User talk:EddieHugh/Archive 2014

You're quite right to add Lord Robertson. I have been reluctant to add politicians so far (apart from independents or people who have gone against party line) because that would be quite a big job to go back through all the sources to find every notable politician who has spoken for either Yes or No. Plus it will quite quickly overwhelm the other individuals and organisations that have expressed a view. Although perhaps that is accurate. ;-) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that he is largely an ex-politician. I see that you've added Cameron, Clegg, Salmond, etc. I think that these names are redundant, given that they are leaders of parties with a stated position. Independents or those with an interest for some other reason (from Wales, former leader of something important, for instance) can be of relevance, but I reckon that readers will assume that party members will be following the party line, so don't need a list of those who are. Interesting to see what happens when things heat up... EddieHugh (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk

I'm going to try and finish this tomorrow. Sorry for the delay. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The article Brad Mehldau you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brad Mehldau for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget, you have five days to submit a DYK. Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's the fifth day and you haven't submitted a DYK. So, I submitted one instead. If you don't like it, you can propose a new one or propose modifications of the existing "hook". You can review the nomination here. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I tried to think of something, but nothing stood out for me. I think that, in changing the wording, you've gone away from the original meaning. I read the source as: Mehldau identifies a motif, etc. while improvising, then later turns it into a composition; the rest of the composing does not occur during the improvisation. EddieHugh (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your latest change. In your edit summary you say "the composing is not done while improvising", which doesn't make any sense, since the article says: "Mehldau himself indicated that some of his compositions address a specific need, such as integrating a particular rhythm into his trio, while others emerge from something he has played while improvising. That's composing while improvising. Further, that's what the subsequent term "the latter" refers to here. If you were to say the "former", that would refer to the artificial, formal composition process of "integrating a particular rhythm into his trio". The source explains this non-improvisational process: "I write at the piano mostly. It really varies. Some tunes start out as a challenge: how to introduce something into my trio rhythmically or formally, for example, that we haven't done." So the "former" refers to the formal, non-improvisational composition process, while the "latter" refers to what Mehldau calls the "much more natural" process of composing while improvising: "a melody or motif occurs while I'm improvising, and it becomes the basis of a tune." That's composing while improvising. Mehldau refers to this natural process: "If it's the latter, I've noticed that the level of difficulty in the different stages of writing a song is analogous to a chess game". DYK has specific rules about how the hook must be cited in the body of the article, which is why I removed the close paraphrasing of "the latter" and rephrased it to match the hook in one sentence followed by the citation. Do you still disagree that "Mehldau likened the difficulty of the composition process during improvisation to a game of chess"? What, in your opinion, does "the latter" refer to in the following phrasing: "In the latter case, Mehldau likened the difficulty of the composition process to that of a game of chess". In your own words that you wrote in the article, "the latter" directly refers to compositions that "emerge from something he has played while improvising". Are you getting confused by the ambiguity of improvising compositionally and improvising live during a performance? Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

In any case, the DYK nomination is no longer valid as a result of your change. The DYK rules state that "the hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source, since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article. The hook fact must have an inline citation right after it". So if you don't want to use that hook, please come up with another one or propose changing the current wording. Would removing the term "jazz improvisation" satisfy your concerns? Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

To avoid the DYK from failing a review, I've shortened it here. Do you still oppose it? Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My interpretation of what BM said is that he improvises, hears something that appeals, then returns later to refine it, develop it and turn it into a composition that has a beginning, middle and end. Only the initial idea comes from genuine improvisation: it's "others emerge from something he has played while improvising", not "others are composed while improvising". The original is: "a melody or motif occurs while I'm improvising, and it becomes the basis of a tune". I don't, to be honest, think that anyone could create a full tune (new melody and harmony, etc.) during the process of one improvisation, given that the improvisation is based in various ways on another tune or structure. It could be "improvising compositionally", as you suggest, but that's probably not what the typical reader will think of when seeing "improvise" in an article about a jazz musician, and there's nothing in the source to indicate what type of improvisation he's referring to. Maybe we'll have to wait for another interview that clarifies or updates the point... EddieHugh (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

So the competing interpretations are that he's 1) composing while improvising or 2) improvising while composing. I can see how it could be ambiguous. However, the way the article and source text explain it, some compositions emerge from improvisation. I think you will agree with that simple statement. After all, Mehldau writes that "a melody or motif occurs while I'm improvising, and it becomes the basis of a tune." And I think we both agree that when he makes the analogy and refers to the "latter", he is referring to ideas that emerge from improvisation. Where we differ is in the interpretation of the analogy. For me, I see him referring to the natural approach to composition where the music arises out of improvisation, rather than the formal approach focusing on constructing music, such as rhythm, etc. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intend to sabotage or even oppose the DYK nomination – I wasn't aware of the rules involved... sorry about that. The version without "jazz improvisation" is accurate, I believe. EddieHugh (talk) 08:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, there's no need to explain. I know you have only good intentions. Thanks for taking another look. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I want to you know that I am perfectly happy with getting rid of the current DYK and using one you prefer. Can you find anything in the current article you wrote that might work? Just make sure it is short and interesting! Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The one you have is good for broad appeal. Thanks. EddieHugh (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

On 21 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Brad Mehldau, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that pianist Brad Mehldau compared the difficulty of composing music to a game of chess? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brad Mehldau. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Good work! :) Viriditas (talk)

Here he is his biography on the European Parliament website [1]. He is hon. DG of the Commission and an adviser to the EPC think tank. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that clarification. Still not quite clear if he is the Hon DG or an Hon DG. EddieHugh (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the use of the word "boosted", rather than the source provided. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edit of Jazz, where you took the word "widespread" and broke it up into "wide spread", seems to require an explanation. There are plenty of dictionaries that show it as a single word, and none that advocate breaking it into two words. Chris the speller ^yack 16:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. It wasn't intentional and I didn't notice that it had happened. I must somehow have selected 'rollback' while looking at your edit; that reverts without any additional step. I've undone my change. EddieHugh (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Chris the speller ^yack 19:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

In terms of long-lasting influence, even the usage of winding down by heavy metal musicians post-gig should be noted! kencf0618 (talk)

Maybe if it influenced their music, but not if it influences just their relaxing... good to know that it's spread widely, though. EddieHugh (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TLSuda -- TLSuda (talk

The article

The article Elmo Hope you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elmo Hope for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TLSuda -- TLSuda (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

On 23 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Elmo Hope, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Elmo Hope survived being shot by New York police to become an influential jazz pianist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Elmo Hope. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi EddieHugh, You are indeed correct as to the existence of two seperate albums titled The Time and the Place and I'm currently in the process of creating articles for both. I reinstated the Mosaic album as The Time and the Place: The Lost Concert in order to differentiate. In my haste I mistakenly assumed them to be both the same album but I stand corrected. DISEman (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey...I didn't follow up much but did you quick-fail

I did, for reasons given on the review page. I checked before reviewing and also saw that the nominator had not done much editing of it (I checked back to March, when some was done). EddieHugh (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just shamelessly repeated your careful condensations at

These people usually disappear after a short time, so I usually wait, but that article is being edited so much that the moment would soon pass. I thank you for your edit and support. EddieHugh (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Eddie, disregard my old post. My apologies for paranoid friendly fire.

Eddie, I have replied to your message on my talk page. HomageToDonByas (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.