Talk:Salt Lake Tabernacle organ

message: I am only using the website in question as a reference and am in the process of editing the original text and adding much more of my own, including adding many more references and text. I just need time to do so
--Carter Driggs-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterdriggs (talk • contribs) 06:27, 20 September 2007
:Although I'm not terribly impressed by the unobjective tone of this article so far, I do think that the topic probably satisfies the notability requirement if a substantial article can be created to justify an article separate from Salt Lake Tabernacle. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa—I just noticed that the tag was for copyright violation and not notability. This has simply been copied from the website, and must be deleted. If you want to write an original article using the method you desribe, don't do it in WP. Use a word processor or something and then copy it into WP. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the tag was placed on I have edited it significantly and intend to continue doing so. I feel that my additions already warrant the tag to be removed. I think it's clear the article will see much expanding and editing. Please help. Carterdriggs 07:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation claim, and subsequent rebuttles

message: Please add any photos you can, or any more history or general information to make this article truly excellent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterdriggs (talk • contribs) 09:36, 22 September 2007
:See commons:Category:Salt Lake Tabernacle for more images already available to en:WP. -- 159.182.1.4 18:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needing More Information

message: What's up with the semi-protection on the page? I don't think there has been any serious "vandalism" on the page, unless you call my removing copyright-violating material "vandalism" ... Am I missing something? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the bot deleted it. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: I have added a fact tag to this that is repeated getting deleted. Why? I'm marking it so editors know to get a citation that says something like this. It doesn't mean I think it's not true. In WP, we need sources, and that's all I'm indicating. Without a citation or at least a source tag, this is clearly a POV statement and should be removed. But I'm not removing it—I'm adding a citation tag. So leave it there, or provide a citation. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had it previously referenced to another WP article, which you removed in your tirade of editing this article. I have since reviewed several of your articles, only to find that you reference WP articles as well. Leave mine alone if you can do it. --Carterdriggs 10:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Notes Carterdriggs 10:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reference to WP that serves as a cite on this or any other article I have written. Nice try, though. You may be confusing have WP links in articles and having a WP page itself serve as the source of for the information you are citing. I may put a link in a footnote—if the author of a book has a WP page, for instance—but it is the BOOK being cited for the information, not the WP page. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A WP article was added as a citation again. Do you understand the principle of what WP requires for citations, Carter? We need a NON-WP source. I.e., a book, an article, a newspaper story, a TV program transcript, even a neutral website. Just not another WP page. Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 12:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WE need? Are you an administrator? I think not. YOU may want, but won't receive. Carterdriggs 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Carterdriggs, if you want to understand the WP communities standards for citations (a core principle) please start with WP:V and WP:CITE. -- 70.59.240.37 02:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "... considered to be one of the finest organs in the world ..." 

message: I had a read of this article and i can't foresee much more information being added, unless someone wrote a book specifically about the organ of something. I think maybe it's notable enough for it's own article but might be better presented in the Salt Lake Tabernacle article. I think we could have a great article on the tabernacle, with the organ having it's own special subsection. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems the notability of the organ is directly linked in with the tabernacle itself. Most church/cathedral articles include information on the organ in this way, e.g. St. Paul's Cathedral and Boston Music Hall (the organ this one is based on). Though, arguably, these articles are quite lacking in places and each case should be judged on its own merits. What are other's opinions on this? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the opinion that the notability of this organ is insistent upon its origins, construction, and overall quality as opposed to say the other organs you mentioned. This is just my opinion, but I think the article is good where it stands. Carter | Talk to me 15:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: I just did a little clean up and noticed that the article heavily relies on one source: The Tabernacle Choir website, in fact, outside of the American Organist citation, it's the only reference. This is quite problematic as WP notability demands reliable, third party references. I don't think the website fulfils this quality. I am in no doubt that it is a fine and marvellous organ but are there other sources to quote? If it truly is notable then i assume it must have been mentioned in National Mormon newsletters/magazines at the very least. If such sources cannot be found then I'd be tempted to quick fail the GA nomination. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the tag on the picture because I found the site it came from.  Simply cropping a copyrighted picture doesn't cause it to lose its copyright status.  The website is not connected to the uploader (at least in any obvious way) and nothing indicates the photo is in the public domain, so I removed it from this article as well.  Only pictures that are clearly in the public domain or licensed under the Creative Commons licenses are appropriate for uploading on the Commons.  Copyrighted pictures should only be used on Wikipedia when a free version is not available or possible.  The picture I replaced it with is a much larger picture and the lighting allows the details of the woodwork to be visible that weren't visible in the previous picture.  --JonRidinger (talk) 06:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Slc taborgan1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I found the List of pipe organs and was suprised to see that neither this organ nor the Conference Center Organ are on the list, despite their articles claiming they are both "among the largest organs in the world". How do these two organs compare to the ones already on the list? Are they even close to, say, the top ten? If so, I think they should be included in the list. I would do it, but I know next to nothing about organs or their notable characteristics. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked over that article & cant figure out their inclusion criteria, so I asked at Talk:List of pipe organs#Inclusion criteria. We'll see if anyone can give a good explanation there what it it, so we can see if we can add these two there. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Bump the list?