Talk:Die Reihe

message: Error in link: John Backus.
A link in the page on "der Reihe" points to the computer scientist John Backus. It should refer to the musicologist of the same name (who does not yet have a Wiki page.)
Some information about the correct John Backus is at http://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Backus/BackusHome.html
Sorry I don't have time to learn enough about Wiki to make the change myself, but with luck somebody will pick this up and run with it.
Rob
62.64.206.158 (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you are correct that the link points to the wrong person. However, the John Backus in question was not a musicologist, but a physicist with particular interests in, amongst other things, the acoustics of musical instruments. This will require a Disambiguation notice of some sort, as well as a correction to the link.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I have created a biography page for the acoustician John Backus. For the moment, there is a disambiguation link on the bio page for the other John Backus, though I suppose it would be more elegant to retitle that article and create a separate disambiguation page. I'm not confident that I know how to do this without screwing something up, however. Thanks, Rob, for calling attention to this situation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Please see this remark from User:DGG, a specialist (librarian) on this kind of issues. --Crusio (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. It should also be observed that the contents of the English and German issues could marginally be compared in prose, but it is a heck of a lot easier to do so with comparative tables of contents. What is covered by the current sentence "Differences between the German and English editions can be seen from a comparison of the contents (below)" would have to be expanded to several difficult-to-follow paragraphs. Admittedly, an explanation of how these differences matter needs to be added, probably best referenced to M. J. Grant's book, but with possible supplementation from Dika Newlin's series of contemporaneous reviews in MLA Notes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

text: *I think that if you follow DGG's suggestion and convert this to a list of notable contributors (meaning that many entries would disappear), things would be much easier. --Crusio (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And this would help to show the items from the German edition omitted in the English edition, and the changes of titles, and the order of items . . . how, exactly?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

text: *DGG's suggestion is to make a list of notable contributors, as is done with several other journal articles. In such a list, only the contributors are given, not specific articles. In some journal articles,  list of notable articles is given, limited to the 5 most important ones. In addition, it is hardly necessary to spell out in detail all the differences between the two editions, that really isn't very encyclopedic. Noting that these differences exist (and, if there are very striking ones, give an example or two) should be more than enough. --Crusio (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you haven't actually read this article, then.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

text: *Please, be reasonable. That the order of articles differed between the German and English versions is absolutely trivial. There is no need to list full tables of contents so that readers can "see below"... --Crusio (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, then, have it your way. Remove the tables of contents, and I shall rewrite the article accordingly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables of contents