Talk:Duration (music)

My daddy put a snake to my head and told me to hold it

Reorganization

This article needs to be reorganized so as to include a definition of Duration from a dictionary, and then have separate sections leading to (Music) and (Physics). As it stands now, the article suggest all contents refer to (Music), while there are very distinct (and confusing) references to the role of Duration in quantum physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.29.164.238 (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Jane Roberts

The article said:

ROBERTS, JANE (1929-1984), One of the 20th century's most gifted psychics. Inadvertent founder of the latter-day "channeling" movement though neither she nor SETH‚ who spoke through her, called it that. She channeled her last book, _The Way Toward Health_, from a hospital bed and then died. Seth's dictations were taken down by her husband, Robert Butts. Lived in Elmira, New York, USA. Partial bibliography: _The Seth Material_ (1970), _Seth Speaks_ (1972), _The Nature of Personal Reality_ (1974), _The “Unknown” Reality_ (1979), _The Nature of the Psyche_ (1979), _The Individual and the Nature of Mass Events_ (1981).

[This original post made by Mark M Giese on 12/12/02 and adapted from Mark M's _Mcyclopedia_ (1999) by Mark M (Giese).]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus Manske (talk • contribs)

Unwritten question

What's this? Unwritten article? --Taku

Anonymous question marks

?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericd (talk • contribs)

Context

What is this article about? Could context be given? -- Tarquin 18:00 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

Please make your notion of context reproducible for Wikipedia:Wikipedia. Since the article is about duration (its definition; in my view especially with applicability to Wikipedia:Physics), how ought to be determined whether context may be given to this notion (e.g. as opposed to the notion of duration having to give context to the supposed notion of context)?

Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 4, 2003

p.s.

In my view, the This Page:Style appears somewhat unlike what Wikipedia:Style observes generally. (Sorry, it was my first attempt at Wikipedia:how to start a page; I'll try to Wikipedia:How does one edit a page shortly to express this view as well.)

p.p.s.

Thanks for your assistance with one of the This Page:Other_Pages. Is there a general and comprehensive Wikipedia:Subset concerning Wikipedia:How to request technical assistance ?

Erm? Start from the Main Page and go to Help and the FAQ. As for my request for context: imagine that a reader arrives on this page from nowhere. What is it about? In what field? With a title like this, another writer may link, for example from "the film Some Like it Hot has a duration of 1 hour 30 minutes". You must cater for the reader who follows this link too. -- Tarquin 23:10 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

As for issuing requests:

Thanks; yes, the Wikipedia:FAQ appears to contain even single instances of requests, and to be as editable by any one Wikipedia:Wikipedian as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is as a whole.

As for any Wikipedia:Wikipedians who were to link "the film Some Like it Hot has a duration of 1 hour 30 minutes"

if eventually your example assertion took the form as "the film Some Like it Hot:Some Like it Hot has a duration of 1 hour and 30 minutes, then in my view, the indicated Wikipedia:Wikipedians and Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a whole had been instructed, AFAIK at least to good approximation. Could Wikipedia:Wikipedia carters to readers who follow these links otherwise?

Indeed, This_talks_about:Referenced_article is mainly concerned with Wikipedia:Wikipedia being able to evaluate whether the assertion which is being linked had been instructive at all, by virtue of involving the string duration.

As conceived, the contents of This_talks_about:Referenced_article might eventually be subsumed as one Wikipedia:Wikevaluation, in turn to instruct Wikipedia:Physics as well as Wikipedia:Movies.

Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 4, 2003

As for Duration constituting a Wikipedia:Wikevaluation:

instead: a Wikipedia:Wikevaluation may eventually provide that

[[Val:{{Duration|[[Some Like it Hot:Movie]]}}|{{Duration|[[As You Like It:Play]]}}]] will appear (at least approximately) equal to 1, for instance,

while the commensurate use of Duration in these two particular instances may identify this articulated notion as a Wikipedia:Wikinstruction.

Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 4, 2003

I'm afraid I'm finding it very hard to understand you. Could you not link so many things in your Talk text? "Duration T is a commensurate relation by which Physics instructs sciences such as Cinematography? and Lexicography." is even more confusing than before. See Wikipedia:Establish context for examples of what I meant -- something like "In quantum physics, duration is ..." and try & give a general introduction of this concept. Assume a reader who is intelligent but ignorant of the subject. -- Tarquin 10:12 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

As for "Duration T is a commensurate relation by which Physics instructs sciences such as Cinematography? and Lexicography." is even more confusing and I meant -- something like "In quantum physics, duration is ..."

I mean "In Wikipedia, duration is ... how physics tells us to keep catering to Marilynistas and to Wikipedia alike".

What do you suppose Wikipedia means for instance by the notions Encyclopedia, or Chart; and how better to express this meaning than to write

{{T}} ... is a commensurate relation by which {{P}} instructs ... (some others like) {{S}} ...

As for not link so many things in your Talk text

Doesn't that make it more difficult for Wikipedia to apprehend what I try to {{Talk text|write}} about?

As for Assume a reader who is intelligent but ignorant of the subject.

That's my principal assumption (and that's just how I chose to first express this particular article.):Please reference if you disagree|although I view Wikipedia not even as entirely ignorant of the notion intelligence either.

Also, I've been com--Wiki--peting not even for three days by now ... please bear with me while I still try to grasp the exact style by which the presumed intelligence of the readers instructs them on lasting subjects.

As for (any physicists about?)

Sure. (and that's just how I chose to first express this particular article.):Please reference if you disagree|although I'm presently not quite sure yet whether and how to explore the User Namespace further, and I've read in passing about IIRC experts certifying certain pages -- I can't even reference this striking presumption right now ...

As for See Wikipedia:Establish context for examples

Thanks; I found and read through that page. My difficulty seemed to be that it's not returned as an Article when I search Wikipedia for context. Perhaps that's better {{Talk text|written}} about in the Wikipedia:FAQ ? ...

Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 5, 2003

Duration greater than zero

As for in the common sense has a duration greater than zero (but not very long) at the outset.

Since this article is concerned with how to make common sense of amounts to begin with, reference to a nonzero value cannot be made initially.

If it is viewed that (and how) the common sense which is established as a result of this article is relevant in the definition of event, then ought this not rather be described {{Duration:Not}}:Event|there.

I view it as essential to make the distinction between {{Duration:Definition}} and {{Duration:Result}}:Values otherwise manifest; which may not be difficult to express.

p.s. I'd even be hesitant at the outset to qualify the amounts to be determined with an notion as ambiguous as time, too.

p.p.s. Is it {{Wikipedia:Style}}|admissable to new mail at the top of the buffer; perhaps at least after suitable rearrangements and {{W:How to|editing}} ??

Best regards, Frank W ~@) R, Jan. 5, 2003

"{" and "}"

[Fwappler] The { and } characters have no special meaning in Wiki markup. So writing "{Wikipedia:Style}}" just makes your text hard to read. What does this mean: " {T}} ... is a commensurate relation by which {P}} instructs ... (some others like) {S}}"? Is this some scientific notation? If so, explain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquin (talk • contribs)

The first "{" was removed by User:Stevage since the links did not include a colon and thus every example was transcluded. Hyacinth (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I readded them but with <nowiki></nowiki>. Hyacinth (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation request

This article is complete nonsense, disguised with some big words like "wordline" and "relativity". Before I waste my time dissecting it in detail, I want to see a single text book reference to the following concept and notation:

their ratio obtains as the real number value relative duration t, ^{G{ σ }} t ( φ ) _{L{ s c }} = T( σ_G, φ_G ) / T( s _L, c _L ).

AxelBoldt 17:54 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)