Talk:Gebrauchsmusik

Gebrauchsmusik is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

reversion[edit]

@CurryTime7-24, could you clarify the reason for your 9 February reversion? The edit that you reverted made the following improvements:

Used the conventional spelling for outlive
Added {{Apostrophe}} to disambiguate which of three apostrophes in a row is the actual apostrophe and which are markup to end the italics
Removed an unnecessary word from the beginning of a quote—while this word's presence doesn't change the meaning, it's a two-letter word rendered with one letter in brackets to indicate a change of case from the original, which is unnecessary visual clutter, since the word adds no semantic information, and the transition from the surrounding text to the quoted text works just as well without it
Removed a trailing space from a citation

Your reversion edit summary cites WP:CITEFOOT for reasons that are unclear—only the last of the above changes is in a footnote, and it brings that footnote's format more in line with the example shown at that link. 2605:A601:AAF7:3700:F30:5106:2F47:51FC (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEFOOT refers to the placing of punctuation around citations; the spacing between the material in the article and citations are unnecessary. That said, I didn't see the other changes you listed, for which I'm very sorry. Not sure how that happened, but I can assure you that it was not done intentionally, much less with malice. Please feel free to add them back. Thank you for letting me know. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments by the IP editor about their changes. I also agree that their first change – that they didn't mention above – repositioning a comma around {{sfn|Besseler|1923}} was wrong, but mentioning MOS:REFPUNC by CurryTime might have been more helpful. Apart from that, the changes should be re-instated.

P.S. That Besseler section and other large chunks of this article need many more citations. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, CurryTime7-24. I redid the edits listed above. (And I didn't mention the comma because CurryTime7-24 had already redone this change in a subsequent edit.) 2605:A601:AAF7:3700:F30:5106:2F47:51FC (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]