Epstein Files Full PDF

Archives (Index)

2024/August 2024/September 2024/October 2024/November 2024/December 2025/January 2025/February 2025/April 2025/May 2025/June 2025/August 2025/September 2025/October 2025/November

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hello Trumpetrep, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Nashville tuning, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 13:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It does meet the criteria. It is a disambiguation page with one article (G14). Trumpetrep (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only way that page would be eligible under G14 is if it disambiguated zero extant Wikipedia pages, it does not. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages exist to clarify articles with similar titles. In this case, there is only one article on the page with a title that matches the disambiguation title. The other article name is wildly different. No possible confusion could arise for the reader between the two titles, rendering the disambiguation page moot.

Moreover, conflating the two articles via a disambiguation page actually confuses readers by making the two articles, with very different names, appear related in a way they are not. This is akin to having a disambiguation page called "Fruit" where the only entries are "apples" and "oranges".

If pages like this don't qualify for speedy deletion, then the criteria need to be updated. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trumpetrep, WP:G14 is unambiguous that the page does not qualify. The rest of your post reads like an WP:AFD nomination statement. If you want the page deleted then you can list it by following the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO, but it does not qualify for any CSD. If you want to change G14 then start a discussion at WT:CSD to get it changed, but until that happens please refrain from tagging pages that do not qualify for it.

Remember the only advantage of speedy deletion over other forms of deletion is volume management, it is inferior in very other way. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misread G14. It clearly states pages like this should not exist. See the paragraph below the bullet points.

Before you posted this, I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Is Template:Article for deletion preferred for some reason? Trumpetrep (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G14 is entirely unambiguous. It has three points. Point three is non-applicable because the page is not a redirect. Point one is not applicable because the title does not end in "(disambiguation)".

Point two states "Disambiguation pages, regardless of title, that list zero extant Wikipedia pages." (emphasis added). Since the page lists more than zero pages G14 cannot apply. Please read the entirety of WP:CSD before tagging any additional pages for deletion. Thank you. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly are not reading the paragraph below the bullet points, which states the page should not exist.

Is there a difference between Proposed deletion and Article for deletion? If so, what? Trumpetrep (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph below the bullet points reads in its entirety: 'If a disambiguation page whose title does not end in "(disambiguation)" lists only one extant Wikipedia page, it should be changed to a redirect, unless it is more appropriate to move the linked page to the title currently used for the disambiguation page.' Thus, contrary to your assertion, it excludes the title from deletion under the G14 criterion. Redirection and deletion are not at all the same.

WP:PROD is a process for uncontroversial deletion just like speedy deletion. If a PROD is contested then the deletion is controversial, so the next step is WP:AFD. Thus while PROD is preferred for uncontroversial cases, AFD is mandatory for controversial ones. Please list the article at AFD by following the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection is deletion in this instance. They are the same thing. This page linking two disparate articles will mercifully cease to exist. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDIRECTION ad WP:DELETION are not the same thing at all, to start one of those actions requires administrator assistance while the other does not, but please do read those pages in their entirety and do not tag pages for CSD if you believe they need to be redirected.

As it so happens however, in this specific case you are in luck because controversial WP:BLARs can also be discussed at AFD so whether you would prefer the page be redirected or deleted, all roads lead to AFD. With your nomination statement already written it should only take you a minute or so to nominate the page once you read the instructions. But please do take care to clearly specify whether your preferred result is redirection or deletion as part of the nomination. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When a page ceases to exist, it has been deleted. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well no. Please re-read WP:DELETION. The pages are removed from public accessibility but remain in the database under their last title. WP:SUPPRESSION is closer to what you are thinking of, but even that process does not entirely remove the content from the servers, it simply limits access to only a certain group of people who have signed NDAs. Total removal from the servers can only be done by developers and happens only with extreme infrequence. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of our target audience, it has been deleted, which is the end goal here. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well again no. I think part of the problem is that "deletion" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia which you do not understand. I do not know what you are trying to say when you use the word, but it does not matter in the end because all the policies and procedures described to you concern the way Wikipedia uses it. Pages are eligible for CSD when they may be deleted without prior discussion in the Wikipedia sense of the term, not in the Trumpetrep sense of the term. Please stop tagging pages for speedy deletion until you understand what is meant by deletion on Wikipedia and have reviewed the purposes, policies, and procedures that govern it. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page will cease to be.Trumpetrep (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When will "The page will cease to be"? I have no idea what you are trying to say here but please re-read my post of 5:01 above. In the literal sense of "cease" that essentially never happens. I cannot help you if you refuse to read. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page will be bereft of life. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this is incoherent. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The page will be pushing up daisies. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have disputed your proposed deletion. Frankly I cannot understand your concerns. so it's hard to know exactly how to address them.

You said Disambiguation exist to resolve "conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous". There is nothing ambiguous about the titles of these two articles. One is about E9 tuning used for steel guitars. The other is about Nashville tuning. No reader can be confused by these two titles. This disambiguation page creates a false equivalence between the two topics which confuses readers. More importantly, none of the cited sources in either article conflates the two terms. Both tunings are used in country music's capital, but only one of them is known as "Nashville tuning". Both articles appropriately refer to each other via the "See also" template.

So, you dispute that E9 tuning used for steel guitars is known as Nashville tuning (as one of the meanings of Nashville tuning), is that correct? Andrewa (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's simpler than that, Andrewa.

Nowhere in the title "E9 tuning" do the words "Nashville tuning" appear. For our target audience, there is absolutely no confusion about these two pages' titles. They are completely different.

A disambiguation page is meant to help readers navigate articles with identical or nearly identical titles. That is not the case here.

All that is before considering the substance of the articles. Neither article makes any claim that the two tunings are synonymous. None of the cited sources support the idea that "E9 tuning" is also called "Nashville tuning". However, all of the cited sources clearly show that "Nashville tuning" has a specific meaning that is entirely different from "E9 tuning".

So, at that point, the disambiguation page is not only inappropriate by Wikipedia's own guidelines, but it is also an active disservice to readers. It is misinforming them. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove your reinstated PROD notice. If you wish it deleted you must now take it to AfD. Andrewa (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you simply delete the proposal? You said you didn't understand the issue and asked me to clarify. Why not finish that discussion first?

What is the difference between the two processes: proposing for deletion and article for deletion? Trumpetrep (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your proposed deletion proposal in accordance with the procedures described in the policy at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, which I urge you to read or re-read. It also describes the difference between the two processes. Note particularly that it says in part As a shortcut to the normal deletion discussion process, an article or file can be proposed for uncontroversial deletion, but only once (my emphasis). Note also that you have violated that policy by this edit. Andrewa (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd that you would have deleted the proposal that you did not understand. Trumpetrep (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that it seems odd to you. For my part, I still think that the problem is simply that you either have not read or have not understood the policy that I highlighted for you. It is quite explicit that I don't need to explain my objection. That's because the whole purpose of PROD is to save the time of all concerned. In this it has failed badly on this occasion simply because you have ignored the policy. I say again, if you wish to proceed with proposing deletion then you now need to follow the normal AfD process. Don't you understand that? Andrewa (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What seems odd is that you did not understand the topic and chose to weigh in regardless.Trumpetrep (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion I do understand the topic. I understand that you disagree about this, but in my opinion that's simply because you still have not read the relevant policies. Andrewa (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's bizarre to me that anyone would look at a disambiguation page with two entries with two entirely different titles and conclude Wikipedia should violate its own policies and allow it to exist. Trumpetrep (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The policy with regard to wp:TWODABS is well established. It may seem bizarre to you, and there is of course wp:IAR which is a policy that allows us to ignore this policy and the associated precedents. But despite its name, IAR doesn't justify you or anyone else making up new rules and unilaterally enforcing them, however bizarre or even inconsistent the existing rules or their effects may seem to you. We need to work towards consensus that either an exception is justified, or that the rules should be changed. Andrewa (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing ambiguous in this situation. Trumpetrep (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim. But wp:disambiguation says in part Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous, most often because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia.

Nashville tuning refers to both the E9 tuning used on steel guitars, which is particularly popular on those with more than six strings, and to Nashville tuning (high strung), which is a tuning for a conventional six string guitar that involves changing the string gauge of three of the strings so as to tune them an octave higher than normal.

These are two different topics with the same common name. And that is exactly what a disambiguation page addresses. If one of these two topics could be shown to be the primary topic for the term, then we would deal with it differently. But that has not been suggested, and I would be skeptical.

And even in this situation, deletion would not be the best option in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the policy is crystal clear: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous".

These two article titles are patently different. There is no reason to bring mountain climbing gear to a molehill. Trumpetrep (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The potential article title here is Nashville tuning. Agreed? Andrewa (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow what you are asking. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The policy says Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous. I am saying that Nashville tuning has two possible meanings. I am simply asking whether you agree that Nashville tuning has two possible meanings. Andrewa (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The titles of the two articles do not match which obviates the need for a disambiguation page. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that The titles of the two articles do not match is irrelevant. They obviously can't have the same title, that's part of why disambiguation is necessary. They could each be called Nashville tuning if the other topic did not exist, but it does exist. Again, that's why disambiguation is necessary. At the risk of repeating my reference to the policy, Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts that arise when a potential article title is ambiguous. The potential article title here is Nashville tuning. It can mean the E9 tuning used on steel guitars, which is particularly popular on those with more than six strings, and this is a well-established tuning and the standard name for it. And it can mean the Nashville tuning which is a particular scordatura for six-string guitar, one that requires changing the gauge of some of the strings, and again this is a well established meaning. If one or the other were to be established as the primary meaning, we could use a primary redirect and a hatnote. That could be considered at AfD.

But deletion of the DAB without consensus on some alternative is not a good idea, and contrary to policy, as was your repeated posting of a contested PROD request, which is what began this discussion.

I ask again, do you agree that Nashville tuning has two possible meanings? That's the first thing that needs to be decided. Andrewa (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's a forest, and you're missing it for the trees.

There's nothing to disambiguate here. Two articles with different titles are not ambiguous. Trumpetrep (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that Two articles with different titles is ambiguity.

It's the other way around.

Ambiguity is when two different articles could have the same title. In this case I think Nashville tuning has two possible meanings.

You seem to think that it has only one possible meaning. I'm curious to know which you think that meaning is. Andrewa (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation exists to help readers navigate similar titles. Trumpetrep (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, disambiguation is only necessary when two articles could have the same title (in this case Nashville tuning). That's what ambiguous means. Similar titles are handled by hatnote templates such as distinguish and others. Andrewa (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By jove, I think you've got it.Trumpetrep (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that sounds like progress. Now, can we agree that Nashville tuning has two possible meanings, or if not, which of the two meanings at the DAB currently at Nashville tuning, which you wish to delete, is in your opinion a possible meaning, and which of them is not? Andrewa (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And it's gone again. . . Trumpetrep (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd prefer not to answer those questions? Why? Andrewa (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There it is.Trumpetrep (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the disambiguation page has been deleted, it won't be a distraction to answer your tangential question about the naming of these two tuning systems.

The first stumbling block to any assertion that they both can be called "Nashville tuning" which requires a disambiguation page is that none of the cited sources at either page made that claim. I overhauled the E9 tuning article which relied mostly on internet forum posts. The only authoritative source it quoted did not call the system Nashville tuning.

So, the articles themselves were unsupportive of the idea that both tuning systems shared a name. As I started referencing quality sources, it became clear that the "Nashville tuning" nickname for pedal steels refers to the late 60s variant that predates the final form of the tuning system. This is the one without the final two re-entrant tones. Its final form, which is the system the E9 tuning article is about, is nicknamed chromatic tuning.

The closest thing you'll find to support the idea that the two systems share a name are sources that are differentiating between the C6 tuning and the E9 tuning on twin neck guitars. Occasionally, they will call C6 jazz or Texas tuning, and the E9 tuning Nashville tuning. I only found this once in a quality source, and in that context, it was clear that "Nashville" was a subset of E9 tuning, an entirely different practice from Nashville tuning of 6-string guitars.

In other words, if you walked into a guitar store and asked for a guitar in "Nashville tuning", they will hand you a 6-string instrument. If you wanted the 10-string pedal guitar in E9 tuning and tried to get it by asking for "Nashville tuning", the staff would be annoyed. No one would ever use the two words "Nashville tuning" without connecting it to the pedal steel guitar in some way if they are talking about the E9 system. Those two words by themselves refer to the 6-string, high-strung guitar.

Our audience is the general reader. It would be malpractice to name an article after a rarely used, secondary nickname for a complex tuning system, or to raise that system to a categorical feature that requires disambiguation from a universally recognized name for a specific tuning practice. It would be like including Kleenex in the disambiguation page for Paper. It just confuses the issue for our target audience.

And that was the fundamental problem I encountered when I found this page: it was confused about what E9 tuning was. Hyacinth, bless their soul, seemed to think the two things were equivalent, and their image for the page was woefully inaccurate. The discussions on the talk page confused Nashville tuning with E9 tuning and shared the mistaken assumption that they are the same thing. Those mistakes were made by editors. What chance did the general reader have of coming to the page and leaving with an understanding of the topic? None, which is why I dug into the issue. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

300 years ago, a Bach cantata was born: happy new year! ... no trumpets -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

... but today a trumpeter, from Scottish brass bands to London fame and back home! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

20 January is the 100th birthday of David Tudor (see my story) and the 300th birthday of Bach's cantata Meine Seufzer, meine Tränen, BWV 13, if we go by date instead of occasion as he would have thought, so see my story for last Sunday, and celebrate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it for the life of me, so I thought I'd ask you as the redirecter where they are located. Thanks! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the instructions here. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Trumpetrep: But there was already content on the pages. Was there a deletion discussion that resulted in the pages being redirected? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The pages were "Subtopics or other topics that are described or listed within a wider article". Trumpetrep (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But there was already non-redirecting content on them. That page is for when you are creating a brand new redirect. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was no content on those pages that didn't exist elsewhere. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But if you wanted the articles to be merged you should have opened a merge discussion or AfD. As it seems like you do not understand the required processes here I will revert your redirectings of the pages. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge, but if you revert the redirects, please open the discussion you prefer. Trumpetrep (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that these article should be redirected, so I will not open a discussion. However if you want to create a group deletion nom then you can. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about which course you think is appropriate: merging or group deletion? Trumpetrep (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the articles should be kept. But if they are put up for deletion we should merge some info to the primary page. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Trumpetrep (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chord (music), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neapolitan was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the draft and moving the Tommie Haglund article to mainspace. I appreciate it.

Treole (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. Trumpetrep (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll respond for some specific cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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