. TlonicChronic (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of music did you study? TlonicChronic (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I studied and participated in anything I could get my ears on - classical, jazz, "world music," prog rock, free improvisation, blues, punk, etc. etc. What about you? Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you ran the gamut!

I grew up on 90s indie and hip hop and 60s jazz, played in a couple youth orchestras, took lessons, played a few churches in a string quintet. Moved on to some hardcore, metal, electronic music. I've been trying to fill the holes lately, mostly been focusing on record labels. Been listening to a lot of the Numero Group, BIS, Sub Pop, and ECM lately, but I've been hoping to do an SST run. I've also had Davis' Columbia years in heavy rotation for a while. TlonicChronic (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've spotted one of my lockdown projects; it basically involved sitting in an armchair with a phone and the Penguin Guide to Jazz Recordings. At some point I ought to go back and add some of the comments from the Penguin Guide, especially where their rating differs widely from the ones already quoted. Have you heard DeJohnette's Special Edition? Cheers, Brunton (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an awesome time! How much of that thing did you get through? I've only leafed through mine, read the intro and a couple discographies.

I just put on Special Edition—I'll worm my way into DeJohnette's catalogue, slowly but surely. Brahem's Blue Maqams is slowly becoming one of my favorite Holland–DeJohnette projects.

Did you discover any new frequent-spins on you mission? TlonicChronic (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the whole thing page by page (I was going to go through The Penguin Guide to Blues Recordings as well, but it seems that far fewer blues albums are notable). It added quite a few to my wants list and got me interested in William Parker, O'Neal's Porch is one I listen to often. And it reminded me I didn't have much Ben Webster, so having found a copy Ben Webster Meets Oscar Peterson is one I keep coming back to. Most of the stuff added is still on the list, I mostly buy in 2nd hand or charity shops so a lot of the fun is in finding unexpected stuff while I'm trying to find them.

The only Brahem albums I've got are Thimar (with Holland and John Surman but no DeJohnette) and Le Voyage de Sahar. I suppose I'll have to listen to those again now...Brunton (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's incredible—what a journey. I hadn't heard of Ben Webster Meets Oscar Peterson, but I've been enjoying it so far. Verve had some really cool stuff around that period.

I've never even heard of Parker. Is O'Neal's Porch a good place to start?

I figure one day I'll get around to the blues... TlonicChronic (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've heard so far either that or Petit Oiseau would be a good start, they are quartet albums so it's a bit easier to follow, but there's plenty of his stuff I haven't heard yet.

I started out with the blues, only got interested in jazz about 20 years ago. Brunton (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability question: isn't being included in the PGB intrinsic qualification for notability? TlonicChronic (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say not. According to the introduction they "tried to trace and write about everything that is currently available". I can't find anything specific about this type of source, but GNG says, "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page..." It's undoubtedly an independent RS, but most of the entries are pretty brief, although there are some that could go towards establishing notability. Brunton (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That makes a lot of sense to me. TlonicChronic (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, there may be something I'm missing about notability of albums, there seem to be plenty of album pages that have only a few sentences of text plus personnel, track listing etc. Brunton (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like the standard went from "If the album exists and someone cares enough to put it on wiki" to "if a professional review exists of it" to (possibly) something closer to the actually letter of the rules. It feels like once it hit 100,000 articles or something they wanted to make sure it didn't hit a million. (Edit: I wonder how many stubs would make it through review? Maybe a coin flip?) TlonicChronic (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found a copy of Universal Syncopations II, the most recent ECM article you've thanked me for an edit on, in a North London 2nd-hand shop. Not had a chance to listen to it yet. Brunton (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's really cool! I'm excited to hear what you thing (I haven't listened to it myself yet). I really hope I'm not being mean of aggressive on the kombucha page. I value our interactions on here more than I care about the kombucha page, and I would rather drop it that cause problems. TlonicChronic (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Genius of Modern Music. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was already published (see attribution) years ago, it isn't my article. When I separated off the 12" I revealed the lack of citations. I think it should probably be put back. TlonicChronic (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Also anything that happens to Genius of Modern Music should probably happen to Genius of Modern Music, Vol. 2, which I also separated off and has no citations either) TlonicChronic (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you suggest I add both as subpages to Genius of Modern Music, Vols. 1 & 2 and requested a split? TlonicChronic (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This goes back to what we were discussing about album notability in the section above. I'll have a look at this, and see if I can find any sources for the particular album. Monk's Blue Note recordings have their own article at Thelonious Monk Blue Note Sessions which lists the sessions, personnel and issues. Not much in the way of references there either, but it should be fairly easy to find discussions of the music and sessions in RS. As the albums are compilations of the original releases, perhaps the album pages should redirect there if significant coverage of the individual reissues can't be found in RS? Brunton (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of taking the relevant info here and merging with his discography page and turning the rest into <nowiki> if that makes a difference. Edit: If no significant coverage can be found of the 10"s, imo it might still be nice to have the infobox and tracklisting as a subpage somewhere so they can be navigated through in his discography, but I'm down for whatever the community decides re: Monk. If people would rather split it back into two pages with the 10"s, 12"s and CDs combined, it might even make more sense (I just thought merging made things more consistent)TlonicChronic (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to create the Complete Blue Note Recordings of Thelonious Monk page. It probably needs extra sourcing and a cleaning up. I think the Thelonious Monk discography page needs an overhaul, but I'd like feedback on that before attempting it myself (I started a tentative topic at the talk page. Let me know what you think should happen to Vol 2 and the orphaned 10", or if you think the 12" combined page needs to be split!
Edit: I couldn't find a single citable review for 5002 or 5009. It's possible I missed some online, or there might be some microfiches of old contemporary reviews, but I'd guess neither are notable.TlonicChronic (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a New York Times review of 5002 quoted at page 160-161 of Robin D. G. Kelley, Thelonious Monk: the life and times of an American original, and references to both albums in the pages before that, including a comment that Monk hoped that the release on the new LP format would help his career. Brunton (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh I totally forgot to search books, I'm still new to editing. Is the original review necessary to have, or is enough to be able to cite it?
Edit: I feel like the more I read about notability the less I understand what that means. "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." If there's an independent review talking about it in the early 50s, and many reviews talking about later compilations of the same recordings, are those "sources" in the plural? "Verifiable and objective" I think is covered, but I don't know what "significant attention" means.TlonicChronic (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines are intentionally vague to allow some leeway but a good rule of thumb is WP:THREE with "significant" being two hundred words-ish in each of the those three source devoted to the subject. However, you will get different opinions from different editors and it truly depends on various factors. At then end of the day, if an article is nominated for deletion (WP:AFD) you need to be able to convince other editors the article should be kept. I suggest keeping an eye on WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music to get a feel for what editors are looking for.

Also if you are not already aware, you have access to the WP:Wikipedia Library which will be helpful for finding sources (Newspapers.com and Proquest are probably the most helpful). S0091 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you don't have access as your account is not yet six month old. Accounts that are six months old and have 500 edits are granted access. You meet the edit count but not the age yet. Sorry about that. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The three sources, two hundred words, really helps; those resources sound very useful too, when I have access. Edit: though to be honest, I still don't know how it applies to this case. TlonicChronic (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the merger of The Fabulous Fats Navarro, Vol. 1 and The Fabulous Fats Navarro, Vol. 2. I suggest you follow WP:MAP to start a more formal discussion for merging the two. It is also never appropriate to PROD an article be deleted that has beem merged. Redirecting is preferred per WP:ATD, as it is important to retain the history of the original articles. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Helen Puffer Thwait:@DISEman:@Brunton: Every review on Volume 1 is the exact same as volume 2 (with a minor exception), and they were recorded (and released) simultaneous. It think it makes as much sense to merge these two as every other Blue Note merger I made; even the back of the original records lists the track listing together [1] (which is true of the two volume Blue Note 12"s). The track listing given in the article now are the CD reissues; I was planning on adding the original track listing today and cleaning up the disorganized personnel.

(Sorry about the prod, that was a mistake.) TlonicChronic (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started both of those articles and I'll say that I don't have a strong view either way on that proposal, although I do lean toward having two separate articles for the volumes. It's pretty common to split each volume into a separate article on WP; we do the same for Charlie Parker Memorial, Vol. 1, The Immortal Charlie Parker, and Charlie Parker Memorial, Vol. 2.

What concerns me more is that the fair use album cover for The Fabulous Fats Navarro, Vol. 2 was removed in the process of this nomination. This triggered the deletion mechanism for unused fair use images, and we could've lost the album cover entirely. IMHO, we shouldn't remove fair use album cover photos until we have consensus to merge the files. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re: the cover, I disagree re: Parker. Savoy only issued Vol. 1 and The Immortal concurrently, followed by 12009, 12012 and 12079, all released separately. The Blue Note Volumes 1 & 2 and concurrently released, consecutive label number, matching album covers, with both track listings on each release. TlonicChronic (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. Like I say, I'd be OK with merging them, but I don't know where consensus lies on this issue.

I just wanted to say thank you for the work you've been doing. There are so many albums missing from WP's discographies. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for prematurely merging such a new article, I should have been more careful and got consensus first. Thank you for your helpful suggestions elsewhere, and ditto re: the Blue Note discography! TlonicChronic (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all good! I didn't realize when I first commented that your account is only two months old. Easily done.

Glad to be of help! I think the rejection of the Jimmy Smith album was a little premature - there are album articles all over Wikipedia with no cited sources that are still live. And the one you posted was sourced. It saddens me that so many wonderful albums and pieces of music receive such little coverage in the mainstream press. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they got stricter once wiki got flooded with albums (over 100k now). I think they want three independent sources minimum; I'm hoping the two AllMusic reviews plus the JazzTImes review and the extra padding with Billboard etc Helen Puffer Thwait provided should be enough! TlonicChronic (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. JazzDisco could work as a source, too. I'm extremely impressed with some of the info they've gathered on gigs and obscure albums. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You guys weren't kidding, that's pretty extensive! TlonicChronic (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TlonicChronic, just FYI - per WP:TRACKLIST there is no need to reformat track listings to the {{Track listing}} template. It's fine for more complicated track lists, but not when it's just title/songwriter(s)/length. To change it just to change it is a bit overkill and is discouraged per MOS:VAR. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The track template seems perfect to me for these cases! "Additionally, in the case of multi-disc/multi-sided releases, a new template may be used for each individual disc or side, if applicable." TlonicChronic (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's when the track listing is a bit more complicated than just title/songwriter/length. There is no requirement to use the template, in which case you should follow MOS:VAR. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and @TlonicChronic, for leave blanking only for intro/interlude/outro as uncredited songwriters/producers, please discuss at Template_talk:Track_listing#Leave_blanking_only_for_interlude_as_uncredited_songwriters/producers. 2402:1980:465:C6B4:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Hope you are well. Would you object if I removed the uncited details re. personnel just to close the issues on the weekly to-do list and move on? In other words, for example, on Newk's Time, instead of:

Wynton Kelly – piano (except "The Surrey with the Fringe on Top")

we would just have:

Wynton Kelly – piano

Or do you feel this change would result in an important loss of info?

Thanks! Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing well! How have you been? Have you listened to or read anything interesting lately? TlonicChronic (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All is well, thanks! Yes, reading and listening to a wide variety of things, thinking there aren't enough hours in the day. How about you?

Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished reading a selected writings of Maimonides with my girlfriend, we're moving on to a Greek grammar this week! I've been enjoying Bone & Bari lately, a recent discovery for me. TlonicChronic (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I confirmed the uncredited exceptions on Bone & Beri; four and five are quartet tracks. The four originals are by quintet, by Fuller and Houston each sit out on a pop tune and give the other the spotlight. My guess is the rest might be right. TlonicChronic (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That (Maimonides + Greek) sounds fascinating! What triggered your interest in them? I'm currently taking an online course called "Plato's Cave - The Original Red Pill," which has been very interesting so far. I'll check out Bone & Bari asap - thanks for the recommendation!

Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have an interest in Jewish and Greek philosophy, which is why I had the books, but my girlfriend is a Christian and started going to church a year ago, so we're doing some messianic studies and learning a little koine!

We read the Republic two books ago! That course sounds like fun. Is there a flavor of ancient philosophy that you're most interested in? TlonicChronic (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds gr8! I've only dabbled. I read The Immortality Key last year, which led me to Peter Kingsley's books. Mind-opening stuff, imho - have you read any of it? Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of Kingsley, but Parmenides is my favorite pre-socratic! We read through the Hackett presocratics reader right before the Republic.

Mystic and Parmenidean/Empedoclean scholar sounds like an fascinating read; was there a part that interested you most? TlonicChronic (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently reading a book by Kingsley titled Reality. (!!) I had been unaware of the notion of "incubation" prior to reading him.

There's an interesting interview with him here: [[2]]. I'll check out that pre-Socratics reader - thank you! Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was an interesting read! I took it in little chunks throughout the day. What he says about the translations and perspectives on scholars is unfortunately very true of the Hackett reader; it's pretty pedagogical (including an incredibly clunky translation of οὐδὲν as "not-hing" in places to emphasize the no-thingness of the word no-thing... go figure), and no one seems to get as sympathetic a read as the atomists, but the selections are good enough, and I think enough of the original meaning shines through. The nice thing about them is the Hackett readers are cheap, everywhere a college is, and I love their bibliographies. (Also, the reader is essentially the first part to Philosophy Before Socrates, which is itself the first part of Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy; the lot were pretty cheap and I think they're convenient).

There's a prevalent tendency to look at the early philosophers as "pre-scientists" that needed to crawl blindly before we could run, a stepping-stone to truth, logic, or science, but I resonate with his discussion on the need for submission for proper learning, of truly asking to understand, and the burden of having that prayer granted. TlonicChronic (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS Did you ever finish your massive ECM project? Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the personnel, I simply don't know if those details are accurate (I haven't listened to all of them myself). Sometimes the old 12"s list discrepancies, but I'd be willing to believe a few minor ones were omitted from the sleeve. I didn't want to remove potentially true info, so I figured flagging it was more neutral. If you think they should be removed, I'll start doing that! TlonicChronic (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some of the album sleeve images and didn't see those details either. I wonder where they came from, i.e. is there any citable source...? My "angle" on all this is that I try to chop away at the list of issues every week, so removing them (and the "citation needed" flags) would help in that regard. But please do whatever you think is best.

Thanks again.

Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that's marked I checked the sleeves for! I'll keep adding flags as I go along; if they get chopped or confirmed, works for me! TlonicChronic (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ECM, I'm most of the way through, but I figured, I'd turn to Blue Note for a bit; the discography is a bit more manageable, size-wise. TlonicChronic (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Four Worlds, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Worlds are common to all three forms of Kabbalah, which includes Christian Cabala and Hermetic Qabalah. Wikipedia's neutral point of view does not allow the supporter of one form to remove material related to other forms. Skyerise (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to cite secondary sources. You cannot merely quote the Golden Dawn for Kabbalah, especially uncited. You need scholarship. Of course Christian and occult kabbalah can be written about. Neutrally. This is not presented neutrally. At all. No sources, no nothing. Doesn't even specify that this is hermetic qabalah. Just presents it as "Kabbalah". TlonicChronic (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem to have been the issue, actually. Both images were created by WikiCommons editors, and they resemble images in reliable sources - but not exactly. But you are wrong about not being able to source to the Golden Dawn - for example, Mathers books, which contain similar diagrams, are certainly reliable sources, as he was a translator and editor of works. The same diagrams were used by the Golden Dawn, and as long as they are cited to Mathers or some other source, we could certainly use them. There are also numerous post-Golden Dawn secondary sources that may reproduce them and discuss their history of use in the Golden Dawn, which would also be RS. So you can't just say - oh, it's Golden Dawn so you can't use it! Skyerise (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against the Golden Dawn. I've read liber ABA cover to cover. The problem is primary religious sources need secondary (scholarly) sources. And to be talked about, not merely presented. TlonicChronic (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathers was a scholar and a polyglot translator. His translations are of course primary sources, but his introductions and notes are WP:RS. Similarly, Hymenaeus Beta's introductions, notes, etc. contained in ABA and other works by Crowley are also WP:RS. Both cite their sources and were/are considered subject matter experts in their fields, though Beta's field is much narrower than Mathers', mostly history of Crowley's publications... Skyerise (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true for Regardie - who was himself never a member of the Golden Dawn, but only wrote about it after its demise. He can be considered a reliable source for the material of the Original Golden Dawn, but not for the American continuations/resurrections that he was directly involved with. Skyerise (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've read all three. But 1. You need to actually cite sources in the article, not talk about them on talk pages, and 2. You still need secondary scholarly sources. If a university or other reliable secondary source exists, you can cite them. But Liber 777 and other Weiser published books are primary sources in magic and esotericism and can't be cited. Secondary sources only. TlonicChronic (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely true, for various arcane reasons. Skyerise (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. You can cite a passage to comment, etc. Don't obfuscate: none of those exceptions apply in this case. TlonicChronic (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course not: since the diagram doesn't appear in any of the works in question. However, 777 itself is a reference work and can be cited like any other dictionary. Same with the tables. The diagrams are also now in the public domain, so they could be scanned and cited to the book under WP:ABOUTSELF: "title of diagram" as presented in 777. Perhaps I'll do that. Skyerise (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's appropriately labeled and cited, I think that would be cool. But a horrible hodgepodge of post-Crowley occultism, Reuchlin-esque cabala, and lurianism—with no explanations, labels, or citations—takes a frankly confusing subject with a very young field* and makes it unintelligible.

(*The second university in the world just offered a PhD track in esoteric studies; the best we've got is a generation of Gershom Scholem—who was very dismissive of Crowley et al—and this generation of Moshe Idel and Daniel C Matt; it can be hard to find good publications that deal with esotericism in a scholarly fashion. Brill is great but $$$.) TlonicChronic (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TlonicChronic. there's a problem with track listing. Also please share your thoughts regarding the track listing on QuietHere's talk page. Thank you. 183.171.120.41 (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @QuietHere's edits. I'd personally move the credited artist from a comment to a column, though. TlonicChronic (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@183.171.120.41 if you're gonna go around asking other editors to make changes to an article, you could at least have the courtesy to ping me while you're at it.

@TlonicChronic I had them in a column initially, but since it put them on the opposite side of the writing credits I thought it best to put them in notes so they would be closer. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Michael Jackson wrote four out of nine songs on Thriller, or Taylor Swift co-wrote five out of 13 songs (eight out of 19 songs on deluxe edition) with Max Martin and Shellback on 1989, then no need to blanking when nearly half or some of. And I just follow what Teflon Peter Christ, Blueberry72 and Ss112 said "the exceptions are then parenthesised." @QuietHere, @TlonicChronic, @The Grid, @Blueberry72 and @Zmbro, please open discussion at Template talk:Track listing. 183.171.121.37 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep this on the relevant page TlonicChronic (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP has been formatting various track listings with their own version regardless of what was present on the article. There's not one set style for the track listing and to apply just one form is disruptive editing. – The Grid (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you guys check Madonna and Taylor Swift albums tracklist? 183.171.121.193 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please stay off my talk page TlonicChronic (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Andesite Line.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]