Talk:List of organists

Organization

Right now this page is organized as follows:

1. Active/inactive
2. Alphabetical

This seems, to me, to not be the most efficient way of organization that is possible. How about, instead:

1. Era
2. Nationality
3. Alphabetical

One large problem might be specifying a distinct nationality for every organist, but I suspect this might not be as large of a problem as one might think. Otherwise, I think this method of organization should work better than others. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Notability

I see this discussion page has gotten a whole lot of use so far..

We need to establish notability requirements; I don't want to go through and put "citation needed" on every redlink, especially since some of the people are actually notable, but some of them are probably not. This list has also become highly unwieldy and we should consider maybe making it into a table (possible columns: current church and/or current teaching position, birthyear, maybe "notes" allowing for other information). —Sesquialtera II (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion criterion

Anyone considering adding an organist to this list should keep in mind the following from the Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) guideline:

"Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future."

To test the reasonableness of your expectations, you may want to create the article on the organist first and then add it to this list. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we try to implement the above: that is, remove every entry that doesn't already have a Wikipedia article. Otherwise it becomes simply a place for every parish church organist to mention themselves, isn't it? Feline Hymnic (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Layout

Wow, this is some fucked up layout. Can we please change it? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 02:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)