User talk:Trumpetrep

Why are you so adamant about removing unsourced statements, even if they are certainly true in some cases? Your contributions page is a sea of red 😅. Wikipedia has a guide here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) that describes content likely to be challenged, and a good amount of what you are removing does not seem to count as that. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but doesn't removing all this information potentially get rid of valuable reading, that could be sourced? Epixix (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi User:Epixix, thanks for checking in on this issue. The Verifiability guideline includes this statement:

"Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been published in a reliable source before you can add it."

I emphasized the operational provision of that statement. Too many of our music theory articles operate in the reverse. They are written without sources.

I recently brought this up at the Music Theory project's talk page. Everyone knows these problematic articles exist, but no one is doing anything about them. I would love to have your help on the issue.

The "Regular temperament" article is a great case in point. The Talk page lays out very clearly what is wrong with the page. It wouldn't exist on Wikipedia if it weren't for a few enthusiasts. The fact that there are enthusiasts who keep it online doesn't absolve them from the requirement to cite reliable sources and follow basic Wikipedia guidelines.

The thin sourcing and bad writing of many of our articles also manifests in relentless content forking. That is why I redirected the "12 equal temperament" article. There is no good reason for it to exist in a separate article from "Equal temperament". Our audience is the general reader, and we should write with them in mind. For a general reader, the knowledge they are seeking is in an article about equal temperament.

The overlap between the two articles undermines their utility. We should consolidate information into reliable articles. Good writing creates a stable platform for the topic at a central location. Related articles can branch out from there.

As we discussed at "Just intonation", if we create cogent articles with a base of stable text, they can then get very complex and deal with higher order concepts. Too many of our articles rush into complexity without establishing basic facts first. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll respond for some specific cases

Regular temperament: If there is a more narrow accepted academic definition that a regular temperament has all perfect fifths of the same size, isn't that enough justification to keep at least part of the article? We can cite what was discussed on the talk page of that article.

12 equal temperament: The article seems to be big enough to warrant having its own article. We follow the pattern of other equal temperaments, like 19, 31, 53, etc. Also, you removed portions about approximations to n-limit just intervals and commas tempered out as "bloat", while these are actually some of the most important properties of a specific temperament. We create temperaments to begin with to have practical approximations of just intonation, and we need to know what they are good at, and what they are bad at. For example, it is notable that 12 equal temperament has a very good approximation of the perfect fifth for only having 12 notes per octave, making it a fairly good 3-limit temperament. Epixix (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Regular temperament is 454 words. The "narrow accepted academic definition" you describe could easily be assimilated into equal temperament. There's not enough material to justify an entire article.

The limit sections were all unsourced content forks from other articles. That's the definition of bloat. The article is long enough as it is.

Time is better spent on creating articles that clearly articulate the history and meaning of a term. Then, related terms can either be dealt with in standalone articles or in the body of the text.

Those limit articles are problematic as well. They cite very few sources. The bulk of them are editors riffing on the subject with their own tables and images. There's no way to justify that kind of content on Wikipedia.

For example, "7-limit tuning" has a section called "Lattice and tonality diamond". It cites no sources. That would be a great place for your help. You could find a reliable source to support the assertions in the section. Otherwise, it should be deleted.

You could click nearly any blue link in the Template:Musical tuning and do the same kind of yeoman's work. It would be a great barnstar project for music theory editors. In a nutshell:

If you see content that you think belongs on Wikipedia without a citation, find one for it.

I've been asking about this, and there doesn't seem to be much energy to direct towards such a cleanup effort. Anything you can do to ameliorate the deficiencies in these articles will be helpful! Trumpetrep (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

		The Music Barnstar
		While we may not always agree in our methods, I truly admire the yeoman's work you've put into our various articles on music theory. Your recent merge of Wendy Carlos scales was quick and highly effective: two characteristics I think apply to your contributions on the whole. Please accept this token of my appreciation, and keep up the good work!

UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 17:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and input on various issues. These articles should be in better shape than they are. It seems like the least we can do to clean them up! :) Trumpetrep (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sturgeon's law, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I saw the proposed deletion for the Culture of Boston article. For now, unless you have more specific ideas of what a city culture article should be, I am objecting to and have removed the proposal as the article is meant to be a sub-article or supplement to the main Boston article; otherwise the culture section would have overwhelmed the main city article.

I noticed you are in discussion concerning another city culture article at Culture of Wichita, Kansas which got me wondering what specific guidelines for city culture articles should be proposed as the articles I have run across are treated more like sub-articles than actual stand-alone articles. Pentawing^Talk 04:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I spelled it out in the Wichita discussion. There's no limit on what can be added to a "culture of (city)" article. It doesn't make sense to have an article of that type unless the entire culture has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources.

Otherwise, the door is open to absolutely anything under the sun. Just read the Boston article to see what's wrong with the premise. Most of it is unsourced, because people are just listing whatever comes to mind. The Pixies are from Boston, so let's add them to the "Performing Arts" section.

And that's before we even deal with howlers like "Black culture in Boston is very colorful." Trumpetrep (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Sturgeon's law has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2026 (UTC)