text:
Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 2

Image Link
Should the image that accompanies the featured article on the front page generally link to the article rather than the image page?
 * You would expect clicking an image of the subject of the featured article would take you to the article, not a page which most probably just contains copyright info on the imaeg. Where the image page is more complete and informative, then perhaps linking to it from the front page would be ok. Richard Taylor 10:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Italic "Recently Featured"
By having the recently featured articles in an italic format it is muche asier to distinguish from the main article and appears more stylish. Good usability starts from easy differentiation. This is a minor change which will only affect Wikipedia in a positive way.

I also modified the "Recent Days" section of the "Selected Anniversaries" in the same way. The italic text makes it easy to understand that this is not just nromal text part of the same thing, but a different body with a different purpose. Int his case the purpose is to list a few other days that have passed. This is consistent with the change I made for the "Recently Featured". Anotehr change I had made was to place 3 recent days instead of 2 because the recently featured has 3 as well and it looked od dto have 2 for the recent anniversaries.

Consistency and distinguishing charachteristics are key to excellent usability. Please consider what I am saying and do not rever mindlessly just because it used to be different. --Exigentsky 23:48, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * According to the manual of style, italicizing is reserved for titles. Needless italicizing does not improve the look here, and it's pretty obvious "Recently featured" means exactly that. →Raul654 01:13, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe the manual needs to be changed. Yes it is obvious what "recently feature" means, that's not the problem. The problem is that it actually requires you to read to understand that it is separate from the body text of the article. Great usability should not require this. Perhaps an indentation than? Anyway, I will revert the selected annviersaries italicized text as well if your sure that this is a bad idea.
 * ok I also removed italization from "recent anniversaries", however I left it to list 3 previous days in order to be consistant with the "recently featured" --Exigentsky 01:21, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

Internet censorship in China
May I suggest we immediately replace the current featured article with Internet censorship in China, and make mention of Wikipedia being blocked recently in the summary text? I think it's important that this issue gets as much publicity as possible. -- Tim Starling 09:03, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

An excellent idea, Tim. I fully support it. DO'Neil 09:05, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * Terrible idea. It's not a featured article. Markalexander100 09:32, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * This is pushing an issue far more than we are allowed to do on Wikipedia. Why don't you put it in In the news?? ✏ Sverdrup 09:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Has Vannevar Bush had an feature? Might be interesting. -Kuni 18:37, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not a featured article. It has to go through the Featured article candidates page first. However, (IMHO), the article should be about twice as long as it currently is before it will make it. →Raul654 18:41, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Revised Standard Version Blurb Addition
There needs to be a little more added to the blurb:

Current text:

''The Revised Standard Version (RSV) is an English translation of the Bible that was popular in the mid 20th century and posed the first challenge to the King James Version as the most popular Bible in English. The RSV is a revision of the 1901 American Standard Version. In 1937, it was decided that a revision would be done and a panel of 32 scholars was put together for that task. The decision, however, was delayed by the Great Depression. The translation panel used the 17th edition of the Nestle Greek text. The New Testament was released in 1946, and the Old Testament in 1952.''

This is what should be added:

'''Special editions of the RSV were released for the Catholic Church in 1965 and for Eastern Orthodox churches in 1977. Reader's Digest published an condensed edition of the RSV in 1982. Revisions of the RSV were released by different groups in 1989 and 2001.'''

The addition covers:

The different editions of the base text (Cath, Orth, RD) and the NRSV and ESV.

I'd do it myself, but i'm not sure I have the power or not.

Comments?

--iHoshie 09:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Featured controversies
I do not think any controversy is qualified for a feature on the main page since controversies are usually only secondary articles. Plus, the particular example of how some software should be labelled is certainly completely irrelevant in the eyes of most people. Get-back-world-respect 13:24, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Running out of articles
There is a very real possibility we will run out of articles on Featured_articles to feature here; because we appear to be getting through them more quickly than we are adding them to the list. Is this something we need to worry about? Perhaps we could have an indicator somewhere of how many days worth of featured articles somewhere we have; in order to concentrate people's minds ;) Morwen - Talk 00:37, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Then Raul will just have to pick ones he likes ;-)

 * I dunno. The intense heat of nitpicking on WP:FAC makes better articles, but not many make it to Featured. If FAC is to be the gateway, then it will need many more contributions ... so more will emerge at the other end.

 * At this point, Raul's head will explode and he will kill us all with an axe - David Gerard 01:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * "At this point, Raul's head will explode and he will kill us all with an axe" - well, I won't deny it - the thought definitely occured to me ;)
 * Seriously though, at the end of the calander year I had planned to start cycling back - that is, unbold everything on Featured articles and start fresh. If we start running short of articles before then, I'll just go ahead and unbold them sooner. However, I eyed WP:FA and it looks like we about half of the featured articles have not yet been on the main page, and of those, about half half have a picture and therefore are eligible for the main page. →Raul654 01:33, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * Recycling shouldn't be a problem. We currently have something like 250 featured articles; most people probably wouldn't notice if we started over. Consider that the primary purpose of the featured article on the Main Page is to advertise ourselves to new visitors. Fredrik | talk 01:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah - I was getting the impression we were running low on suitable articles because they've been tending to show up on the Main Page a couple of days after making it to FA ... - David Gerard 10:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * We won't run out -- the last three weeks we have elevated seven or more articles per week to featured status, keeping the cache of unused featured articles stable. We still have 150+ articles that haven't been on the main page yet - I'm very confident we'll reach a stable 7+ featured article production before that chache runs out. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞ ]] 23:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Excuse a newbie question, but have you considered making this a weekly or biweekly thing, instead of daily? --Doradus 02:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think daily is probably the best way to do this. But this is all moot - we're promoting 7+ articles every week, and I'm resetting the count at the end of the year. Actually, a bigger problem is that we're promoting heavily in some categories, and almost-not-at-all in others -- this makes keeping variety on the main page difficult. Regardless, we can finish out the year without a problem, methinks. →Raul654 03:16, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think that everything needs to be reset at the end of the year. We should reset it only if we are in desperate need of articles. -- Emsworth 14:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Martha Stewart, and whether Raul has legitimacy as dictator
I've just found out that Martha Stewart is a featured article. Seeing that she's in the news now, perhaps her article should be featured on the main page. 172 06:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Quite the contrary: the featured article is *not* for timely/current events articles - that's what "In the News" (template:Itn) in for. I was planning to feature that article sometime after all the hub-bub dies down. →Raul654 07:23, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a good idea. Let's feature it some time this week if we can get a free image by then.  Does anyone other than Raul object? anthony (see warning)

 * Yeah. Put her in "In The News" - David Gerard 16:45, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I believe she already was "In The News". anthony (see warning)

 * To anthony: the only person whose objections matter is Raul, because he picks the feature for the main page!  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  01:17, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Anyone can pick a feature for the main page. Just because Raul breaks Wikipedia policy trying to make himself the king doesn't mean that he actually is the king. anthony (see warning)

 * No, not anyone can pick a feature for the main page. Anyone can suggest one... but Raul is the only person that picks them. :-P blankfaze |  (беседа!)  02:22, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I didn't misword what I said. Anyone can pick one. Raul might edit war with you over your choice, but that doesn't give him the sole authority to choose.  anthony (see warning)

 * I agree with anthony. Raul does have some say in what goes on this page, but this is a Wiki and anybody can change the page. Of course, there ought to be some guidelines so we don't end up with a fiasco of people adding articles that aren't even featured. Johnleemk | Talk 10:43, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't have a problem with guidelines. I don't even have a problem with Raul being the main person updating the template.  What I have a problem with is the concept that "the only person whose objections matter is Raul". Raul has protected this page when he and David Gerard disagreed with myself and Guanaco over content, and this type of coup should not be accepted. anthony (see warning)

 * I agree with Anthony. Eek. Ambivalenthysteria 10:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * To Johnleemk: I disagree.  If everyone is allowed to edit the featured article template, then we'll have 30 different articles featured on the main page each day.  The main page, and this template in particular, need to be managed differently than the rest of the wiki.  The featured article template needs a de facto manager- else, it is chaos.  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  12:17, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The question is not whether or not there is a manager. The question is whether or not that manager is the only person whose opinion matters.

 * Blankfaze, I agree with whoever posted above me. The issue is not that Raul is the manager of the page. The issue is whether he is the *only* person who has the final say in what appears on the page. Having a dedicated manager like Raul is good; the question is whether he has the ultimate right to decide what is featured on the front page. This is rather odd — I'm actually arguing in favour of anthony's ideas. As Ambivalenthysteria said, eek! Johnleemk | Talk 13:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * In all honesty, I don't envy Raul his job. Picking FA's, managing all the bickering on FAC, and dealing with all the crap that people give about the front page is a full time job.  We've said many times that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, and it makes sense that tasks that require the coordination of an individual be delegated, as done in this manner.  Obviously Raul's opinion is not the only opinion that matters, but it is given extra weight, given the amount of responsibility he has taken on.  - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:52, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Protection
So ... is the feature template a part of the Main Page in need of protection? To avoid things like spurious blanking of the picture - David Gerard 14:50, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Or, as I see having caught up with events, to prevent some foolish person thinking an edit war on the Main Page is a good way to make a point. I see the template is now protected, like the Main Page itself. Is there any convincing reason to unprotect it? - David Gerard 14:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * IMO, no. I don't really see a need for non-admins to be editing this template.  If they have a concern, they can address it with an admin, just as they must do with the main page itself.  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  14:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Less than five per cent of the edits to this page are vandalism. Whatever reason is there to prevent the 95% of good edits being made just because a few idiots choose to vandalise it? Why should non-sysops be made to feel like second-class citizens? They regularly make good edits to this page, and I see no reason to stop them doing that. Try editing on a Wikipedia where you are not an admin, finding wrong information and then realising the page is unnecessarily protected and you can't fix it. Yes, you could bring it up on the talk page, but would you really bother? Or would you think, "well they don't trust me to edit it, so I'll leave it to the admins to fix"? It's important the main page is free from errors, and all users, not just admins, do a good job of editing this template to ensure that is the case. Angela. 18:13, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You are, of course, completely correct - David Gerard 20:28, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with Angela. We have these templates specifically for the purpose of allowing non-admins to edit these sections, because the Main Page itself is protected. It was protected briefly to stop an edit war. Since Anthony DiPierro was blocked for 24 hours, the protection is no longer necessary, and I have removed it. --Michael Snow 18:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A simple proposal
In light of the heated debate/edit wars/blocking on the subject of how articles are selected for the Main page, adhering to the concepts of WikiLove and wishing to decrease the likelihood unfortunate incidents occuring again, I hereby propose the revision of the de-facto rules for the Featured Article:

 * Before an article is put on the Main Page, the Featured Article Director will list it as "tomorrow's featured article" for at least 24 hours. One article will be listed as tomorrow's featured article, and one will be listed as an alternate. Any editor can comment and discuss the choice. After reading the comments, the Featured Article Director will freely choose which of the two articles to feature on the main page.

 * Rationale: Ensuring that featured articles are cycled daily in an orderly manner, requires a commitment by a specific person. That person should have the power to do their job. OTOH, ensuring that the delegation of power doesn't cause frustration requires that other people are given a chance to say what they think about it, and not after the fact either. Zocky ''

Comments:
 * Sounds like an acceptable plan to me. blankfaze |  (беседа!)  17:52, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * This sounds like more work for Raul when he already puts a lot of effort into maintaining this page. Is the advance planning of what will be on the main page necessary when the choice is so rarely disputed? Angela. 18:13, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it's necessary... but I find the change acceptable if it's that important to others. blankfaze | (беседа!)  18:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support: I would like to be able to check for good captions on the featured article before it hits the spotlight. -- ke4roh 18:19, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I think it could actually serve to lessen Raul's workload.  He just has to tell this page what the featured article will be, the template material will be created in wiki fashion by the community, and he just updates the the feature template. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:40, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've been talking with over with Zocky on IRC since he proposed it, and I support it in principle - he and I have been working out the rules together. *IF* set up correctly, I think it could lessen my work load, if it doesn't become a VFD or FAC-like page. →Raul654 19:45, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. It would be nice to do a final read-over, especially to make sure the template makes sense and is clear. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:54, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
 * The encroachment of bureaucracy. If Raul thinks it's workable, then good - David Gerard 20:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I see someone change Dictator to Coordinator. I think the title should describe the position and the way things work, Rauls's completely independent in his choices (he can be deposed, of course, but I wouldn't want his job). Coordinator fails to describe that. Maybe Executive? Zocky
 * I changed it because I thought dictator was a highly undesirable choice of title. If people want to improve on coordinator, feel free, but if we start having dictators on Wikipedia I think it will convey the wrong message to people about how the project is operated. --Michael Snow 23:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Here's what the thesaurus says, take your pick: absolutist, adviser, autocrat, baron, boss, caesar, caliph, chief, commander, czar, despot, disciplinarian, duce, emir, fascist, kaiser, lama, leader, lord, magnate, martinet, master, mogul, oligarch, oppressor, overlord, rajah, ringleader, sachem, shah, sheik, slave driver, strongman, sultan, taskmaster, tycoon, tyrant, usurper
 * I think Overlord has a nice ring to it ;) (That was a joke. Don't flame me) →Raul654 23:37, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * All hail the Featured Article Overlord! --Michael Snow 03:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't start with a C, anyway... FAC is already featured article candidates. Zocky 00:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Director? Or if we want to keep something whimsical, I notice Raul calls himself a "Fieldmarshal" on his user page.
 * Of the four aspects of strategic analysis and definition, it is marshalling or situational organizing role that reaches the highest development in Fieldmarshals. As this kind of role is practiced some contingency organizing is necessary, so that the second suit of the Fieldmarshal's intellect is devising contingency plans.
 * Strangely appropriate :). --Shibboleth 01:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I love the Featured Article Director. It retains some of the "dictator" sound, while not sounding too, well, dictatorial. And FAD is a good acronym :) Zocky 01:37, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Director is good enough for me, so I've changed it again. --Michael Snow 03:43, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Not keen on a formal director in a wiki but I support this. I suggest that people (any people) list candidate suggestions a week or more in advance if they like. 24 hours is very little time if there's debate and there would need to be a queue of alternatives to select from if there are objections. Jamesday 00:34, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The articles that the Director choses from are all already Featured articles and have gone through the complete procedure there. I think 24 hours is generally enough to catch any critical issues. OTOH, a week-long queue might be a good way to work, but that's a whole new issue. Zocky 02:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * By agreement with Raul654, Mav has created a de facto 365 day queue, starting with the already-chosen articles, on this project page. If you examine Today%27s_featured_article I believe there is a consensus process in place which addresses the SPF issue that was raised below. This thread could be a starting point for the guideline in Featured article policy, a link to which is in Tomorrow's featured article. The implied rights of all wikipedians are view, talk, history, on each choice. The FAD chooses, by convention. This has occurred each day since the beginning of the queue. A mechanism is in place which even addresses vandalism, but that takes the cooperation of everyone. By the way, an anonymous editor has already made a request on the talk page of the Aug 13 choice page, currently empty. As the mechanism stands, any wikipedian can now make the Featured Article choice, which solves the SPF issue. They just have to follow the guideline, in order to play by the rules. Ancheta Wis 12:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * How is the Featured Article Director chosen? anthony (see warning) 16:44, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The featured article director isn't chosen; it's User:Raul654 until he is either deposed or decides to abdicate the throne. blankfaze |  (беседа!)  16:59, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the proposal state that, then? anthony (see warning) 17:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Raul is obviously the defacto director. He's been doing it for quite some time. If anybody calls for election of the new director and gathers enough support, I'm sure that can be arranged. I know I wouldn't want a wikipedia job that requires daily commitment. Zocky 02:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That it is obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone discussing this change in policy. We don't need an election of a new director, because we never had an election of the original director, and we never even had an election to decide we need a director in the first place. anthony (see warning) 12:01, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, let's have one! See below. - David Gerard 17:49, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tomorrow's featured article
Zocky and I have worked together on this idea and Tomorrow's featured article is what we have come up with. It gives people 24 hours to see tomorrow's article and tweak it as desired, and if something is very wrong, they can object. I think it should eliminate much of the bickering that goes on on the FAC talk page. Zocky and I would like to try it out for 2 weeks and see what people think of it. →Raul654 20:46, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

--- I am alone in thinking the current situation is rather odd? Having repeatedly raised his issue at Talk:FAC (also discussed above) without managing to exact any change, Anthony tried the more direct approach of editing the content page and gets banned for it. Yet this direct approach appears to be sufficient to get the rules changed - i.e. admittance there was something wrong with old system.

Is this to be the recommended course of action then? "Sacrifice" yourself into a temp ban in order to change a mechanism that is entrenched? Talk pages are after all, pretty ineffectual on busy pages.

Pcb21| Pete 22:18, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I've opposed previous proposals for voting on stuff because it would add a helleva lot of work to the process (as people above have said). The reason I support this is because it contains no voting. As a result, unlike all previous proposals, it seems like it might actually reduce the work and the bickering. If this had been brough up before Anthony's vandalism spree, I would have supported it just the same. →Raul654 22:23, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * As I recall, back in February, spontaneity and surprise was a criterion for the selection of the Feature. This shift in position (to a 1-day queue) is welcome, from the POV of one who has spent some time on the 365-day queue of selected anniversaries. I honestly think the job of the Featured Article Director is made easier by the queue. Now, how about a longer queue length? ;-) Ancheta Wis 06:57, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Now that this project page points to the Archive of Featured Articles on a monthly basis, there is a possibility for a 365-day queue of articles. I imagine that Raul654 will ultimately be riding herd on this. It seems that this mechanism could work to everyone's benefit; what would happen if this queue were filled with articles for the future as well as for the past and present. Ancheta Wis 17:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes please. That will make it easier for everyone else to comment, suggest changes or switches in the articles that will be featured, polish them so they have no last-minute spelling or grammatical or image-source errors, &c.  +sj +  18:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Highlighting "Recently featured"
I have often thought that the "recently featured" and "recent days" footnote text on the main page should be italicized. In Monobook, on Netscape, those footnotes are right below the paragraph text, and seem to be part of the day's entry, rather than footnotes.

I just noticed exigentsky's comments at the top of this page, so I am reposting that suggestion. Italics ar not only for titles; it is also a (not the) standard way to set out one block of text from another -- for instance, a quote embedded in a paragraph of prose, or text with some emotional or emphatic highlight, or (as here) a note being set out from the text above it. see also articles with "see also" sections at top or bottom

Highlighting the Recently Featured and Recent days footnotes - by italicizing the whole, or by bolding those two-word phrases, or ? - has my vote. +sj + 21:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Semi-permanent protection
With the "Tomorrow's featured article" system in place, I'd like to semi-permanently protect this page. It's increasingly the subject of vandalism, and now that everything that goes onto it is checked for 24 hours, that should alleviate any need for major fixes (typos and whatnot). →Raul654 00:45, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. If somehow any typos slips through, any user can just ask an admin to fix it.  Perhaps this is unwikilike, but I for one am getting tired of silly anon vandalism to this template that is visible to all who visit the site.  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  01:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to this. anthony (see warning) 01:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain your reasoning? →Raul654 01:46, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's protected, then non-admins can't edit it. anthony (see warning) 01:52, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * That's, um, the point. blankfaze |  (беседа!)  01:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I also strongly object. Guanaco 01:54, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "Tomorrow's Featured Article" will suffice to catch all the changes that people will want to make, because the Main Page has a much higher visibility. I'd recommend being cautious in doing this, and only if it's absolutely necessary. It's normal for Wikipedia to be editable by everyone, and we should only protect pages in extraordinary situations; how bad is the vandalism? — Matt 03:11, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I count 6 vandalisms in 5 days (not counting Anthony's edit war). →Raul654 03:20, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's much less than George W. Bush. Should that be semi-permanently protected instead?
 * George W. Bush doesn't get seen 100,000 times a day. The main page does. A vandalism that lasts 5 minutes there is likely to be seen by almost 100 people. →Raul654 03:29, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've had a look through the history for this week, and, while the exact definition of "vandlism" is fuzzy, there was only one edit that, in my opinion, was serious vandalism, i.e. one that made Wikipedia look daft on its main page: the Simpson image, and that was reverted in five minutes. There doesn't seem much of a threat right now -- possibly because it's hard for the casual vandal to find Template:Feature. It's easy for me to say (because I don't spend any time fighting vandals), but we don't seem to gain much from protecting the page. — Matt 03:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I count 4., , , and .  But three of the vandals were admins, so that wouldn't be stopped by this proposal. anthony (see warning) 20:15, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Three of the vandals were admins? What the hell do you mean by that?  blankfaze |  (беседа!)  02:22, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The users making vandal edits, , and were admins. anthony (see warning) 11:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I really don't know — on one hand, this is a wiki — on the other, vandalism on the main page makes us looks silly. I think that whether this page is protected or not ought to depend on the other Templates for the main page. ITN and DYK too should be protected if this is as well. It's inconsistent, and is just shoving the problem off to another Template if we protect just this page. In short, this is an issue that probably has a larger scope than just this page. Just my opinion, of course. Johnleemk | Talk 09:06, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Ausir 09:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Object - I don't see that this is enough of a special case to justify being made an exception. In fact, having looked through the history, I can only find one example of genuine vandalism - the Simpsons image attached to Lollapalooza. All the others, including those by AnthonyDP, seem to be, at the very worst, bloody-minded disagreements about policy by people who are making well-intentioned edits. None of them spoilt the appearance of the front page for a casual reader. There's a mountain being made out of a molehill here. Harry R 11:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral — I see both sides of the argument. I do however object to Anthony's edits being called "vandalism".  I disagree with them, and he was annoyingly persistent, but that doesn't make them vandalism.  They were part of a valid difference of opinion between Wikipedians.  — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 14:19, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I oppose semi-permanent protection. It would deprive non-admins of the ability to edit the template, and the whole point of having these templates for the Main Page is to allow non-admins to edit, because the Main Page itself is protected. There hasn't been that much real vandalism, and any that happens gets reverted very quickly anyway. --Michael Snow 17:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think main-page vandalism is enough of a problem so far to protect the template. Same goes for other main-page templates. I know I would hate not being able to edit selected anniversaries. I think that current security by obscurity is enough. Zocky 02:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There isn't that much vandalism, and if it is visible then it will also be reverted quickly. It is not worth cutting out the non-admins. The security through obscurity also seems to work fairly well. Thue | talk 22:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose, purely on principle if nothing else. Others have stated plainly why. Radagast 11:40, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Linking to article of the week
I feel that the article of the week should have a link here. It will give it more exposure (and therefore more contributors), plus it also improves the sense of community on Wikipedia. A line like this, below recently featured articles would be a good idea.

Article of the week: Medieval warfare

What do you think? User:Krik 10:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Let's have a mockup...

A copyright provides its holder the right to restrict unauthorized copying and reproduction of an original expression (i.e. literary work, movie, music, painting, software, mask work, etc.) Copyright stands in contrast to other forms of intellectual property, such as patents, which grant a monopoly right to the use of an invention, because it is not a monopoly right to do something, merely a right to preclude others from doing it. Copyright also does not prohibit all forms of copying. In the United States, the fair use clause of the Copyright Act allows copying and distribution under certain limited circumstances. Copyright law is controversial, with some seeing it as essential to prevent abuse; and others, too restrictive. This has led to the concept of Copyleft and alternative licences.

Recently featured: Siege – Lollapalooza – Galileo Galilei

Article of the week: Medieval warfare

More featured articles ...

Mmm...I think it'd look better if we didn't wikilink "Article of the week". Right now I'm neutral. Johnleemk | Talk 12:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It's a bad idea. It would imply that "Article of the week" means "feature of the week", when it really means "Charity case of the week" - read Article of the week - David Gerard 18:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Article of the week name discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Article of the week)

Whether or not we link the article of the week on the main page is one question, but I definitely don't think we should link it within the featured article section. The featured article section is just something different completely. I'd like to give the article of the week exposure on the main page, as that will encourage people to fix it up, but the featured article section is not the place to do it. anthony (see warning) 11:53, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It should probably be on Main Page (i.e. the editors' portal page), but not on the public face to the world - David Gerard 17:49, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Does anyone actually use the editors' portal page? anthony (see warning) 13:51, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ratification of User:Raul654 as Featured Articles Director
This has never been voted on. So let's see what consensus says.

Update: Closing 1 week from today, i.e. 2400 UTC 12 Aug 2004 - David Gerard 23:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(the poll was changed, and some votes rearranged and removed; comments on those below.)

The role of the Featured Article Director should be more clearly defined.
 * 1) Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Zocky 11:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) -- orthogonal 03:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Austin Hair 03:42, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) anthony (see warning) 13:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) +sj +  19:40, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) Where is it defined currently?

The role of the Featured Article Director is defined clearly enough now. - If the above poll approves the post of Featured Articles Director:
 * 1) David Gerard 17:49, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) blankfaze |  (беседа!)  17:51, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutrality 21:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Emsworth (I would like to see it renamed "Coordinator").
 * 5) →Raul654 00:30, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) mav 03:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Mark 03:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) James F. (talk) 12:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) ke4roh 13:01, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Ancheta Wis 12:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) (I would like to see it renamed Elector)
 * 11) Goobergunch 20:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) 172 00:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC) Just make Raul dictator (not just "director"). He was doing just fine without all this legalism and formalism.
 * 13) Markalexander100 00:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) * I think deferring to Mark's judgement, without formalism, is effective and appropriate. The formalism, however, seems like a poor idea.  It should not be possible for someone to blithely say "I don't care how good your idea is; you're not the FAD, so your opinion doesn't matter." +sj +

Ratify Raul654 as Featured Articles Director.
 * 1) David Gerard 17:49, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) blankfaze |  (беседа!)  17:51, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Antandrus 18:17, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Thue | talk 09:31, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Zocky 11:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutrality 21:29, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Emsworth 22:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) →Raul654 00:30, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) mav 03:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Mark 03:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) James F. (talk) 12:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) ke4roh 13:01, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) 172 00:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) Markalexander100 00:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Gregb 05:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Don't ratify Raul654 as Featured Articles Director - hold an election.
 * 1) While I have great respect for Raul654, if this post is important enough to have a "Director", then it's important enough the Director be elected -- especially as the vast majority of wiki users have no idea this page, or this vote, exists. -- orthogonal 03:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) (And besides, who are we, in the absence of an election, to ratify anyone for any position? -- orthogonal 03:45, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC))
 * 2) Agreed.  While I approve fully of the job Raul's done thus far, others should be given the opportunity to have a say in the matter.  Austin Hair 03:42, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) anthony (see warning) 13:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I think Raul does outstanding work, but I don't want to speak for consensus.  I don't think we really need to have some kind of legally defined position.  But, once we take that step and say that the position is official, seems like we have to decide upon it transparently. Geogre 13:56, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have an election iff someone besides Raul indicates a desire for the job.
 * 1) [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:27, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
 * 2) Goobergunch 20:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Jao 10:28, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC) (Duh.)

Who moved my vote
Someone changed this poll and removed my vote. What's going on? anthony (see warning) 01:19, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Two distinct options were: Obviously, these options are redundant. Thus, I removed the former, and put everything into the third person. -- Emsworth 03:20, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "Don't ratify Raul654 as Featured Articles Director, don't have a Featured Articles Director..." and
 * "We shouldn't have a Featured Articles Director"
 * It was completely inappropriate for you to remove my vote. anthony (see warning) 13:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Having two options meaning exactly the same thing is unnecessary, and, moreover, confusing. I did not "remove" your comments in the sense you indicate. What good will come of voting on the same exact proposition twice in the same ballot? -- Emsworth 14:22, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I voted in both (2) polls, yet someone removed my vote completely from one of the polls. Yes, the initial poll questions were chosen poorly, and this has (only to some extent) been addressed.  But changing the questions and answers after people have already voted without even contacting them either before or after making the change is not the proper way to solve the problem. As for the poll questions being fixed, they still assume that we should have a featured article director in the first place.  I guess I should have written that I haven't stopped beating my wife as my answer.  anthony (see warning) 13:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On actively choosing single points of failure
If such a position is created, which continues to seem like a poor idea to me, a) it should not be limited to one person, and b) its primary goal should be recruiting and training others to share the work.

It is one thing to have unintended SPF weaknesses in an organization; quite another to atively create them. Wiki is very robust in the former sense; it starts out with very few SPF weaknesses, since everyone and her mother is encouraged to fix anything that is broken. Actively creating bureaucratic structure with such weaknesses runs against the grain of wiki, and contrary to my intuition.

Everyone can agree that Raul is a greatly positive and energetic contributor, who among other things takes excellent care of our featured articles. The above FADdish vote is, however, more than a vote in favor of Raul, or even in recognition of his work. It is a vote to set in place a system with inherent weaknesses, with no clear compensating advantage.

Weakness 1: Single Point of Failure - Rather than developing a community of well-intentioned people, who have all learned how to effectively and peacefully maintain the main page, this suggests a system where a small group of people maintain the main page, with input from (and occasional rebuffs to) others. Writing a good main-page blurb takes practice, just as writing a good ITN one-liner does; there should be many active contributors at any given time who have done this and received feedback from the community about it.

Weakness 2: Inefficiency - The standard inefficiencies that arise naturally from consolidation of power can all come into play. In well-designed bureaucracies, this weakness is offset by the advantages of faster unilateral action and personal accountability to agreements and compromises; in this case, there are few such advantages. The inefficiencies include:
 * limited availability of people allowed to work on the main page ("That's a nice idea, but it would be too much work"),
 * limiting the actions of others to 'make life easier' for the group of privileged editors (cf. suggestions to protect this project page, above),
 * confusion in circumstances of absence (who will do the updates, when? what if there is a dispute?  an edit conflict?)
 * jockeying to be "next in line" (since only one person at a time can be in control),
 * vertical consolidation of power across similar systems (Marking an article as "Featured" is quite different from choosing what goes on the Main Page, crafting a blurb about it, and updating the TFA template... but both would implicitly be handled by the FAD because the inaugural candidate is very active in both areas. More robust and more efficient would be a system in which different groups of people with different, complementary criteria handled these two tasks.)
 * &c. (openness of process, openness to change, the friendship of open ownership, the freshness of changing tasks...) The strengths of wiki are many and invisible, until one discards them.

+sj +, who thinks 654 is swell.

 * To have everyone merely vote on the featured article for the next day would encourage chaos. "Mob rule" would in some cases lead, for example, to a week of consecutive United States-related articles. Thus, I am absolutely opposed to have people vote daily on which article should be displayed. Rather, I would prefer having a single individual or a group of individuals randomly choose articles for the main page, so as to ensure a distribution over all categories.

 * I do not mean that a single individual must be responsible for the entire matter. Mr Raul could, of course, share his workload with others. These others would not have to be elected; rather, they would participate with the agreement of the users who participate in the FA nomination process. Of course, disputes would arise from time to time. They would have to be resolved by consensus. But whilst something appears on the main page, a provisional solution would have to be enacted quickly, perhaps by the directoral authority (whether that authority be a single person or a group of persons).

 * -- Emsworth 20:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * This is a strawman. No one said anything about voting.  Surely it is easy to find a single article each day that everyone can agree upon. Alternatively, if we want the article chosen randomly, as you suggest, then having a featured article director is actually counter to that goal. anthony (see warning) 01:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * The point is that the coordinator is the individual who is trusted to make a random choice (the requirement being varied from time to time to take into account considerations such as requests made by users). If, however, you can suggest another system whereby articles will be randomly selected, I would be most eager to consider it. -- Emsworth 01:53, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the choice isn't currently being made randomly anyway. If you want to select articles randomly, you put the articles in a pool, pick a seed and a random number generator, and then pick them randomly.  There's no need for a featured article director to do that, unless you'd like Raul to pick a RNG and seed. anthony (see warning) 02:45, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Link table corruption
I've reverted the addition of date variables to the template because as Tim Starling said at template talk:stub, "You can't make links like, there's a bug in MediaWiki which will cause link table corruption if you do." This makes "what links here" etc completely useless for any articles ever linked to from template:feature. The date needs to be changed manually each day, the same as for the Picture of the day. Angela. 01:39, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * Two questions: Are we sure this is not only related to Categories? The current system seems to have worked fine. If this is a problem, will it be fixed? Thanks. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞ ]] 01:28, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Cantaloupe

Untitled
Australia does not universally call this a rockmelon, it is cantaloupe in most southern states, this is a strong cultural point of contention and interstate rivalry. The intro claiming it is called rock melon in Australia cites no references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.111.245 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Nutrition and Medicinal Info
It would be interesting if someone knows about the nutritional value of this fruit as well as any pharmaceutical or industrial use derived from its byproducts such as the rind or seeds. --98.172.21.130 (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Size matters

 * Cantaloupes may range in size from 7-12 cm in diameter, but typically exceed 12 cm in diameter.

Um, this doesn't make much sense. What is the point of saying they range from 12-15 cm if they typically exceed 12 cm? In my experience most cantaloupes are well over 12 cm, which is the diameter of a standard CD or DVD. In fact, a 7 cm diameter cantaloupe would strike me as very small, as that's the size of a small apple. Maybe what was meant was 7-12 cm in radius (14-24 cm in diameter)? Or maybe 7-12 inches in diameter? Can someone who knows more about cantaloupes size clarify this? Nohat 07:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Good point: "in" has probably been switched to "cm". When you're sure, edit the entry. --Wetman 07:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I checked Encyclopedia Britannica, which doesn't have an article on cantaloupes, but discusses them in the "melon" article, although it didn't provide size information, although it said that melons range in mass from 1-4 kg. No help there. Checking Google next. Nohat 08:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heraldry matters
Okay. No pics available on the web. So, could you tell us in words, what is the difference between a cantaloupe in nature and a cantaloupe on a coat-of-arms? --Blair P. Houghton 20:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Penicillin citation?
A mouldy cantaloupe in a Peoria market in 1941 was found to contain the best and highest quality penicillin after a world-wide search.

This is pretty interesting but a citation would make it riveting. Misterantithesis 01:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

^ Mary Bellis. "The History of Penicillin". Inventors. About.com. Retrieved 2007-10-30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.254.162 (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Cantaloupe vs. Musk Melon
The distinction needs to be made, and seems to have been made kind of sloppily in this article. It is unclear which the article is supposed to be on at a given time to me. Perhaps a distinctly broken up article? It seems unwise to me to move the musk melon stuff to its own article, since very few Americans know that what we buy are not cantaloupe. Notthe9 08:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Agreed. There is no such thing as North American cantaloupe. Its a musk melon. This widespread mistake needs to be addressed. Please see: http://www.answers.com/topic/cantaloupe pyster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyster (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro
"''A Cantaloupe, also cantaloup or rockmelon (Cucumis melo cantalupensis), is the North American name for a variety of muskmelon. "True cantaloupes are not netted, have deep grooves, a hard warty rind, and orange or green flesh. These are grown only in Europe where the population easily makes the distinction between muskmelons and cantaloupes" [1]. The muskmelons that most Americans call "cantaloupes" have a distinctly netted or webbed rind''"
 * Well, what a confusing way to start the article ... - Nat Krause 23:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

True Cantaloupes vs Musk Melons
"True" cantaloupes are Cucumis melo cantalupensis. In the period following the American Revolution, "French" was in - Americans copied French style. True cantaloupes are somewhat difficult to cultivate, though, so some enterprising folks musk melons (Cucumis melo reticulatus) as cantaloupes. So today, the typical American on the street will not recognize C melo cantalupensis at all, but will immediately recognize C melo reticulatus and confidently tell you it's a cantaloupe.

The true cantaloupe is much smaller than a musk melon. The size of 7-12cm given early in the article is correct - for cantalupensis. It's got a smooth, grey-green rind with green stripes - looks something like a very small, greyish watermelon. Its flesh is colored similarly to the musk melon and it's much sweeter.

The picture in the article is of a musk melon, not a true cantaloupe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.68.107 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC).

 * The transition didn't happen until the the turn of the twentieth century.  American literature prior to that time usually correctly makes the distinction.  The old American varieties of true cantaloupe were (and still are) larger than is current in Europe, darker in colour, wartier, and more deeply grooved (the grooves have all but disapeared in the modern European cultivars).  It would appear that, around 1890, orange-fleshed muskmelons began to supplant the old green-fleshed varieties (today only the orange ones are raised commercially).  In conjunction with the decline in cultivation of true cantaloupes, this led to confusion of the two melons in the public mind.  True cantaloupes are not commercially cultivated in the U.S., but several varieties (both old and new) can be had from some seed suppliers. -GSwift 04:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This article mainly seems to deal with the "American" canteloupe, which, as I understand, is just a musk melon. But the article also seems to indicate that the "European" canteloupe is also musk melon. Yelocab 07:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * They are both "just" varieties of musk melon, yes. I think the article's coverage is pretty well split among the varieties. -- JHunterJ 13:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * According to the article Cucumis melo cantalupensis is the true cantaloupe where as Cucumis melo reticulatus is the rock melon.24.83.178.11 05:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

Page split
One article dealing with two melons is very confusing. Thanks to the information above I now understand the difference, but I think it is worth splitting the article into Musk Melon/Rockmelon and Cantaloupe. -- d a r k li i g h t talk 13:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I've tried to clean up the indications of the differences in the article while strengthening the idea that both varieters are cantaloupes (and both are muskmelons as well). I think splitting the page would not be helpful. -- JHunterJ 22:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Cuculoupe
I just removed a section from the page about cuculoupes, because that story seems to be debunked here:

http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/communications/news/headline_news/Cuculoupe+Not+Real+After+All.htm

There is picture of real cantaloupe here http://www.victoryseeds.com/catalog/vegetable/melons/melon_nois_des_carmes.jpg

 * No it needs to go. The scintists who debunked it are much more reliable than the Associated Press, etc. Pollinator 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is some relevant discussion from user talk pages:

 * Copied from User talk:Leon7

 * Hello Pollinator: You recently deleted an edit I made on the Cucumber article regarding Cuculoupes.  Within the last week, this info was on the AP news service and was picked up by hundreds of news web sites, television and radio stations, etc.  I though that it would be of interest to the reader of the article because of it's unusual nature.  Your stated reason for the delete was, "rem nonsense "documented" only by pulp magazine."  I don't know what kind of documentation you are looking for on breaking news.  Obviously, it's too soon for it to hit the print magazines... yet.  But, Here's one from a New Orleans newspaper.    Here's one from CBS News.   I found at least 500 news stories of this on Google.  So what kind of documentation would you like to see?  I could not find anything in "pulp magazine" that was relevant, so I don't know what "nonsense" you are referring to.  I would, maybe understand it, if you were to say that it's not encyclopedic or professional or something along those lines, and I would respect your opinion.  So please reconsider your edit.  Otherwise, please educate me on proper citing, since I'm relatively new to WP.  Thanks. Leon7 03:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Crosses among cucurbits are not impossible, but the story has some of the earmarks of a hoax, so I'd be cautious. Note the breathless tone of the story, as presented in the pulp magazine you provided as a reference. You half expect to hear them say it was fathered by Elvis.
 * Another thing that is conspicuous to anyone who works with cucurbits is the gaps in the story. The quoted "expert" says the cucumber and cantaloupe were planted "close together." The terminology seems unlikely, as this "expert" surely must know that simply being close together would not produce a cross. It's as if the pollen magically jumped from one plant to another. Cucurbit pollen is heavy and sticky and will not be airborne; it needs a pollinator, such as a bee, to carry it from one plant to another. Of course the "expert" could be talking down to a reporter, or the reporter might not be listening very well.
 * The fact that it was picked up by major news sources like CBS (why didn't you link to that in the first place?) reduces the possibility of a hoax, as they supposedly would check the story out. I'm still not entirely convinced though, as the major news agencies have been hoaxed as well. If you want to put it back in (with better sources), I won't remove it, as the onus will be on them, if it proves to be a phony. Pollinator 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. I should have been more careful and had linked the story to a better source, like CBS.  I also found out that Regis & Kelly had a taste on their show, which lessens the chance that it's a hoax.  Thanks. Leon7 07:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * When you deleted it from the cantaloupe article, I had already added a real news citiation. I've restored it there as well, and added a cite for the AP story about Regis & Kelly. -- JHunterJ 12:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Posted here by Pollinator 02:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Charentais merge
Yeah, charentais should be merged in here. ENeville 19:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Merged. -- JHunterJ 12:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Australian, New Zealand, South African cantaloupe
I've moved the sentence about the rockmelon to inside the paragraph describing the American Cantaloupe, rather than the European one as what NZ calls rockmelon appears to be the American Cantaloupe eg (I also looked on a Australian online shop and found the same fruit). I'm not sure what the South African spanspek relates to. Google:spanspek came up with two smooth rind versions with green skin, www.museums.org.za says  spanspek has a netted rind and www.alltheweb.com shows a netted rind one (appears they originated in Africa).

In NZ we also have a honeydew melon that has a smooth green skin and green pulp inside - what does this correspond to? [] --AGoon 09:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that which we call canteloupe in Victoria, Australia matches the picture referred to by AGoon.
 * However, it IS NOT universally called "rockmelon" in Australia. In Victoria it has been traditionally referred to as Cantaloupe. In New South Wales it is apparently called rockmelon and national chains of supermarkets adopt one State's terminology for the whole country. Avalon 11:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From the pictures that I can see, it seems to me that the european cantaloupe is NOT the spanspek we have here in South Africa. What we call a spanspek is definately the one with the reticulated skin. I have never seen a spanspek with smooth skin in South Africa. The only variety with smooth skin is the honeydew melon which is referred to by AGoon. In South Africa we call this a "winterspanspek". I will change the article to reflect this. Oom Kosie 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Varieties
I find this page quite funny as it describes a very common problem with describing Cucumis melo. The subspecies classification is actually only useful to describe wild types/land races. All of the important commercially cultivated melons are a blend of all the subspecies (for disease resistances and specific phenotypes).

As for melon types, commercially this is how they are referred too. After a few revisions I may post these into the Melon Article.

Group 1 ORANGE FLESHED MELONS
These melons are traditionally climacteric (Undergo physiological changes during ripeing in response to ethylene)

Western Shipper = Cantaloupe common in the Western US, Mexico, & Central America. Brazil and Costa Rica grow this type for export to the US and Europe. This is characterized by; dark green immature fruit color, closed full net (no sutures/ribs), and orange fleshed.

Rockmelons = Is exactly the same as the western shipper except for one allele difference. These can be sutured (ribbed) not always though aussies don't seem to care. This is a recessive allele that is very common in Western Shipper germplasm.

Eastern Shipper = Almost genetically identical to the western shipper except for a grey/green immature color. The current most popular commercial hybrid is made from a Eastern Shipper type female and a Western Shipper male (the gray/green immature color is dominant).

Harper type (Italy)= Exactly the same as the Eastern Shipper only slightly smaller in size.

Charentais = The "French" Melon. This is very similar germplasm to the Eastern and Western Shipper types, (There are some places I can be hung for saying that). It is sutured, has little or no net, Gray/green immature and has been higly selected for aromatics and volitiles. It does go quite well with port wine.

Italian type (called in the US)= An Eastern Shipper with sutures.

GROUP 2 THE DIVERSITY (FUN TYPES)
Green Fleshed Honeydew = This is light green immature, non-climacteric, green fleshed,low in volitiles and aromatics, non to slightly netted, and is grown in the US, Mexico, Japan, Australia and Central and South America.

White Fleshed Honey dew = Same as a green Fleshed honeydew but grown in China and Japan.

Orange Fleshed Honeydew = This is a light green immature, non-climacteric, oranged fleshed, non-netted. Deeply oranged fleshed varieties are grown in the US and Mexico while pale oranged fleshed varieties are common in China and Japan.

Yellow Honeydew = this is a light green immature, non-climacteric, white to green fleshed honeydew. These have a dark yellow external appereance and are round and smooth is shape. This is grown mainly in Asian Markets.

Juan Canary/Canaries = This is a very similar to the Yellow Honeydew except for a more teardrop shape and the prescence of wrinkles.

Uzbek Melon = Monster of a melon, these are very large up to 10kgs. White fleshed and a light green immature color. These also have an speckled pattern of yellow and green on its surface. Non netted.

Ananas = This is a cross between a western shipper and a White Fleshed Honeydew. It has a subtle flavor and pale orange flesh with light netting.

Galia = A cross between a Western Shipper and a Yellow Honeydew. These were developed to have a green flesh and small seed cavity. These produce a unique citrus like frangrance.

Piel De Sapo = Spanish for "Skin of the Toad". This is a white fleshed melon with wrinkles and a similair size and shape to the Juan Canary. It's most unique characteristic is the surface of the melon is speckled light and dark green. It kind of looks like a warty toad.

Hami = This is the most popular Chinese melon. It describes a large range of phenotypes but all are very oval. The defining characteristic of this melon is the apple like texture of the flesh. Very light and flavorful. These melons commonly have some slight orange pigment around the cavity.

There are many many more types of melons but this a breif synopsis.

--The.v.tt 20:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude!! You seem to know A LOT about melons!!;) Are you a botanist?24.83.178.11 03:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

Umm...
Cateloupes come from either male or female plants. The female cantaloupe is said to be sweeter than the male.

This comes from the end of the article. If this is suggesting that melons are diecious (the only way to have "male" and "female" plants), then it is (nearly) impossible to get fruit from a male flower on a male plant. Cupressus dupreziana represents a rare exception, but otherwise, this would be like claiming that men can bear children. It needs citation in any case, though I expect it is made up.--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

New picture (cross section) uploaded
New picture (Cantaloupe Melon cross section) uploaded. Is this one any use to the wiki article? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cantaloupe_Melon_cross_section.png

Sangfroid (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Cantaloupe vs. Melon
I wonder if Cantaloupe and Melon should be merged... what do you think? -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 14:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The common name

 * I just removed the taxobox from this article, these should contain one taxon. The reliable sources in this article, and the others I checked, seem to agree that neither are accepted names anyway.
 * Next point. The confusion generated by wedding this article to a common name has spilled over into the 'parent article', and this is evident from the disinformation in this article and the posts above. We are doing the reader a great disservice by doing so. A cultivar, perhaps these ones (who can tell), is called a rockmelon in my local shop. The way to unravel these articles is to find the most reliable sources on the species, the subspecies, the varieties, the groups, and the cultivars, then recast these to them. cygnis insignis 16:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Cantaloupe by definition is confusing. The correct term for all of the Cucumis melo species is melon. Cantaloupe usually refers to a dark oranged fleshed type of melon. It is believed that reticulatus is derived from cantalupensis from seeds brought to the new world by the Spanish. Genetically these melons all fall within relatively close relationships (compared to honeydews, hami's, canaries, Armenian cucumbers, piel de sapo's etc. I have updated the subspecies to be variety.

 * The Australian Rockmelon is unique name to that country. These are the genotypically almost identical to the U.S. Western Shipper Cantaloupe. In recent years the traditional open pollinated varieties used in Australia have been replaced by North American derived germplasm. There are many different cultivars grown in Australia that are all called rockmelon.

 * Attempting to list all of the cultivars of melon is a futile exercise. Melon size is dependent upon the environment that it grows in. In order to meet the demands of the market large growers commonly grow many different cultivars through the growing season. There are literally hundreds of variety names registered. The same variety is sold under different names in different countries to protect the pricing of the higher market. Jim McCrieght with the USDA-ARS has a small listing of recent US varieties.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The.v.tt (talk • contribs) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * You haven't explained why you put the taxobox back. I'm removing it until you provide a rationale. cygnis insignis 04:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Some of the claims above are quite dubious. The name rock melon is also used in New Zealand and Malaysia  Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Aren't all melons and squashes Cucurbitaceae?
Coied from the main article: "Cantaloupe (also cantaloup, muskmelon or rockmelon) refers to two varieties of Cucumis melo [1], which is a species in the family Cucurbitaceae, which includes nearlyItalic text all melons and squashes." - my italics and bold.

If you go to squashes and melons, it tells you that they belong to the cucurbitaceae family. It does not cite any other family to which some might belong. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Aren't all melons and squashes Cucurbitaceae?
Coied from the main article: "Cantaloupe (also cantaloup, muskmelon or rockmelon) refers to two varieties of Cucumis melo [1], which is a species in the family Cucurbitaceae, which includes nearlyItalic text all melons and squashes." - my italics and bold.

If you go to squashes and melons, it tells you that they belong to the cucurbitaceae family. It does not cite any other family to which some might belong. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Origin Section
Deleted "Cantaloupes were first introduced to North America by Christopher Columbus on his second voyage to the New World in 1494. The W. Atlee Burpee Company developed and introduced the "Netted Gem" in 1881 from varieties then growing in North America." On the grounds that the information has no citations and the relevance of the information to the section is tenuous at best.

For example, provided these can be cited, there is no connection between the sentences. There is no indication of what the "netted gem" is, what W. Atlee Burpee Co. is, how it relates to Christopher Columbus, or why the reader should care.

I also combined the first two sentences into one for readability.

However, this leaves scant information in this section, I propose merging it with the introduction. Cuthalion1 (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a picture of the crate?
It's neither here nor in the inventor's article, I think. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Muskmelon
I saw the merge template on Muskmelon and added a corresponding one here. It seems like Cantaloupe and Muskmelon could be merged into a Cucumis melo article, especially since the application of common names seems to have a dialectical variation. Currently Cucumis melo redirects to Muskmelon.--Theodore Kloba (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Japanese Fruit Text
The Yen to USD conversion on this picture is off by a decimal place. The current text suggests 2800 yen is $33+ USD. This should be ~$3.50 (as the exact exchange fluxes). I'm not logged in or I'd simply edit this myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.64.181.118 (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is reference #1?
Where is reference #1 in the actual article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.232.147 (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Both instances are in the taxobox. Gzuufy (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Health issues section
I'm thinking about creating a health issues section. It should include info about the recent Salmonella outbreak in Kentucky. Possibly other, past outbreaks. It could include references regarding what sanitation techniques may be used on cantaloupes (beyond what is currently mentioned), or how they are ranked by effectiveness. I believe Health issues relating to cantaloupes, being mentioned currently in only 'the fine print' of the article text may not give sufficient warning to readers. Having Health issues as a heading in the Table of contents would help readers to navigate the article, as well as emphasize the importance of washing before slicing. Creation of such a table may involve moving some sentences from the Production and use section to the new section. I'm not making any promises that I will create this section, merely that I'm thinking about it. Gzuufy (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Most popular??
The claim that it (U.S. cantaloupe=[U.S.] muskmelon) is the most popular melon in the U. S.(I guess this means largest number or mass consumed rather than being named a favorite in polls) does not seem to be supported by the reference cited. I read through that reference and cannot find support. Kdammers (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cantaloupe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141224014318/http://chfs.ky.gov/news/Salmonella2012.htm to http://chfs.ky.gov/news/Salmonella2012.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at

).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Checks out as ok. --Zefr (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

about fruit
How can we make it grow in the western African subregion??? 41.190.30.95 (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

European cantaloupe picture
is that really what the European cantaloupe looks like?

I always thought the European cantaloupe was lightly ribbed with green stripes and that it had a grey-green skin? 174.96.203.119 (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

South African etymology rearrangement
I've just rearranged the last paragraph about 'spanspek' so its structure is more informative, in the spirit of the truth sandwich: The true attestation of the term now comes first, with the common misconception second, and the reason it's a misconception third. No information was added or subtracted (hopefully). It had previously been the other way around. 198.91.192.44 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

nutrition content
The page links the USDA nutrition database for its nutrition data but on that very linked page there seems to be discrepancy. for vitamin C wikipedia says it's 36.7mg per 100g, on the USDA page it has it as 10.9mg per100mg. What's going on here? 142.162.126.21 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 * There were numerous nutrients needing content changes, corrected in this edit. The most likely explanation is that the previous data were from years ago (current USDA table is dated Dec 2019), and with fewer samples measured, perhaps with older methods. For reasons unknown, the template does not calculate the niacin DV, having a zero entry from at least a year ago. Zefr (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Cantaloupe


text:
James Gladstone

James Gladstone (Akay-na-muka; May 21, 1887 – September 4, 1971) was a Canadian politician who claimed to become the first Treaty Indian to be appointed to the Senate of Canada.

Early life
James Gladstone was of mixed racial ancestry. The future senator was not born First Nations and only became a status Indian at the age of 33, when in 1920 his wife's family petitioned the government for his inclusion on the Indian registry. His maternal grandfather, in fact, was a Scottish-Canadian, born in Montreal in 1832, who entered the service of the Hudson's Bay Company at the age of sixteen. While in the North-West Territories, William Shanks Gladstone married Harriet Leblanc, a Métis of Cree, Santee Sioux, and French Canadian heritage. One of their six children who survived to adulthood was Harriet (named after her mother), who was born at Rocky Mountain House in 1859. Harriet led a rough and unsteady life. After several years spent with a rough crowd of Métis and white frontiersmen, she formed a long-term relationship with a white lumber-mill foreman. Their union broke down, however, in the mid-1890s, and Harriet was left to raise skinny Jimmy, a boy with brown hair and blue eyes on her own. He was one of four children born to Harriet.

He attended St. Paul's Indian Residential School, because his Grandfather and local Anglican minister felt he would be fed, clothed, educated and spiritually looked after. He attended an Anglican mission school on the Blood reserve until 1903, when he moved to an Indian Industrial school (St Dunstans) in Calgary and apprenticed as a printer, interning at The Calgary Herald.

Career
After leaving school in 1905, Gladstone returned to the Blood reserve where he worked as an interpreter. He also found work on ranches wrangling cattle. In 1911, he found work with the Royal North-West Mounted Police as a scout and interpreter and also worked as a mail carrier on the reserve. He is also reported as being a typesetter at one time at the Calgary Herald.

He was married to Blood member Janie Healy. After his marriage he was registered a member of the Blood reserve. Eventually, Gladstone established himself as a farmer and successful rancher (with 720 acres under cultivation and a herd of 400 Hereford cattle in 1958 ) and worked with his sons to assemble the 400 head of cattle and introducing modern farming practices to the reserve, including first use of a tractor in 1920.

In 1949, Gladstone was elected president of the Indian Association of Alberta though another source records his presidency as 1945–1954, and was sent to Ottawa three times to press for improvements to the Indian Act. His acceptance by both Blackfoot and Cree assisted him in bringing the different groups together in one political organization.

Senate appointment
He was nominated to the Senate by Progressive Conservative Prime Minister John Diefenbaker in January 1958, at age 70, two years before status Indians gained the vote in federal elections, and he pressed for Aboriginals to be enfranchised. He sat as an "independent Conservative" "representing 160,000 Indians across the land." He advocated for integration into Canadian society. He was the chair of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs. To meet the property qualifications for the Senate "he drove with his wife to nearby Cardston and paid cash for a five-room bungalow."

Retirement and death
Gladstone retired from the Senate in March 1971 and died of a heart attack on September 4, 1971, in Fernie, British Columbia.

Posthumous recognition
A biography of Senator Jim Gladstone, written by Alberta historian (and Gladstone's son-in-law) Hugh Dempsey, is entitled The Gentle Persuader.

In 2017, the Bank of Canada unveiled a commemorative Canadian ten-dollar note in honour of Canada 150, featuring Gladstone's portrait alongside Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir George-Étienne Cartier, and Agnes Macphail.

title: James Gladstone


text:
Talk:Dynamics (music)

This is a very poorly-written article
There's no reason to avoid using the Italian meanings for the words. The so-called "meanings" as given are at odds with the actual meaning in Italian, and relating how the terms came about could help people understand them better, and learn some useful language at the same time.

Also, there's an entirely different mindset playing "gently" vs. playing "quietly" (and it differs between instruments, especially strings vs blown instruments). These are 2 different words for a reason, and the reason the Italians chose gently and strongly, rather than quiet and loud was reflective of this. They probably know more about it than the people who decided it should mean quiet and loud.

The description of the '-issimo's is completely negligent to observe the fact that this is an Italian superlative form, meaning most. fortissimo - most strong, pianissimo - most softly. There's not even a mention in the article of the obvious fact that the Italian descriptions of many musical terms were adopted all over, due to the Renaissance and the part that Italian composers played in it.

The reason many composers for a long time would never use softer than pp or stronger than ff, was because logically, it's not possible to play stronger than "most strongly". That's the thing about superlatives, they define the limits of the scale, and therefore cannot be exceeded.

It would be useful therefore to discuss how stronger and gentler dynamics evolved, presumably as instruments got louder, and orchestras got bigger, ff being interpreted as "as strongly as possible" became ludicrous for some works, and the greater dynamic capabilities of the orchestra became accommodated for in the additional dynamic levels. This is why you have to take into account the period when a piece was written in order to interpret the dynamic markings. There's no mention of this either here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.211.224 (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's get back to the point
Seriously, I think that no, the pages should not be merged. So there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.221.76 (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree .. sotto voce is more common in most people's experience as a idiom denoting lowering one's voice for effect in conversation and controversy than it is as a musical term. No merge, and I'm going to edit Sotto voce itself because clearly the author of that article didn't quite get it! "Muttering" indeed! :) JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did some work on Sotto voce and in conjunction with User:Ravpapa's very nice edit of sotto voce on the Dynamics (music) page I think we have aced this one. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Super loud
I think those dynamics can be increased to a vague extent. No one says "ffffffffffff" is not allowed, it's just that it is very hard to tell the difference between 6 fs and 8fs so normally composers just put ffff at the most. I mean, its just pointless if you put too many.Kystephkwan3 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Kystephkwan3 (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Super LOOOOOOOUUUUUUD
Do ffffffffffff and/or pppppppppp exist and if so how loud are they? (OK I admit... now I'm being plain stupid) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Lacking
This article is written very poorly, but there are loads dozens of musical dyanmic types not described here, most of them rather prominent. Also, this article does not mention baroque dynamics (which were normally not written out, left to the discretion of the performer) and dynamics on gentle instruments such as the harpsichord. John Holly 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC). They also don’t include all 6 types of music sound such as Crescendo:gradually getting louder.Diminuendo:gradually getting softer. Fortisimo:very loud. Mezzo-forte:medium loud. Mezzo-piano:medium quiet. Piano:quite.pianissimo:very quiet.

Neologism
"Fortississimo" and "pianississimo"?? I thought these were jokes that band directors made up. Unless someone indicates otherwise, I'll shortly be refining this article to indicate that those are facetious words.

UPDATE: Refinement done. Any objections?

SFT 07:52, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

"Fortississimo" is how you say 'fff', and pianississimo is how you say 'ppp'.

these are not jokes, maybe neologisms. But you have to say them somehow. This article doesn't mention stuff like: Fermata           = to hold as long as desired. Rf. (Rinforzando) = to stress by strength, as opposed to Sfz. (Sforzando)  = to stress by pushing, by pressure. Dol. (Dolce)      = to play sweetly Smorz poco a poco = to grow softer(?) little by little.

those should be in this article cause like Crescendo (written or as symbol ) should be here. so this is a stub IMHO -- Nkour 14:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Be bold! Hyacinth 02:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Those aren't dynamics. Dolce and smorz (???) are just musical directions, as are fermata.  You might get away with mentioning rf and sfz, but those are more articulationy. SFT | Talk 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

SFT is correct on this. Quantumobserver (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you could make a pretty strong case for dolce as a dynamic indication in Mozart, though. Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, they're real words. Musicians use them and they describe a real auditory thing. It's stupid to argue the point. Gingermint (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

1812 Overture
Recent addition to the article in bold:

 * Tchaikovsky indicated pppppp and ffff in passages of his Pathétique symphony and in the 1812 Overture.

I can't verify that this is wrong, but I am somewhat incredulous that Tchaikovsky would use both five ps and four fs in two separate pieces. Can someone with access to a score verify or debunk this?

 * Doesn't surprise me, Tchaikovsky had a flair for melodrama. Though it wouldn't hurt to check a score, I suppose. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, he was melodramatic but also a superb craftsman who knew what he was doing. For all their brazenness the first and fourth movements of Symphony no 4 both start ff only.  In both movements he is reserving fff for later on.  In Symphony no 6 he writes pppp just before the coda in the first movement (starting with double basses in bar 325) and at the very end of the symphony.  And he uses ffff at bar 312 of the third movement.  After all, he was about to commit suicide, wasn't he?

I haven't got the score of 1812 to hand. Hikitsurisan 22:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * See, page 79. Stannered 12:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And, page 19, second system, bassoon line. Stannered 13:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Those links are bad. Look at these from the 6th symphony (source: Petrucci music library):

and this from the 1812 overture (source: Petrucci Music Library):

Couldn't find a pppppp example in 1812, and I doubt it's there. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles being merged
I'm all for them to be merged, and I think mezzo piano etc need doing too.

ME TOO!!! ;-)

Done Conrad Irwin 23:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Details!!!!!!!!!
What is up with saying piano is soft and forte is loud? Most people need details. If anyone has even more than that, I'd like to here it. It is needed for anyone and everyone who doesn't have a clue!

How would you propose adding more detail? For example, a p sung by an opera singer is probably louder than a f from a violin. They are all totally relative quantities and so I think we have given virtually all we can. Conrad Irwin 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing stopping us from adding audio samples of an Opera singer male and female hitting the pitches at certain volumes.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 02:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or, we could add just one sample with instructions on how to adjust the speaker volume for ppp and fff. Swooch (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Difference between two terms
Can someone explain to me the difference between calando and crescendo, as they're both described as "becoming softer"?80.114.26.224 07:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, crescendo is becoming louder. Diminuendo is becoming softer. Calando is better translated as drooping, and means "[dying] away in volume and sometimes tempo". Stannered 12:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A different approach
Can someone explain to me what this section of the article is about? It makes no sense to me. Does it have any source? --Ravpapa (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Undid revision by 24.109.235.166
24.109.235.166 deleted the See also section, as well as all the foreign language cross-references. I don't know if this was intentional, a mistake or vandalism. 24.109.235.166, if you had a reason for doing this, please tell us on the talk page. Thanks. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky fact
1812 Overture is not the only one piece to have a extreme loud dynamic! I think it goes as loud as ffff. However, there are other pieces from Tchaikovsky that, indeed, have a even more stronger dynamic and that is not mentioned on the article. The tempest is a clear example of that. When the orchestra its almost reaching the coda, theres a climax with the full orchestra, with the main melody. That part goes as far as fffff! Pitty is not mentioned tough. Anyway, sotto voce must be added as a musical dynamic part because sotto voce means that the instrument should play in a lower and sweet volume...that doesn´t mean pianissimo or even piano, but indeed represents a modification in the orchestral volume and melody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.71.174 (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Unicode representations?
p and f are represented in Unicode as 𝆏 and 𝆑 (may need to increase font size to show correctly). Should we show this in the article or somewhere? --Geopgeop (T) 09:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Perhaps include it, with other details of music typography, in History_of_music_publishing? --Ravpapa (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of "Words/phrases indicating changes of dynamics..."
I'm just wondering; is there a word/phrase that indicates when a different dynamic is used when notes are repeated? Let me clarify. Imagine that in a certain musical piece, there is a left repeat sign, and a group of notes with the dynamic "mf" following it. And later in the piece, there is a right repeat sign that goes back to the aforementioned left repeat sign. Now imagine that when the group of notes labeled "mf" is repeated, they are supposed to be played with the dynamic "mp," rather than "mf." Is there a word/phrase that indicates when this happens? Hananoshi (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Never mind, I Googled it, and found out the answer. And now I will add this new piece of info to this article. Hananoshi (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I saw your addition, and your reference to the book by McGrain. McGrain does indeed write this, but I have never seen this notation.  In every case that I know that the composer wants a repeated passage played differently, he writes an explicit instruction in text.  In the Schubert "Death and the Maiden" quartet (Op. post), for example, in the Andante Con Moto movement, in the fifth variation, Schubert (well, his editor, actually) writes "La repetizione poco a poco crescendo sin' al FF".  And in the minuet movement of quartet opus 18 number 4 (C minor), Beethoven wants the repeat of the minuet section to be played faster.  So at the end of the trio he writes, "Las seconda volta si prende il Tempo piu Allegro/"

 * So you might want to qualify or expand on your addition. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how he did not edit it, and as I have never seen this usage in any piece of music ever, I feel that it lacks notability, therefore, I'm going to be bold and remove this section. Marky1991 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RFL
Edit warring is not the best way to resolve problems like the case at hand - discussion on the talk page is the prescribed method.

204.75.188.5, could you please provide a citation of a published piece of music that uses the notation RFL? That could go a long way to resolving the issue. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Published?? Probably not....custom charts handed out to a drum corps? Oh yes...had that a few times in Sr Corps....along with other interesting notations such as "kill the tree" (which came out of a brass rehearsal where there was a young sapling in front of the arc). I put a mushroom cloud on an arrangement one time when I wanted the horn line to "nuke" the crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.247.231 (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

'pn' and 'fo'?
Who ever uses pn and fo for piano and forte? It is always just p and f (unless it is more so, as in ff) --zzo38(✉) 01:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In 400 years of "modern" western classical music lots of interesting notations have been used. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I particularly like pia and for, as seen in many a Mozart autograph, IIRC. Double sharp (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

writing italian
cresc. molto, dim. molto, cresc. poco a poco and dim. poco a poco are correct italian

molto cresc., molto dim., poco a poco cresc. and poco a poco dim. are not correct italian.

In music notation the function must come first, otherwise the player sees the most important part of the instruction too late. --Käkki2 (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

rinforte
The phrase "rinforte is also available" is pointless. It says nothing about what rinforte means, and does not relate to the previous section. If anyone could give a definition for it, it would be appreciated.

I agree. I would like to know what "rinforte" is also. I haven't been able to find a definition on the Web; translate.google.com doesn't translate it properly, and I'm writing about music dynamics. What is it? --Tim Sabin (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Too many examples of fff...f/pppp...p
I don't see the need for all those examples. We're here to explain what it is, not list where it is. Perhaps one on each to show that they are not entirely uneard of. If noone objects, I'll shorten that section a bit. Swooch (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the second sentence in

 * In the baritone passage Era la notte from his opera Otello, Verdi uses pppp. The Florentiner Marsch by Julius Fučík has ffffffff (f8) and later ffffffffffff (f24). Steane (1971) and others suggest that such markings are in reality a strong reminder to less than subtle singers to at least sing softly rather than an instruction to the singer actually to attempt a pppp.

interrupts the link between the first sentence and the third. (One doesn't write 8 or 24 f's to remind somebody to play/sing *softly*!) Wikipendel 14 Apr 2015

Definition of f and p
The last while there has been a revision war changing the definition of f and p. In one camp are people saying they mean "loud" and "soft" - the camp I agree with. In the other camp are people (IP users) who say they mean "strong" and "weak". Is there a way we can get what the accepted definition is (preferably Italian) and keep people from reverting these definitions? --Tim Sabin (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Calling it a war might be overstating the situation a bit. There have been several edits from similar IPs making these changes; this is probably the same person, and I did warn the most recent IP. If they continue, we can seek semiprotection for the page. The accepted definitions are loud and soft (or quiet), respectively; this is verifiable using any and every conceivable source and is so basic that it defies credibility to think that there's a legitimate difference of interpretation here. It's not a question of the accepted definition in Italian but rather of the accepted definition period (basic musical notation being standard across a multitude of languages, including both Italian and English). In other words, it really makes no difference what various meanings each word has in Italian. In music, they each have one meaning, and edits suggesting otherwise are unconstructive. Rivertorch (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 * After another round of it, I have left a note at WikiProject Music theory requesting additional watchers. Further disruption may require page protection. Note to the dynamic IP user: if you're serious about this and not attempting to be disruptive, please discuss your edits here. Rivertorch (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the notice. None of us active at WP:MTH are at the level where we can protect the page, but I thank you for your note so we can watch the page. It appears that we need to fix the sourcing of the article a little bit. I suggest that we as a community find sources that specifically say "soft" and "loud". I know that it seems like common knowledge, but it will only ensure the safety of this definition. On the other hand, if a source is found with the "strong" and "weak", I think it should also be included in the article. This can be made as a side note. I think common convention says that the terminology is "loud" and "soft" but I definitely do not think it is the only way to interpret those definitions. Anyway, long story short, this article needs more sourcing. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 18:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, interpretations of a definition are one thing—lots of adjectives can be used to indicate the (subjective) mood accompanying the (objective) relative loudness—but the basic definition is still what it is. I'm happy to source the terms, of course, and perhaps I should have done that already. (Every reliable source says "soft" and "loud", afaik.) I doubt that will stop the problem, however, so I'm glad for new watchers. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I could see the alternative where weak/strong refers to emphasis. It's more of a linguistics approach to music. I've heard the terms before, usually as a way of thinking about dynamics differently. But I agree, the most standard definition by far is soft/loud. If whoever is reverting the page sources weak/strong, I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning it at some point in the article though. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 23:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree. It's not that "strong" and "weak" aren't valid interpretations (they are—especially the former), but replacing the basic definitions obfuscates the meaning. Incidentally, I fixed one I'd missed where an actual quote from the source had been changed. Rivertorch (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I have looked through dictionaries. The original meaning of piano and forte are "weak" (or "soft") and "strong", respectively. Those refer to the strength of the pianist pressing to the keys on the piano (again, piano is short for pianoforte). These apply to most other instruments too. However, these terms are generalized in music to "soft" and "loud". 117.5.13.6 (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I can't let this baloney slide. These terms were in use long before the invention of the piano. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

 * It does seem to be putting the cart before the horse, doesn't it? Nonetheless, IP user, thank you for joining the discussion. Wahoofive is correct, of course: the instrument known as the piano(forte) was so named because of its capacity for dynamic expression; the terms were commonly used in musical notation before the invention of the instrument. Rivertorch (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I changed it back again -- IP editors and one (simultaneous!) new user are trying to insert "strong" and "weak" even these are quite non-standard. Additionally, the change removes cited content.  Please don't do that unless you can find a superior source. Antandrus  (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move: "Musical scale" → "Scale (music)"
I have initiated a formal RM action to move Musical scale to Scale (music). Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music theory articles.

N oetica Tea? 00:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

About the Barber example
It is my understanding that, when a diminuendo leads to a louder dynamic than was previously marked (for example: pp > mp), it is expected that the performer do the diminuendo, then, at the mezzo piano, play a normal mezzo piano; not a "philosophical" mezzo piano. The same if it's the other way around, of course (a crescendo leading to a softer dynamic). Does anyone have a reliable notation book, like Kurt Stone's, to settle this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.86.51.149 (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

History should move
Should the History section not be moved to just below the Lead? --Xavier (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

f(8) and f(24)
This was removed by Double Sharp in September 2015 because it was "mythical". But I actually found an image of 8 fs here: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxRmBghjAneEVPr_RBTAaTgMPcNqNg3-zHfF_lan8lQ2viw1wi Jliboe (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I found 24 fs too on the same site. Jliboe (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the same piece, and it is not in the original score, only in this oft-quoted inauthentic arrangement. You may see the original score on IMSLP and note that it does not include 8, much less 24 f's. (Did you seriously think that nichts für Lauwarmduscher would be in the real score?) Double sharp (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

tardo / soave
What about historical marking of dynamics "tardo / soave" used in the seventeenth century? It shoud be included into the section "History".

--Muzyk98 (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Be bold and write it up! yoyo (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Ordinal ranking of più piano and più forte
The article indicates – without citing any source – that più p falls between pp and p, and that più f falls between f and ff. This implies these terms have fixed rankings on a single linear scale of loudness. However, usage allows più p, meaning "softer", after an mp or even after a pp or ppp. And similarly for più f, meaning "louder". These terms give a relative instruction, not an absolute one. They mean "softer than before" (or "louder than before", respectively). yoyo (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically this is true, but historically composers seem to have used più p principally to mean a dynamic in between p and pp. Please tell me we don't have to load this up with examples. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I always interpreted più p and più f as yoyo interprets them. Are there sources that say otherwise? They aren't very common as far as I've seen (I remember seeing them in some Stravinsky scores, L'Histoire for instance). Squandermania (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

più che pianissimo?
I've always heard "ppp" called "pianississimo", not "più che pianissimo". Some googling gave me a few sources that list it as "pianississimo" and my own pocket dictionary from Alfred Publishing lists it that way. For "più che pianissimo", I found which seems less relevant because it's a book on Ennio Morricone. Squandermania (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Music
Differnce between piano and diminuendo? 203.99.159.199 (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Pianossimo
Piano 41.114.20.197 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Pianississimo? Fortississimo?
There is no such a word in italian as pianississimo, or rather, it's a misspelling of "pianissimissimo". Same thing for "fortississimo": it's actually "fortissimissimo". Miltone Liberuomo (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Only three words are identified as being in Italian in this article: crescendo, decrescendo, and diminuendo. It's pretty safe to say no English speaker uses the form you have specified. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I initially thought it was just a mistake of this particle, but I have then discovered that the Italian "fortissimissimo" is generally translated as "fortississimo" in English. Miltone Liberuomo (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Unicode
Please add the Unicode code points for these glyphs to the article. 1.126.109.204 (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Holst
The Holst reference does a direct link to a pdf at IMSLP. This is not a permanent link and is very unwise. Link to the workpage or to the #file number on the workpage. ELSchissel (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Same with the Tchaikovsky links. They're both now deadlinks, predictably, because IMSLP does not keep the PDFs in the same place. Again, link to the workpage, not to the PDF. When using a site, take 3 seconds to learn how it works, will you maybe please? ELSchissel (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Added a part on the history of Dynamics
I added a part on this history of dynamics which only reflected the 18th century practice, ignoring the evolution of dynamics from Gabrieli to Vivaldi, and especially the use of dynamics in the concerto grosso and solo concerto. I hope it would be helpful towards making even greater revisions to this article. 82.59.159.17 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dynamics (music)


text: Category:Grey DeLisle albums

title: Category:Grey DeLisle albums