User Talk: UpTheOctave!

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=720
| archiveprefix=User talk:UpTheOctave!/Archive
| numberstart=1
| maxarchsize=75000
| header={{User:UpTheOctave!/talkheader}}
| minkeepthreads=5
| format= %%i
}}

{{User:UpTheOctave!/talkheader}}

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

<div style="border:2px solid #90C0FF; background:#F0F0FF; width:99%; padding:4px">

Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}},

thumb|400px|New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026 ↗

'''Backlog update'''

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

'''2024 and 2025 NPP Awards'''

74px|left ↗{{no ping|JTtheOG}} was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.
{{no ping|Hey man im josh}} and {{no ping|MPGuy2824}} won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

{{no ping|BoyTheKingCanDance}}, {{no ping|Rosiestep}}, {{no ping|SunDawn}}, and {{no ping|Vanderwaalforces}} were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame ↗ for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

'''January–February backlog drive'''

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to {{no ping|JTtheOG}}, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

'''May backlog drive'''

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026 ↗.

'''PageTriage'''

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed ↗ to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket ↗ if you're interested in following along.

{{refbegin}}
'''Reminders:'''

You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord ↗.

Consider adding the project discussion page ↗ to your watchlist.

To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here ↗.

{{refend}}
</div>

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Audio files

First, congratulations on your Editor of the Week award. That's pretty neat.

Second, I have been asking this question ↗ at various articles and not gotten a solid answer. I recently posed at the Music Theory portal. I thought I'd ping you on it since you are well-versed in Wikipolicy:

In a nutshell, do user-generated audio files need a source? MIDI realizations (gag) of a musical score are obviously and easily verifiable. However, when you have a file in an article that purports to be, for instance, "{{audio|Just major third on C.mid|Just major third on C}}", is it permissible to include it without a source? How are other editors able to verify that the file is what it claims to be?

When I started cleaning up our woefully inadequate tuning articles, these examples were all over the place. Some of them were contested by other editors, and a kind of ad hoc peer review process took place. It just seemed so out of place on Wikipedia. I don't know where else to ask about this problem. Any feedback? Trumpetrep (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

:Hi Trumpetrep: nice to hear from you, and thanks for your kind words! I had seen your post at the WikiProject a couple of days ago and had thought about responding at the time, but I must've gotten distracted. It's a really interesting question, and from what I can tell, it's not actually covered anywhere in the policies and guidelines. The MOS ↗ has pages on ''Music samples'' ↗ and ''Music examples'' ↗, and there are myriad help pages (''Media'' ↗, ''Creation and usage of media files ↗'', etc., but these don't deal with the nitty-gritty of this particular use case.
:As an aside, I found your comments on the use of MIDI examples interesting. Personally, I find the score extension ↗ quite useful when writing LilyPond examples (see ''Saxophone Sonata (Creston) ↗''); of course, a sample of non-synthesised instruments is king, but in its absence I think MIDI preferable to nothing. Such examples are easily cited to scores and the like, but they're not really the main problem here.
:Anyways, looking at the discussion over at ''Talk:Just intonation ↗'', I can certainly see both sides. I think the editors on that talk page are right that the clause you invoke in the ''Image use policy ↗'' ({{tq|it is required to include verification of the source(s) of the original data when uploading such images}}) is constrained to {{tq|the recreation of graphs, charts, drawings, and maps directly from available data}}; I think the more relevant comparison is perhaps the section on user-created images ↗, which simply notes that {{tq|Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images}}. In any case, both points are moot, since that policy is expressly for images and nothing else. So, in these uncharted waters, here are my thoughts:
:*Per the ''Verifiability ↗'' policy, {{tq|each fact or claim in an article must be verifiable}}. Arguably, a description of an audio file in an article is a claim that it is what it purports to be, so falls under this provision.
:*I think the best pointer here comes from a guideline, ''Citing sources'' ↗, which states {{tq|for an image or other media file, details of its origin and copyright status should appear on its file page}}. The first part, {{tq|details of its origin}}, is the key wording here, as it confirms that all media files should explain how they were produced in ''some'' level of detail.
:*Per the policy ''No original research ↗'', {{tq|routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources}}: provided the calculation is accurate, it is not original research to use source data as a basis of calculation, so the calculation itself does not require a citation. I note that {{tq|basic arithmetic}} is listed as an example of a routine calculation, so I think the majority of ratio-based pitch derivations would be covered under this provision.
:Considering the above, I think the best course of action is to require a detailed explanation as part of the creation of these files. In my mind, for music theory concepts, these required details should include:
:*The mathematical formula or relationship used to derive pitches, with a citation to a reliable source to satisfy the ''Verifiability'' policy.
:*An example of the method of calculation so that other editors can agree that {{tq|the results of the calculations are correct}}, per ''No original research'', as {{tq|numeracy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation}}.
:*The final results of these calculations (perhaps in tabular form?) and details of how they relate to the actual synthesised audio as, per ''Citing sources'', we should give {{tq|details of [a file's] origin}}.
:This way, any editor should theoretically be able to retrace these routine calculations and end up with almost exactly the same audio file, which is exactly the spirit behind the ''Verifiability'' policy. It also allows other editors to directly spot any flaws in methodology while minimising the burden on contributors.
:So, in short, I don't think a source is required in the article itself; rather, I think that the methodology used to produce the file should be better documented. I think pursuing further discussion towards creating a section in a guideline or similar may be beneficial, although I should add that this is just a rough draft for one particular scenario. This interpretation seems like common sense to me, but I am synthesising a few policies and guidelines here, so may be stretching wording past its original intent. If it comes to pass that something like this garners consensus, enforcement would likely be on a case-by-case basis when someone spots undocumented files, both old and new; I'd be happy to help produce some new files if needed. What do you think? UpTheOctave! • 8va? 03:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for this exegesis. It's very helpful.
::Forgive the pun, but it doesn't all add up for me. It makes sense that no source is needed to say 2+2=4 on Wikipedia. An audio file strikes me as fundamentally different, and I think your suggested requirements demonstrate why.
::What you've proposed is a reasonable way to verify the accuracy of an audio file. It is essentially a peer review process. Isn't that anathema to Wikipedia's ethos? All of our policies focus on reliable secondary sources to support factual statements.
::As you know, these theory articles often stray way out of Wikipedia's bounds. Their chief issue is that editors are just riffing on the subject without citing any sources. The closer you pay attention, the more you start to second guess everything in the article. The Manual of Style ↗ recognizes this pitfall in mathematics articles. Forgive the lengthy quote:<blockquote>Mathematics articles are often written in a conversational style similar to a whiteboard lecture. However, a narrative pedagogical style runs counter to Wikipedia's recommended encyclopedic tone. While opinions vary on the most edifying style, authors should generally provide more than bare lists of facts and formulae, while avoiding textbook-style ↗ rhetorical devices like leading questions and opinionated statements ↗ like {{!xt|It follows easily that}}. Also avoid contentless clichés as {{!xt|Note that}}, {{!xt|It should be noted that}}, {{!xt|It must be mentioned that}}, {{!xt|It must be emphasized that}}, {{!xt|Consider that}}, and {{!xt|We see that}}. There is no use in imploring the reader to take note of each thing being pointed out.</blockquote>
::That is precisely the language of too many music theory articles. I have weeded out so many "Thus..." in the articles I've tackled so far. As editors are giving their "whiteboard lecture", they are also peppering the articles with audio demonstrations. The accumulation of dubious, unsourced statements alongside audio files of similar provenance creates a product that is way off the mark.
::I like your suggestions for a peer review process, to be clear. I just don't see how to square it with Wikipedia's basic policies. I also don't know how to proceed on this basic policy question.
::Regarding MIDI, it's incredibly helpful for lots of things. In my view, music examples like those in the Creston ''Sonata'' article are so poorly represented by their MIDI realizations that it would be better to omit them. The music is actually distorted by the MIDI rendering of the score markup and doesn't accurately represent what's printed. I realize this is a minority view. Trumpetrep (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I think it's important to separate several intertwined issues here.
:::My idea with the above proposal isn't to create a peer review process: it's to apply the usual chain of source-based editing to the production of files. Just as any editor can follow the sources in an article to reach material supporting a claim, this would let them get to the foundational source that was used to create the file. I wouldn't say this advocates for a system of peer review; rather, it's essentially the ''Verifiability'' policy, which exists so that editors {{tq|can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources}}. In short, we're not asking editors to judge each file, just to be able to follow the working back to a reliable source.
:::I don't think this method precludes using a reliable secondary source. Indeed, using this scheme, all files would have to cite such a source as a basis for all further working. This way, the final claim that a file placed in an article is what it purports to be can be traced back to a reliable secondary source. I guess there is some argument to be had over what exactly is covered by "routine" calculation, but as long as this is limited to the generation of pitches from simple ratios and similar means, I don't think there's any problem here. Another excerpt from the ''No original research'' policy – though it concerns images rather than audio – supports the spirit of this stance: {{tq|original images created by a Wikimedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy}}. The way I read this, since concepts like just intonation and the Pythagorean comma are known, published ideas, it is not original research to create files demonstrating them.
:::I agree that the style in these articles is a real problem. I'm quite surprised that this issue has not yet proved contentious enough to merit a similar section in the MOS to the mathematics page. Pursuing a similar style guide for music theory concepts would be a good idea, I think, as it correctly enforces the ''What Wikipedia is not'' policy by weeding out textbook-like writing.
:::From what you're saying, it seems like the problem is the combination of this "whiteboard lecture" style with the use of user-created images to demonstrate those points. To me, the primary problem here is the style: demonstrative files shouldn't be used to instruct, rather to inform, but this is more an issue with the lecturing style of the article than the existence of the files. As such, I think tackling this root issue would be the more productive route.
:::Your concerns on MIDI are valid, but I wouldn't go quite that far. I think they're fine to use as an absolute last resort; they may be robotic, but with sufficient tweaking of the underlying programming, they can usually produce an acceptable rendition. If the output is egregious, there is an option to disable the playback generated from the score, but I haven't yet found a case quite that bad.
:::Thoughts? UpTheOctave! • 8va? 15:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
::::This all tracks for me. Most importantly, I agree with your core assertion that getting to the root of the problem will be the most constructive action. In March, I asked about creating some guidelines ↗ for Music Theory articles. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
:::::Interesting. I'm quite busy for the rest of the week, but I'll make a note to reply there. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 16:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

{| style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; background-color: #FFF; padding:10px 15px 0; color: black"
|style="padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; font-size:130%" |'''Good article nominations ↗ |''' June 2026 Backlog Drive
|rowspan=3|right|75px ↗
|-
|'''June 2026 Backlog Drive:'''
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.

Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed.

Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points!

Interested in taking part? You can '''sign up here ↗'''.
|-
|colspan=2|'''Other ways to participate:'''

Join the conversations on our talk page ↗.

|-
|colspan=2 style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"|You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.
|}

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What a Man (song) ↗

Hi just wondering why this AfD was closed early? After the realist yesterday it should be given another seven days. I would like to vote to merge it with Whatta Man ↗ because they are substantially the same song. Please can you reopen it? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hi @Amakuru, thanks for dropping by. I don't think this was closed particularly early, as {{tq|a relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days}} (WP:RELIST ↗). I get that my closure was shortly after the relist, but the state of the discussion had changed substantially in that day: {{noping|Beast from da East}} changed their !vote, producing a unanimous consensus amongst commenters to keep, and {{noping|George Ho}}'s calls for withdrawal were met with an invitation from {{noping|162 etc.}} for uninvolved closure. Given this, I think my original closure was fine, but since I likely wouldn't have closed if your comment was there, I've reopened the discussion. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 14:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I am very sorry

Hello. I am very sorry. I accidently clicked the button that archived your talk page while I was looking at your talk page. I have now reverted this. I am a clumsy idiot. Please accept my apologies. James500 (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

:No worries James500! Is there anything you were wondering about in particular? UpTheOctave! • 8va? 20:46, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
::I was looking for the discussion we had some time ago in which you told me that there was a policy against creating an account to comment in AfDs, because I couldn't remember the name of the policy. After I cleared up the mess I made, I found the relevant discussion in your archives, identified the policy, and tagged the SPA in question with a note about that policy, which was WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. Again, I am truly sorry for wasting your time. I have disabled my oneclickarchive script to make sure it doesn't happen again. James500 (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Yes, I remember that. I think that's a fair tag given it's their only edit so far, but I would pushback a little on your wording ("forbidden", from your edit summary): I didn't say that we don't allow SPAs to comment in AfDs, I just mentioned that we just flag them to help admins find a rough consensus. It's always up to admin discretion on how to weigh such !votes, as with any other account; comments from SPAs may be made in either bad or good faith, and admins should only discount the former. Also, it's honestly fine about the archiving thing. It was just a few more pings than usual, but nothing I can't handle. Besides, you cleaned up after yourself as well! Whether you use the script or not is up to you, but I wouldn't like to think you stopped using it just because of this. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 23:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)