User talk:Smerus/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Kalkbrenner's stigma?

Hello, Would you be so kind as to explain why you deleted the quote from Alan Walker's book in the Paris section of Chopin's article? I disagree. Alan Walker's account is correct and important.

The reason I am asking is that about two months ago I put an NPOV on Kalbrenner's article because of the heavily biased Anecdotes section which, I think, should be removed (explanation on the talk page). Since no one objected my view, I'll delete the section. Many people - who have no clue about Kalkbrenner - refer to it or try to defend their saints against Kalkbrenner's alleged "stigma". Was it your reason too? --Farafince (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• The article is about Chopin. Detail or debate about Kalkbrenner belongs to the Kalkbrenner article. By the way, you don't nned to use bold to talk to me, my eyesight is fortunately fine. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, the article is about Chopin. And - I hope you agree - detail or debate about Chopin belongs to the Chopin article. (I omitted bold.)The statement regarding Chopin's carrere by Alan Walker (world renowned musicologue, "the" Liszt and Chopin Biograph) is much more important than, for instance, the gossip or guesswork of Harold C. Schonbeg (journalist) in the Liszt-section - that obviously OK for you. I suggest an abbreviated version: ..., Friedrich Kalkbrenner, "whose early support was to prove vital to Chopin. Kalkbrenner introduced him" to "Camille Pleyel, the piano manufacturer with whose instrument the name of Chopin was soon to become permanently linked." Please, insert it. Regards --Farafince (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Your - or my - opinion about Walker vs. Schoenberg is irrelevant. WP standards and criteria are. I will think about it.--Smerus (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• By the way, the Kalkbrenner article I agree is utter rubbish and needs to be completely rewritten.--Smerus (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Your Chopin Revision as of 16:06, 10 December 2020 is fine for me. Thanks, problem solved. Concerning Kalkbrenner: I have the proper source to rewrite it (I already inserted a reference to it in the very poor German version: Hans Nautsch: Friedrich Kalkbrenner Wirkung und Werk. In: Hamburger Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft. Band 25, Verlag der Musikalienhandlung Wagner, Hamburg 1983, ISBN 3-921-029-96-1.) For the time being I am very busy with new articles for other wikis; therefore I would be happy with the deletion of section Anecdotes.--Farafince (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Many thanks. To be honest, I didn't have the courage.--Farafince (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy festive period

Thanks for posting to Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Composers. I am afraid that User:Robert McClenon has not been taking enough care. Best wishes, Mathsci (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• He perhaps does not appreciate the depth of some editors' concerns. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Mathsci, User:Smerus - Please explain. Concerns about what? About what to say about Chopin? About what? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The three WikiProjects listed in the Featured Article banner for Talk:Frédéric Chopin—Composers, France and Poland—received no notification. Smerus notified all three. Merry Yuletide, Mathsci (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, apologies, I was just being mildly sardonic. I think as a matter of courtesy all relevant WProjects ahould be informed when there is an RfC, and I have always tried to ensure this in the past when I was involved in one. Francis Schonken left notes at WP:Biography and WP:LGBT. I took care to ensure that my notification was neutral. Best, --Smerus (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I am aware that it is a good idea to publicize an RFC. I am also aware that the participants in the RFC are likely to take the initiative on publicizing it, and that there is time to do so, because the RFC runs for 30 days, rather than 7. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone having nothing better to do over the holidays than to follow this talk-page, the above is about an RfC - Talk:Frédéric_Chopin#RFC:_Chopin_and_Sexuality. --Smerus (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!

Women in Red | January 2021, Volume 7, Issue 1, Numbers 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188 Online events: New: Climate and environment | Public domain Contest (Jan-Feb-Mar): Africa contest Year-long initiative: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2020 Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Composers for pedal piano

A tag has been placed on Category:Composers for pedal piano requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Now repopulated. Don't know who eliminated these or when or why.--Smerus (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Composers for pedal piano

A tag has been placed on Category:Composers for pedal piano requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Repopulated. Same user as before. Seems to be some form of systematic vandalism: all of the edits of this user are marked minor.[1] Mathsci (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Music catalogues has been nominated for renaming

Category:Music catalogues has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Fanny Hensel

Just when I found time to join the peer review, I found it more or less closed. Sorry. I still believe she should have the article name under which she decided to publish, not the winning name in some popularity contest, - will probably not overcome my dislike for "COMMONNAME". Have a good year 2021! I opened a FAC about Bach's Cantata No. 1 on Wikipedia's birthday, in cased of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with you and will take this up when/if I go on to FA. But unfortunately this was lost in a discussion here and also at a proposed move by me last year, on the basis of what I consider to be invalid arguments.--Smerus (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

• New EBSCO collections now available
• 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
• Library Card input requested
• Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

February 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | February 2021, Volume 7, Issue 2, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191 Online events: New: Black women | Classicists | Folklore Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

2021

Have a good new year! - On the Main page today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Liszt Signature Comment

Hi Smerus! I have seen that you reverted my addition of Liszt's signature. If you take a look at Chopin's, Wagner's, Tchaikovsky's, Schubert's (etc.) article you will see that they have a signature, and would like to keep composers uniform. This is not an established rule about composers but I will soon start a centralized general discussion regarding that. Before I make the discussion I want to know the reason why some people have an objection against them. If you would like to give me your opinion that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading, cheers! Wretchskull (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is simply this: that signatures add absolutely nothing whatsoever to the material of the article and shed no light on the life or works of the composer - any more than would, eg., the composer's fingerprint, shoe size or blood group. All best, --Smerus (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rubinstein operas

Template:Rubinstein operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew Melodies

I'm sorry, I don't understand why you made a straight revert of my edit without explanation or attempt to synthesize? Doops | talk 16:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, it is basically WP:OR, as I said in my edit note, and I refer you there - (so I by the way beg to refute your comment that I gave no explanation). The interpretation you made (with which as it happens I totally personally agree) is not covered by the citation to the paragraph from Ashton. If you can't support something by reference to an appropriate secondary source, it shouldn't be included in the article. If you have a citation which analyzes the British Review 's comment giving that interpretation, then provide it. But WP editors are alas not there to give the benefit of their own wisdom, but only to impart the wisdom of others. Best, --Smerus (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

In my view it's pushing the OR-taboo too far, if we're not allowed to simply explicate idiomatic phrases when using old quotations. But putting that aside for the moment, it's clearly not OR to correct an ERROR in the article, and as written the article implied that saying that a young lord was 'meddling with Jews' is the same thing as calling him a Jew himself, which is clearly false. Doops | talk 17:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

To satisfy you and myself I have checked expanded the references in this paragraph. Please read the sentence you refer to carefully; it is neither clearly false, nor an error. It asserts that street ballads did call Byron a Jew, and that someone said "A young Lord is seldom the better for meddling with Jews", both of which statements are supported by the citation now given. If you require (as you are entitled to) WP:AGF, you should I think also extend it. Best,--Smerus (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps 'false' was too strong a word to use; but I do think that the old wording was extremely likely to be misinterpreted by casual readers. It read "...Augusta says they will call me a Jew next" - and indeed that came to pass in street ballads, with comments from reviewers of the Melodies such as "A young Lord is seldom the better for meddling with Jews". That "with" was extremely confusing and changing it either to 'while' or to 'as well as' makes the sentence much less likely to be misinterpreted.

All that said: thanks for adding the citations! I think you've missed the most important one, though — there's still no citation for the the claim that Byron was called a Jew in street ballads. Can you supply a citation? Or indeed, could you provide a quote from such a ballad? That would be even better. Doops | talk 02:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Hi - note 19 covers the street-ballads as well as the quote about "a young Lord". I've changed the wording to try to make this clear.--Smerus (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Chopin FA

Smerus, re your WP:FAR post, I'm sorry to see that (from what I can gather) the Chopin article is causing you some distress. The conversation at talk has certainly taken many turns; I've vaguely followed it, but found the matter too frustrating to invest time other than leaving a comment at the RFC. Just glancing at the article's current state, I don't think there are any major issues, and the ones apparent seem quite fixable. Incidentally, I'm seeing your FAR comment after practicing his first ballade, a wonderful piece, who's equally wonderful composer certainly deserves attention on WP. As such, please let me know if I can be of any help—hopefully my work on F. Andrieu (and a similar composer) shows you can trust me on such a matter—there's no need to put all the pressure on yourself! Happy to assist on prose, layout, or fixing up the references (and/or move to sfn like we did on Fanny), if at all helpful. I expect we may have to wait for the RFC to close in any case. Regards, Aza24 (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even notice, sorry, preoccupied with a FAC. I'll look when that is over (soon, I hope). I also wondered about the article name for his mother, - recently moved, and not leaving me happy. Perhaps retreat to a garden ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Aza24, Gerda, many thanks for your postings here. The article at present is deformed by e.g. note 6 and this alone would remove it from FA status I think. What is needed (desparately) is a resolution of the RfC, a rewrite in accordance with the decision (which I will be happy to make in whatever outcome), and a referral to FAR. Unfortunately the resolution of the RfC seems to be taking ages. But apparently there is no mechanism for suspension of an FA, whuch means the article must continue to boast an unwarranted prestige. Incidentally I myself have been practising the Nocturne op. 37 no. 2 (together with the Sonatine of Chopins's friend Charles-Valentin Alkan)- at least COVID is giving me the chance to improve my piano technique!. Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Op. 37, No. 2 (& Op. 9, No. 3) are his two nocturnes I've not learned! You know what's wonderful? Stravinsky orchestrated Op. 32 No. 1 & Grande Valse [2] into extremely appealing versions... they were for Les Sylphides but are not often played, probably because they're noticeably more difficult than other orchestrations, so conductors/orchestras choose convenience over musical superiority... oh well. Aza24 (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly the topic but related: I am concerned about the new article Reception of Johann Sebastian Bach's music which is not new at all but taken (to avoid a stronger word) from Clavier-Übung III#Reception and influence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Weird goings on indeed, but not my battlefield I think.--Smerus (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  I have no idea what interaction ban means if it doesn't cover this kind of "interaction" where one is in chains. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

March 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | March 2021, Volume 7, Issue 3, Numbers 184, 186, 188, 192, 193 Online events: New: Art+Activism | VisibleWikiWomen Contest (Jan/Feb/Mar): Africa Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

GA

Greetings! All well as can be, I hope, in these difficult times? Having just put up an article for GAN for the first time in ages I note the plea on the GAN front page to review two existing GAN candidates for every one that one puts up. I have done Vesta Tilley, if that's quite the phrase, and am looking around for my second. I see you have Fraulein Mendelssohn on the list, and my purpose in this message is to ask if you would be comfortable with my reviewing it. On the one hand we have collaborated on various articles and there might be a perceived conflict of interest (a.k.a. The Old Pals Act), and on the other, as those of my friends whose articles I have reviewed will attest, I am even more pernickety when reviewing their stuff than with those of innocent civilians. Pray let me know your thoughts. Tim riley talk 22:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

(TPW) Apologies on intruding (I seem to be running into Tim everywhere lately!), though I would just like to assure you both that it seems with the ever increasing backlog of GAs, a significant amount of them are being reviewed by subject-matter colleagues, MILHIST and Paleo articles especially. So as long as it's not an instant GA and clearly evaluates the criteria, I doubt there would be any issue with Tim reviewing Fanny. Aza24 (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tim! I would be delighted if you were willing to take a look at Frau Hensel, as I prefer to think of her, although an RfC decided she be listed in her maiden name. She's been up on the list so long that I have just checked to satisfy myself that she is in order to receive callers. I am confident that any aspects of the article which fail to arouse your sympathy will be indicated by you with your normal exquisite courtesy. Yrs ever, --Smerus (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. It was quite hard to find anything to quibble about, but I managed. My few comments and suggestions are now on the GAN page. Tim riley talk 08:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fanny Mendelssohn

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fanny Mendelssohn you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fanny Mendelssohn

The article Fanny Mendelssohn you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fanny Mendelssohn for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Revert discussion

Hello, you recently reverted my edits on List of child music prodigies. Though I don't dispute the revert, since there is a recently deleted page that redirects to this page, I would like to invite you to discussion on the Talk page of List of child music prodigies to help resolve any confusion that readers might face. Thanks! Solatido 23:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red | April 2021, Volume 7, Issue 4, Numbers 184, 188, 194, 195, 196 Online events: New: Plants & gardens | Gender studies New Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Michael Portillo

I may be missing something obvious, but can I ask why you made this revert [3] at Michael Portillo? The IP's edits just converted redirects to direct wikilinks, and I couldn't see anything wrong with them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; apologies, I was asleep at the wheel. I have re-reverted.--Smerus (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Jane Manning

On 5 April 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jane Manning, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 17:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Schubert infobox

Dear Smerus I am not sure why you removed the infobox I boldly added to Franz Schubert. I can find nothing wrong with it. Is the problem that you believe infoboxes of this type are in and of themselves unhelpful?--Toploftical (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Toploftical: If you want to add an infobox, please discuss it first on the talk page and then go by the consensus (as I mentioned on your talkpage). Schubert was agreed as a GA without an infobox. The consensus has generally been against infoboxes for classical composers. Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• To receive this from one of the most aggressive editors on WP is an honour indeed! Thanks Francis for brightening my day. This adds to the long list of your misbehaviour which I am compiling. --Smerus (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
• I note that Mr. Schonken is now indefinitely blocked from WP. Sic transit and all that.--Smerus (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Eugène Scribe

Greetings! When you have a moment (supposing such a thing possible) would you mind looking in at Scribe's page? I've been giving it a modest overhaul, and I'd just like to check that I haven't mucked up any of the substantial contributions you have made to the article. Best wishes, Tim riley talk 20:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tim! I'm in the middle of 'L'Egisto' at present - remaining shows 9-13 June at the Cockpit Theatre, great reviews so far (see here for more, (subtle hint) but will definitely and with pleasure drop in on Eugene when I have recovered.....--Smerus (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Vascosectomy

de -v- da. Are you arguing with Grove? (Yes, and quite rightly, but it's "da" there). For any casual looker-in, this may be the most incomprehensible note ever posted on Wikipedia. Tim riley talk 17:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tim riley:, I will cross swords with Grove on this: have to dash out now but will send you refs. as soon as possible. See French WP.--Smerus (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and Grove wrong, but try telling the OUP that. You'll get a polite acknowledgement and then bugger all will happen, in my experience. For instance, after Wikicolleagues sorted out the myths about Victor Herbert's background I sent the details to Grove, but two years or so later the old incorrect details remain unchanged. I could go on, but as a CUP man perhaps you won't be surprised at the derelictions of the opposition... Tim riley talk 17:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tim riley:. Scribe to Meyerbeer, 12 December 1851 (his underlinings, spellings and [absence of] capitalization and accents): "Mon cher et illustre Maitre, je vous ai ecrit de toulon le 25 ou 26 dernier, vous envoyant le plan detaillé des deux premiers actes de Vasco de Gama [...] Du reste j'ai toujours l'envie d'aller à Rom, Naples et Venise et bien plus de revenir par Vienne at Berlin, vous apporter moi mème Vasco de Gama récrit et terminé....". Sabine Henze-Döhring (ed.) (1999), Giacomo Meyerbeer: Briefwechsel und Tagebücher, Vol. 5 (1849-1852), pp. 471-472. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 3-11-014244-9. If that's how Scribe referred to it, that's the way it should be in his article in WP. As for the Oxonians - "You scullions! You rampallians! You fustilarians! I'll tickle your catastrophe!", as WS wrote.--Smerus (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Merging of John Gielgud

Hello, I saw your message regarding, Proposed deletion of List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud, and instead of deleting the page, why not simply remove awards content from John Gielgud roles and awards? You could rename that page, "John Gielgud on screen and stage". Given Gielgud's extensive acting credits and award nominations it makes sense to devote two separate articles which is the norm. I feel like this would be a simple and constructive solution rather than deleting the article. The One I Left (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The JGR&A article is a WP:FA. It therefore doesn't seem appropriate to mangle it - that would not be a 'constructive' solution imo. As you've removed the PROD I will formally move AFD. --Smerus (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

List of Musical Prodigies

I see that you removed my addition of a musical prodigy from India. Why is this page being narrowly restricted to prodigies from the West alone? See this article that lists various instrumentalists and vocalists who made it to the top before they turned 10. https://www.livemint.com/Leisure/oa8LYCxvv6140d53015NpN/The-making-of-a-musical-prodigy.html

• It's not restricted in the way you suggest. It is restricted by the dwefinition in its lead--Smerus (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Both the artistes I added - N.Ravikiran and U.Srinivas were well known professionals in Classical Indian Music before they turned 10. Ravikiran made headlines at the age of 2 and was paid for his appearances, was the youngest to get a scholarship from the Music Academy, and also debuted as a vocalist in 1972, when he was five years old. His concerts were over two and a half hours with complex improvisation – drew large audiences and won critical acclaim in the Indian media. This is from the 1960s and it is quite easy to prove that these concerts happened, in contrast to facts from the 18th century. These musicians are well known prodigies from India who meet the criteria mentioned here.

• Being a professional does not make one a prodigy according to the Wikipedia definition. Nothing in the two articles or their references supports these two meeting the definition. Hitting headlines is not a qualification. The NPR citation you give on Ravikiran is from a date when he was 28 years old. The Srinivas WP article is ashameless piece of PR which needs substantial editing to remove its non-neutral point of view.--Smerus (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

References

A Feast

Thank you for the new opera article! I'm less happy about the move of the former. You may remember that someone moved Lohengrin (opera) when another opera of the same title came up. It was reverted after long discussions.

I don't know if the 1901 and the 2020 opera are more even in weight. I'd probably have left the Cui opera under its name, and - as long as there are only two - handle the other by a hat note instead of a dab page. If a new name, please make sure that it appears everywhere instead of the former, not poor Cui having composed a dab ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: User:Rodw did the dabs for the present title, A Feast in Time of Plague (Cui opera). I would have done it, at least for the composer and his template, if I had been sure enough that was the best (and thus final) title. I'd prefer A Feast in Time of Plague (opera) (as it was) and A Feast in Time of Plague (Cui), as for other operas with the same title, see Acis and Galatea (Handel). What do you think? Should we discuss it on project opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This came up on today's list of Templates with disambiguation links so I changed it, but I have no knowledge of the relative primacy of each one, so will be happy with whatever opera experts decide.— Rod ^talk 09:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Primacy can only be a matter of opinion here. It's not like Lohengrin, where one version is famous and the other not. Neither of these is often performed or likely to be. A Feast in Time of Plague is a separate article, so "opera" in these two titles is helpful. As the opera titles are (very) similar (but not identical), best leave I think as is.--Smerus (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Accepting that A Feast in Time of Plague (opera) is out, I still don't know why we would add "opera" in the dab clause, - we don't do that for Handel, and I know no other case where we add both composer and genre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, e.g., A Midsummer Night's Dream and A Midsummer Night's Dream (opera); so if Tippett (to suggest a composer who would be regarded in the same 'league') had written one as well...........If (say) Purcell had written an Acis and Galatea, something similar might have bewen the best answer on WP.--Smerus (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's my language: let's imagine Tippett had written Lear (for a shorter title), we might have Lear (opera) and Lear (Tippett), but not Lear (Tippet opera). Once we have the composer, we don't have the genre also, unless he also wrote a cantata of the same title perhaps. So, why not just A Feast in Time of Plague (Cui)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Basically we have three things here. X, a play, the original 'X' entity; and two operas of equal obscurity based on it. A WP reader wants to look up the opera based on X, but isn't sure of the composer. He enters X (opera) and the disambiguation page shows him that there is more than one, and he can take his choice.--Smerus (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons with Women in Red

Women in Red | August 2021, Volume 7, Issue 8, Numbers 184, 188, 204, 205, 206, 207 Online events: New: Indigenous women | Women's leadership & empowerment Contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Olympic & Paralympic Games | Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Interwiki Women Collaboration Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

GPO, Ivan etc

Thank you so much for all your work on GPO (the other one), the unfortunate Litvinenko etc. We were also at Ivan and rather loved it, but my critical faculties for opera are very very very limited so I was just going Hey Wow quite a lot. I did think Ivan himself was rather fine. But I just love being there anyway – I am a sucker for the whole experience, always.

Litvinenko's house is just round a couple of corners from us here but I know/suspect that you know the area!

Thanks for adding in the GPO online shows. Really, to be absolutely factual and, like, totally NPOV, they should both say something like lifted to a higher plane of beauty by the stunning nay transcendental brass playing of the enigmatic mystery artist Ognune Lively but I suppose we might have to let that one go for want of an RS. Though, bless em, one of the crits did actually notice that there was a trumpet in the Ravel ... yeah! My work here is done. Ahem yes.

On a (slightly) more serious note, do you think that the Owen Wingrave article should mention the GPO video? As you might scent from the above I have a humongous COI which prevents me from doing anything ... I posted on its Talk page but I am going no further. As I understand it it is an infrequently-performed show, and was written for the medium, more or less ... buuuut does that make the GPO version an interesting or significant enough one to mention? Who knows? Not I. So, I shall refrain from commenting much more on this now as it's just wrong and distasteful for me to bang on about it any further, and I should probably stfu as the young people so charmingly put it ... cheers DBaK (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I will watch the video first. I tried to work out whether Ognune Lively was an anagram of DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered, but it didn't seem to fit. For my own COI contribution, HGO Trust has its annual summer concert this Saturday not too far from you - just saying, in case you are interested... Ta muchly for the tidying btw.--Smerus (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Ah yes, I suppose I should look for interesting anagrams of DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered – I have not yet tried. Thanks very much re HGO: I fear we will not be able to make it on Saturday, but it sounds lovely and we'll certainly keep an eye out for future events. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@DBaK:, we watched the video and enjoyed it, have updated Owen accordingly.--Smerus (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Cello sonatas

I just heard that Graham Waterhouse and Miku Nishimoto-Neubert plan to play (Munich, play perhaps only one, + possibly London) and record Charles-Valentin Alkan's Sonate de concert, Op. 47 (1857) and John Foulds' Sonata for Cello and Piano, Op. 6 (1905). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, we are supporting this through the Alkan Society--Smerus (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  That's great! - Just for curiosity - and it may be my language difficulty: what do you find "genuine" about the Mozart portrait painted after his death? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think you will find Mozart was alive in 1781. But not around 1820, when the other 'portrait' was painted.--Smerus (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I confused the two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

• Library design improvements continue
• New partnerships
• 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Norman Bailey (bass-baritone)

The baritone reportedly died, but I see no source. I see that you created the article, - do you have a reference for Bayreuth? Because I don't find him among the performers. Was Humperdinck at the ENO? If yes please revert my change of the title. - I brought an orchestra pic to today's Main page, and like that. Sadly connected to another recent death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll look again in Bayreuth, had the spelling wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd forgotten this article, must have been one of the first I wrote. My daughter sang in the ENO production of Hansel and Gretl, said he was really charming.--Smerus (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, it's official now that he died. Grimes2 and I will work on the article to make it ready for the RD section of the Main page. Help welcome but not needed - Grimes - at work right now - is efficient. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm in Slovakia now to organize (hopefully) Levoca Festival, assuming COVID allows it....--Smerus (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Good luck with that! RMF was great, - I wanted to expand the article, but people keep dying ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Bailey arrived on the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Charles-Valentin Alkan

Please review MOS:ETHNICITY. The fact he is Jewish is already mentioned in the lede. GiantSnowman 20:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• If I had the time I would take issue on this, but if will have to wait for another day.--Smerus (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Alkan

November songs

Today, Alkan's Cello Sonata was on the Main page, - planned to be played in concert in Munich 23 January 2022. We can only hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2021, Volume 7, Issue 12, Numbers 184, 188, 210, 214, 215, 216 Online events: New: "Double the lede!" | Women who died in 2021 Contest (Oct/Nov/Dec): Women in Oceania contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change and preparations for our 2022 Climate initiative Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow Women in Red on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Request for FA mentorship

I'm in process of getting feedback related to an article about the Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania, which I want to promote to FA status. I sought some peer review advice (which I'm implementing right now), but I believe the most important thing is to get to know the intricacies of FA process. Even if the first nominations fail, I at least will be able to take into account the first steps. I hope that the mentorship will be fruitful. Am I in? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Szmenderowiecki, this appears to me to be an important article. I would love to assist you, but at the moment I am fully occupied beacuse of this (I am chairman of the opera company and our first night is November 5th). As soon as I have time i will take a look. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, break a leg! Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hello once again, just a small reminder about me. Thanks.

  PS. As far as I see, the critics have quite liked the performance, well done! Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi there, yes it went well, I am still busy for a few days paying the invoices etc...but I have not forgotten!!--Smerus (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Szmenderowiecki: - I have now read the article carefully. I am not an expert on this topic, and will not query the facts as the article lays them out; but I believe that to get to FA status it needs considerable rewriting. Here are a few examples, but this list is by no measn exhaustive. Sometimes it's a matter of style: e.g. the first sentence "The Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania (Lithuanian: Lietuvos ekonominė blokada, Russian: экономическая блокада Литвы) was the economic blockade imposed by the Soviet Union on Lithuania between 18 April and 2 July 1990" would better read simply "The Soviet economic blockade of Lithuania (Lithuanian: Lietuvos ekonominė blokada, Russian: экономическая блокада Литвы) was imposed between 18 April and 2 July 1990". Sometimes it's a question of clarity: e.g. in the 2nd paragraph we have "These parties adopted the Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania on 11 March 1990." It wasn't (unspecified) parties that adopted this Act, but the Lithuanian Supreme Council. In para 1 of Background we have "the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact"; The WP article is "the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact". In the "Restoration of independence" section, there are examples of unidiomatic English: in "While the Lithuanians saw the independence as a restoration act", the is superfluous; " the Soviet leader backtracked after Brazauskas demanded an exorbitant sum in compensations" - should be compensation (in the singular), but compensation for what, exactly? Or do you mean 'reparations'? In the section Blockade: "Electricity supply from Lithuania also decreased considerably"; that is not I think what the (Russian) citation says - it mentions that electricity was cut off from Russian bases in Lithuania, not quite the same thing.

Regrettably I don't have time to go through the whole article checking out items like these. Imo the article, interesting as it is, shouldn't really be at GA status. With great apologies, but I believe the article needs substantial additional work before you put it up for FA review. With best regards, --Smerus (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Please do not remove {{copyvio-revdel}} templates, as you did at Moses Mendelssohn, unless it is clearly in error; an administrator decides if it should be revision deleted or not and removing requests like that is considered disruptive. Recent copyright violations should almost always be revision deleted, as it is not enough to merely remove it from the current revision, but to remove it from the article's revision history for legal reasons. -- TNT (talk • she/they) 00:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: Thank you TNT, but in this case the copyvio template was placed entirely in error. The terms of 'Revison Delete' did not apply - A vandal had filled in a large amount of nonsense from an unreliable source and this had alreday been deleted by a third-party editor. And as you probably know, 'Revision Delete' should in any case not be used without prior discussion on the talk page, which in this case did not take place. (See WP:CRD if you were not aware of this). --Smerus (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my message to you - I've already revision deleted the content per RD1, something which does not require consensus nor discussion per application, and was merely warning you to not remove the template. As you are now aware of how RD1 works, if you remove another instance of the {{copyvio-revdel}} template before an administrator reviews it, I will block you. -- TNT (talk • she/they) 17:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: I think you have misunderstood my message to you. But as it clearly pleases you to be officious, enjoy yourself.--Smerus (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

in friendship

January songs

in friendship

2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 23 January - click on songs. The Alkan cello sonata concert is now announced, as you probably know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Gender-neutral pronouns on WikiProject Composers

Hi @Smerus! I saw that you reverted my edit on WikiProject Composers switching “he or she” to the more inclusive “they”. I felt that my change was more inclusive, as not all people use he or she pronouns, and also more concise (switching from three words to one). Please let me know if you have any questions! I’m completing the “discuss” part of the BRD cycle. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no questions; if I had, then I would have certainly contacted you in the first place. If you could indicate to me any subject of a composer article in Wikipedia who has requested reference to themselves being in the third person plural, I might think about it. It's equally the case that to refer to all these subjects as 'they' would be to disrespect those who regard themselves as 'he' or 'she'. I suggest that if you want to take this further, you do so on the talk page of the project. Все найкраще, --Smerus (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Portillo

Apologies as I missed that reference.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

thanks - all best, --Smerus (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for FA Review

I noticed you are listed as an FA mentor. Would you be so kind as to assist in reviewing the article Texas A&M University at the peer review page? Buffs (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Buffs: Thank you for this kind invitation, but my experience and knowledge don't I think qualify me to be useful here. Best - --Smerus (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks anyway! :-) Buffs (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022 at Women in Red

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230 Online events: New: Women in the Ancient World | British Overseas Territories Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest (second month) Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Precious

Nine years!

Precious anniversary

We'd have many more DYK about Wagner singers by now, and some in the making, or not, depends on the review process. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

... such as the first Isolde in Stockholm, pictured - actually the pic was the reason for Ipigott to create the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Greenland and the Faroes | Women in music Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Translation contest (third and last month) Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. () Hi Smerus, I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board. Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in July 2022

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235 Online events: New: Alphabet Run: A to B | Baltic States Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green's Good Article Editathon: July 2022 – Women and the Environment Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thank you and a favor, please

Thank you very kindly for your understanding. I'm sorry for having blasted off that admittedly grouchy reply, but some of my recent exchanges with other editors have made it difficult for me to maintain my habitual cordiality. Please know that I'm appreciative beyond words for your tremendous work on this site. You have my utmost respect. Time permitting, I'm projecting to drastically amend some of the more troubling sections of the Shostakovich article. Armed with my personal collection of Shostakovichiana, I hope to plug a lot of the sourcing lacunae and factual errors in the coming weeks. If you have the time and are open to it, I would be grateful and honored if you could look over my work and polish anything that needs it. Please let me know if you are able to help me. Thank you again for everything. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

no apology necessary, I know only too well how editing on WP has rough spells. I will when I have a chance look over Dsch. At the moment I have a heavy time, as I have a welter of both academic and practical work (with HGO opera company), as well as travels with my wife celebrating our golden wedding anniversary - life is chaos, but better that than standing still I suppose.....--Smerus (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I hope the HGO edits were okay. Best wishes for your travel plans. Mathsci (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

HGO edits were great. Another call coming along soon (hint!). Many thanks! --Smerus (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

June songs

just some flowers for the anniversary, and enjoy togetherness with music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda!--Smerus (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian peace music is now on the Main page! - Pentecost (on last Sunday and Monday in Germany) brought a harvest of great music in two church services (one with me singing in choir) and two concerts, with my brother in the orchestra, - four pictures I took besides the symphonic one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

today: a song about getting through the night, after plenty of music over the weekend --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Festival time

July songs

I heard a great concert by Voces8, pictured. - I have a FAC open, in case of interest. - How ae your festival plans? Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gerda! Levoca festival is here - 19-24 September. We managed to get a grant this year, albeit a small one. Will include the Slovak premiere of On Wenlock Edge (tenor, piano, string 4tet) for Ralph Vaughan Williams's sesquicentenary; and also a recital of Ukrainian piano music (Valentin Silvestrov and others). But before that, next Saturday in London - this! Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

All that sounds great! Returning from a chamber music concert of young musicians trained at the Kronberg Academy, Brahms and Schumann, so promising! Kammeroper Frankfurt will play an early Rossini open air. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

more July songs, from Swiss Alps and a funeral --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Miriam Shatal

Dear David

Sorry to bother you, but, in case it is of interest to you, I just wanted to check whether you were aware of:

• Miriam Shatal
• AfD on the above
• Appeal for help with the topic

I see that Tim riley has already checked CCJM but I suppose I was wondering if you had some super-exclusive inside track! I do get it that this may be of no interest to you and I am sorry to take up your time: I just thought it might be worth a mention to you. I shall now stfu as the young people so charmingly put it, and leave you in peace.

With all good wishes, DBaK (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Hi DBak, I have no insider info I'm afraid on this. I wan't aware of the AfD discussion but if it were still alive I would have posted for a marginal keep, (as was in effect concluded). I've taken the liberty of copyediting the text of the article which was rather confusing as regards names - hope I haven't made it worse! --Smerus (talk) 09:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for taking a look, and I am sure that your name clarification stuff is an improvement! With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Modernism (music) template

Just wanted to say thanks for updating that template (and the list of modernist composers). As stated on Talk:Shostakovich, I'm not an expert and just wanted to have more consistency - i.e. feature the template for the composers mentioned in it. I undid the additions I had done besides Shostakovich (Bacewicz and Ustvolskaya). Khuft (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Khuft, it's a complicated situation actually - e.g. some of the composers with citations as 'modernist' are not in fact modernist in academic concensus (e.g. Percy Grainger), but I think it's a bit tidier now.--Smerus (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Giuseppe Verdi Introduction

Hi!
I'm here just to ask what was wrong with my reorganization of the introductory paragraphs of the Giuseppe Verdi article. I have been hearing criticism of Wikipedia suggesting that the introduction to articles is often confusingly filled with minor details about the subject, whereas its purpose is to present the most important information whereon without getting into details. I tried to do improve Verdi's article accordingly, so I would like what I could change about my edit to make it acceptable.
Thanks in advance!
Meduer (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Meduer. The contents and layout of Giuseppe Verdi were agreed by editors as a WP:GA. If you want to see structural changes, do please make your case on the article talk-page, rather than make your edits unilaterally. For what it is worth, I do not consider the changes you made were an improvement - but other editors may differ. Best --Smerus (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Opera in Ukraine

September songs

Thank you for helping Opera in Ukraine" - 1 September: I remember the Vespro della Beata Vergine, 2 September: the last of the Rheingau Musik Festival concerts, and yesterday we read The Story of Mr Sommer, and followed Ruth Lapide. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and this year was full of music that day, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto, and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Today funeral music from a psalm, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

travel and strings sound --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Info-box

You have expressed views on that topic, and I wonder if you might have one here, Tim riley talk 18:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Fanelli and Alkan

@Smerus: Greetings! I wanted to ask you something regarding Ernest Fanelli being a student of Alkan. Most biographies (even Grove) claim he was, but after seeing this note, I was reluctant to add that to Fanelli's article. I though about creating a similar note; do you have any sources that explicitly state that Alkan never had any Conservatoire students in his later years, so as to avoid WP:OR? Cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Hi! The withdrawal of Alkan from the Conservatoire after 1848 is noted by all sources (e.g. Conway (2012), 229; Smith (2000), 46-47; Francois-Sappey and Luguenot (2013), 125-9). The profound shock of his being passed over for Marmontel meant that there is no record of his further association with the Conservatoire. There is no statement in any source that he didn't take Conservatoire students in his later years, just as there is no statement that he never visited the Moon - because it just didn't happen. There is no evidence I have seen (including my research in the Conservatoire archives at the Archive Nationale in Paris) for the statement in Grove, which I assume is due to faulty reading of sources. Very possibly Fanelli was a student of Napoleon Alkan, Alkan's brother, who was a professor at the Conservatoire during his time there. All best, --Smerus (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Smerus: I see.. In that case, I could create a note mentioning the sources which claim he was a student of Alkan followed by a a ref from an Alkan biography. I don't have access to the book, but I see you used Smith (2000) I, 42–45 for the first sentence of § Retreat (1848–1872), but you mentioned 46-47. So perhaps I should go with the latter? I'm trying to get Fanelli to GA but I need to include all necessary details before someone reviews it. Wretchskull (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Wretchskull:, I'd love to know what reliable sources do claim he was a student of (CV) Alkan and what, if any, evidence they provide (apart from Grove). Not a single biography, or biographical article, I have seen about CVA (and I think I've seen them all) mentions Fanelli or the Conservatoire after 1848. This includes the extensive articles in the bulletins of the Alkan society (UK) and Societe Alkan (FR) which you can find online at www.alkansociety.org. The notion that Fanelli was at any time a CVAlkan student is imo a complete fantasy.--Smerus (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Smerus: I've created a note using the Smith (2000) source. Tell me what you think, and thanks for your help! Wretchskull (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Thanks, I think it's accurate and probably the best that can be done given that Grove is in error.--Smerus (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It's always surprised me that Grove so frequently has contradictions with other sources.... I see it everywhere now adays. Just yesterday when I was adding to Ned Rorem, the article gives his Juilliard degrees as from 1947 & 1949—in contradiction to 4–5 other sources, including his biography in the Biographical Dictionary of American Music (or something along those lines), which was written by the same three people!!

I often wonder if it is the result of transferring so many articles from their print source to an online version. Aza24 (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24:. you have inspired me to write to Grove music Online asking them to correct their article on Fanelli - I will report back on their response (if any).--Smerus (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Artemy Vedel

No, I hadn't either, but this composer is up for FAC and I have put my twopennorth in. You might possibly like to look in. Tim riley talk 21:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually I had! Thanks for notifying me, I have used my Ukrainian experience to make a rather serious point there......Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Michael Ponti - Alkan

Obituaries say that Michael Ponti revived forgotten pieces by some 50 composers, including Alkan. What piece(s) would that be. This suggests the Concerto da camera No. 2, in one movement. Should the revival show in Alkan's article? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

see also this which I'll use for the Ponti article --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Gerda thanks for this. Your second link doesn't seem to work. I am tied down at present by 2 simultaneous premieres coming up, this in London and this in Malta. Although Ponti was keen on Alkan, I don't know which (if any) of the Alkan pieces he was the first to revive. I will ask my colleagues at the Alkan society. All best, --Smerus (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, and best wishes for the premieres. The second link is from the Alkan Society, a bulletin No 57, and confirms - as I added to Ponti's article - that he revived the Concerto da camera No. 2 in 1979. I believe - even that was a youthful piece - that Ponti deserved a place among those bringing Alkan's work to more attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked at the wrong link, corrected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

November songs

Today is the birthday of my first subject, a reason to have Alkan's Cello Sonata on my talk again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I was away for vacation in the U.S. - how was the festival in Levoca? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Fesrival was great. Also my opera co here in London, HGO, has just finished a production of Janacek Bystrouska to great reviews.--Smerus (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

that's great news! the festival I support had its friends' meeting yesterday, and reported the best season ever --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Richard Wagner

Hi. Can you explain why my edit ([4]) was reverted? No reason was provided in your edit summary. I'd like to know so I can avoid making the same mistake in the future. Thanks, 107.122.161.6 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

spelling and punctuations reverted to as approved in FA review. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Owen / GPO / my manners ... sheesh

I somehow seem to have completely forgotten to thank you for this, a year and a half ago, or even acknowledge it! I do apologize – I would never deliberately be that rude but what I can manage by accident is another story! I was not quite sure what it was about 21 July 2021 that made me unable to reply, so I looked at my calendar and photos and it is apparent that but it was the penultimate day of a rather long and stressy term ... I suppose I lost the plot a bit, or perhaps my brain melted. It was very, very warm.

I was so glad to hear that you liked the GPO video ... sometime over a pint or by email or something I should explain more about the whole thing, but not on here ... it was a fascinating project. Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)