Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:56, 12 April 2016

Michael Laucke has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 9, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Template:Friendly search suggestions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Michael Laucke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical music This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Guitarists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Guitarists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Guitarists on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GuitaristsWikipedia:WikiProject GuitaristsTemplate:WikiProject Guitaristsguitarist

New article 'Michael Laucke : CDs, Films and Dedicated works' Comment

Hi @Checkingfax:. I am planning the section we spoke of, that is, 'Michael Laucke : CDs, Films and Dedicated works', and have started a first sketch here. Once again, I impose upon your good nature to ask few questions: - In view of the more compact format of the original article, is this new section necessary now? We originally thought it might be useful in shortening the original - If we do move ahead, does this sort of adjunct article needed the lead which I prepared. - I copied over the infobox , but I imagine I would use {{Infobox artist discography}} I am also preparing, offline, the Flamenco Road CD new article as well. Thanks so much once again. very best wishes, Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.Desautels. Start subpages for the new articles so you can do a clean move when they are ready. Otherwise you will nuke your sandbox and bring along a lot of sandbox clutter. And then, you have to recreate your sandbox anyway.

Start a new subpage in your sandbox for each new article. Just put a forward slash after the word sandbox and start the new article name after that and the new article will be launched.

Remember article names do not go in Title Case unless the term is a proper noun‍—‌but the first word always is Capped unless it's a weird trade name title like iPhone.

So it would be:
Michael Laucke films, dedicated works and CDs

I would suggest not putting the Cap C of CD right next to the Capped Laucke.

Actually, the name is long. How about: Michael Laucke discography and filmography

Wait, that's almost as long. How about: Michael Laucke works

Do you remember how to create a subpage? Looks like this:

User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/Michael Laucke discography and filmography

Starting subpages will make a clean Talk page for each new article too.

I think the lead is good. I do not think having a redundant infobox is good. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax:. Many thanks! I moved my initial rough sketch to User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/Michael Laucke discography and filmography as per your suggestion. Before delving in, I am wondering if the Michael Laucke article should be split in the first place and would love to have your thoughts on this. According to Misplaced Pages:Splitting , if readable prose size is less than 40 kB, than the length alone does not justify division. "Readable prose size" (text only) for Michael Laucke is only 21 kB, not counting tables of course. However, guitarist Paco de Lucia's prose size (text only) is 26 kB "readable prose size", still under the 40 kB recommendation, but the Discography is split to Paco de Lucía discography. very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.Desautels. Page history is shown in b which is easily converted to kb. However, page size for most things is measured like this:

Prose size (text only): 21005 characters (3386 words) "readable prose size"

Neither of those has to do with the b or the kb of the readable prose. I do not know how to convert characters or words to b or kb. How do you know the readable prose for ML article is 21kb?

In hindsight instead of creating a new subpage and doing a cut/paste move you could have done a regular page move and thereby preserved the page history. Oh well. When you move it to Article Namespace you can do it "right". LOL. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 09:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax:. I use a tool called ProseSize, which you can find here: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Dr_pda/prosesize; it's very easy to install. I see that you don't have it under your JavaScript page at User:Checkingfax/common.js (Sorry, I hacked in to see ). Just adding "importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); // ]" to your common.js page should install it. The tool gives a very useful summary at the top of the page, and highlights in yellow all text considered "readable prose size". The summary for Michael Laucke is:

• Document statistics:
• File size: 312 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 38 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 9307 B
• Wiki text: 93 kB
• Prose size (text only): 21 kB (3386 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 456 B

I still have the history in the old Sandbox. ...alas . So, do you think the article would benefit from a split, considering the WP 40 kB recommendation? best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.Desautels. It strikes me as odd that the character count and the b count for the ML article are both 21k. Seems impossible.

Do you have much more to add to the discography and filmography? You stated before that it was "partial".

I do have a DYK JavaScript installed that gives the prose in characters, then

approximates the words based on the character count. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax: I can't find where it says that the character count is 21k. Indeed it would be impossible for character count and b count to be the same. The filmography is complete. In the past, I had found 2 or 3 more CDs for the discography but have to find them again; ...won't make much difference in the length. So, prose size is 21K. Do we split? very best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Natalie.Desautels. This might help us decide:

Per Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines, the discography section of the musician's primary article should "provide a summary of the musician's major works."

WP:DYKcheck gave me the figure of 21K characters (or 3386 words). and Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax: ...mulling over the options. I think I'll opt for a Discography/Filmography summary of major works in the main article and a more complete Discography and Filmography in a new main article, as per the excellent link you sent me—to wit: the discography info at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines. best wishes, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, Natalie.Desautels. I will be interested to see the progression. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings from Natalie ~ to select contributing editors of the Michael Laucke article

@Robvanvee, Checkingfax, GrammarFascist, MusikAnimal, and Vipinhari: @Casliber, Robert McClenon, Pdebee, Collect, and Corinne: @Collect, Corinne, Jerome Kohl, Mathglot, and Bgwhite: @StarryGrandma, DESiegel, Jerome Kohl, Mathglot, BlueMoonset, and Sainsf:

Hi Everyone. I am pinging some of the over 50 editors who so kindly contributed to the article on Michael Laucke, and other helpful souls as well. The article is nominated for GA status and many improvements remain to implement as reviewer User:MPJ-DK generously pointed out. I will take the pleasure to work very hard on this during the next week. Feel free to adjust/comment as you wish. If father time does not permit, I still extend my warmest best wishes. PS. The discography and filmography tables will soon be moved to a new article to make less clutter. Natalie Natalie.Desautels (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hey, thanks to y'all and to the more than 33 other constructive editors we made it to a Good Article promotion 4-months and 27-days after the GA nom! We made it through a tag-team gauntlet of two GA reviewers, with one having the final decision in the affirmative. Out of personal pride, Pdebee is going to continue to spit shine things behind the scenes. Natalie.Desautels was the power lifter, but you'all helped push the train while she pulled it.

@Robvanvee, GrammarFascist, MusikAnimal, and Vipinhari: @Casliber, Robert McClenon, Collect, and Anne Delong:@Collect, Jerome Kohl, Mathglot, and Bgwhite:@StarryGrandma, DESiegel, Jerome Kohl, Mathglot, BlueMoonset, and Sainsf:

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I never edited this article, not sure why I got pinged. But congrats, anyway! — MusikAnimal 14:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Update on Michael Laucke GA review ~ April 9

@Checkingfax, MPJ-DK, Sainsf, Corinne, and Pdebee:

Hi Everyone,

• - Most of the excellent suggestions by reviewer MPJ-DK have been attended to, and then some. All 'citation needed" suggestions by Sainsf are completed (very interesting I must say)
• - I moved several critique quotes and such to footnotes in order to keep better focus, improve flow, be less disruptive and tone down text that may be construed as promotional.
• - Readable prose size is now 18 kB (formerly 21 Kb); 3000 mb have been either removed or shifted into references and/or notes.
• - many other improvements of the day, various and sundry, can be seen (and enjoyed! ) here (contributions)

Using footnotes allows the text body to flow better and to be less disruptive. It's also less promotional-looking and more in keeping with the intended goal of simply imparting information. I think these improvements benefit the article as well as the reader. Still, if one wishes, one can quickly find information, at times slightly divergent albeit interesting, right on the same page, as a footnote instead of in the body. I think the article also reads in a less disruptive manner and is more focused, since the text (often critiques) do not appear inline (within the paragraph).

I would be amiss to not send my warmest thanks for everyone's wonderfully generous contributions until now, and for the inevitable contributions to come

...à suivre (to be continued), kind regards, Natalie.Desautels (talk)

Final review.

@Natalie.Desautels, Checkingfax, Corinne, and Sainsf: Dear friends,
As promised, I had another good look at the whole article again today and, since it was in such a good shape, I took the liberty of applying six edits during the last hour. Since most of them were minor copy edits, I decided to apply the changes directly myself rather than cause more work for Natalie. However, please have a look and, by all means, feel free to revert any of them, or improve on them further, as you deem appropriate.
There was one final issue that I left alone, because I wanted to bring it to your attention first: when I reached the section on Paco de Lucía, I was suddenly surprised to be taken back to the 1970s. After looking at the structure of the whole article once more, I realized that this impression was caused by the World tours section appearing too early in the article. I daresay that, if this section were relocated further down into the article—perhaps just before the Personal life section?—then the chronology of the article would flow better; after all, the World tours section begins with the sentence: "Laucke's career spans over 50 years, with concert and television appearances in 25 countries." and this suggested to me that it might be best to relocate this text towards the end of the article, since it sounds like we're bringing his career to a conclusive summary. However, since such a relocation implies minor surgery to the structure of the article, I thought it best to leave it for Natalie to make a final decision on the matter. If you agree with the proposal, then I am obviously happy to apply said surgery myself to save you the task, but would only do so with your blessing; so, thank you for letting me know.
So, in conclusion, I am happy to have completed this unfinished task on my part, and want to thank you once again for your kind indulgence with the delay of my final contributions, caused by my Wiki-break.
With kindest regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee. 20:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax, Corinne, and Sainsf: Dear Pdebee.. That is just so kind! ...and I love all the edits you did ...really. I think you made a really good point regarding the World tours section appearing too early in the article and I'll wait to have user:Checkingfax's opinion; I do think he will concur. I have just taken the pleasure to send to your talk page my heartfelt appreciation and thanks for your very tasteful edits, as well as for your keen eye and the nice tying together of sentences from short stubby ones. kindest regards, Natalie --Natalie.Desautels (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Natalie.Desautels, Checkingfax, Corinne, and Sainsf: Dear Natalie,

Thank you very much for your very prompt reply. I am glad you approve of the latest tweaks, mentioned above, and am grateful for your kind words, as ever.

Of course, it is absolutely fine to defer to Checkingfax's opinion on the matter I raised above, about relocating the World tours section further down into the article. If/when we are all in agreement, then I would be happy to apply the change, since you've all been so busy of late; besides, you're still very busy munching your way down this huge stack of croissants of yours, Natalie... Seriousness aside (this is catching...), I'll remain on standby, waiting for your confirmation and ready to apply said minor surgery whenever you give me the nod.

With kindest regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. 21:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Patrick (with cc to Corinne and Natalie.Desautels). Just do it. Corinne, if she will be so kind, will do any fine tuning to fill in any divots. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Natalie.Desautels, Checkingfax, Corinne, and Sainsf: Dear friends,

 Done! Very many thanks for your prompt reply and approval, Checkingfax. I hope you'll all conclude that this latest change has improved the chronological flow. Thank you for allowing this to happen, even after GA...

Well, this has been good fun, dear team; we should do it again!

With kindest regards to you all for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. 21:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Patrick (with cc to Corinne, Natalie.Desautels, and Sainsf). Now that you mention it ... I recently nom'd Caitlyn Jenner for GA promotion review. If y'all would be so kind as to rake through her article while we await its movement to the top of the GA review queue, that would be much appreciated. CJ is an important and controversial article that gets an estimated 6,540,639 page views annually. I will caution you that it is a 1RR page which means you may only revert twice before you have crossed the bright line. The editing group over there is fairly chill on edits unless you change she to he or Caitlyn to Bruce. Those issues have already been flogged. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Checkingfax (with cc to Corinne, Natalie.Desautels, and Sainsf);

Thank you very much for your kind invitation and vote of confidence. For now, I will add this to my list of 'Next projects', and will give it some priority when I emerge from the present Wiki-break. Unfortunately, I have several non-Wiki projects lined up for the next few weeks and probably won't be back in full Wiki mode until early May, at the earliest. However, I will take a look at the article in the very near future and, if I conclude that I can make some level of contribution, then I will let you know for sure.

Until then, please keep well; I'll be in touch again soon.

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee. 22:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to add navboxes to this article

I propose adding two naboxes to this article, both of which Wikilink back to this article. After 14 days of discussion a decision will be made about whether or not to add these navboxes. The discussion can continue after the 14 days, but after 30 days of inactivity, this thread will automatically be archived my Mizbot. If the navboxes are added, and there is subsequent discussion the navboxes will stay in place per status quo ante bellum, until the subsequent discussion has been adjudicated.
{{classical guitar}}

{{flamenco guitar}}

The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by wikiprojects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template (which may be watchlisted mostly only by template coders).

When !voting ... Support, oppose or comment; be sure to sign with ~~~~. Note that your !vote will only be counted if it includes the text '''Support''' or '''Oppose'''—so be sure to bold your vote! Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion: Oppose !votes should include a brief reason for opposing; Support !votes may include a reason for supporting, or are otherwise interpreted as agreeing with the proposer.

References

1. Misplaced Pages:Navigation templates

Respectfully submitted, {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support – as proposer. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support – These navboxes would add value to the article. Patrick. ツ Pdebee. 00:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support – I feel these would be helpful to the reader. Cheers, Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose to both. Nav boxes should only be included for subjects that appear in the nav box. Readers can click through to the classical guitar and flamenco guitar articles. Although it does appear on the Andrés Segovia article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Walter Görlitz. Thank you for your !Vote. Can you expand on this? I seriously want to understand what you mean. The flamenco navbox includes a link to the list of flamenco guitarists, which Laucke is on. The classical navbox includes a link to the list of classical guitarists which Laucke is also on. Even so, why would somebody on the Laucke page want to click on a navbox to get back to the Laucke page? If you go to the list pages, and click on Laucke, you can then click on the navbox, and get back to the list page. It is totally bi-directional, AFAICS. I am not dismissing your !Vote, I simply want to understand it, so I can learn from it. In particular, what does this sentence mean: "Readers can click through to the classical guitar and flamenco guitar articles." Click through what, and where? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Music good articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Canada-related articles
• Mid-importance Canada-related articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• WikiProject Classical music articles
• GA-Class guitarist articles
• WikiProject Guitarists articles