Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Carlos Kleiber discography/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC) [1].

---

Carlos Kleiber discography

Carlos Kleiber discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Carlos Kleiber discography/archive1

Nominator(s): Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well this has certainly been some process. Kleiber has always been one of my favorite conductors but I only recently learned of his legendary, yet mysterious reputation in the Western Classical Music world. This list would not be possible without the use of Toru Hirasawa's website, which at first glance may seem unreliable but my rationale for reliability is the following: In Charles Barber's biography on Kleiber he offers a partial discography (which has been thoroughly used) and recommends Hirasawa's list for a complete list, saying: "For accuracy and completeness it stands above all others". Ap news also says that Hirasawa "has researched a comprehensive performance history". This being said, if the reviewers still do not find the source agreeable, this list will likely be impossible to make at FL status, as no other comprehensive databases for such information (nor references that discuss many of the minor recordings) exist. Other than this I think the list meets the criteria, but am open to any suggestions or criticism! Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

;Comments on the lead numbers less than 10 (eg "9 studio albums") should be written as words "five-decade career" needs a hyphen "it was done so against his wishes" => "it was done against his wishes" "His small number of studio recordings each one became critically acclaimed in their own right" => "Each of his small number of studio recordings became critically acclaimed in its own right" "Kleiber's' contributions" - one too many apostrophes in there The first sentence of paragraph 2 is far too long and should be broken up "followed by monumental recordings" - what does "monumental" mean here? I don't understand "It was around this time that a Kleiber became well associated" - "a Kleiber"? "1977 also saw the release" - a sentence shouldn't start with a number, also a year cannot "see" anything This sentence is also too long and should be shortened or broken up "These recordings were more controversial than earlier releases" - why? "until April of 1982" => "until April 1982" "especially from the daring yet successful pick" => "especially for the daring yet successful pick" "Out of the eighteen orchestras he performed with" => "Out of the eighteen orchestras with which he performed" "19 recordings of live performances survive" - again, don't start a sentence with a number "posthumuos documenteries" - both these words are spelt wrong "Addtionally, two posthumuos documenteries on Kleiber were also" - additionally and also mean exactly the same thing, there is no reason to use both I will look at the tables later....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC) All fixed... some very silly mistakes on my part...! Aza24 (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) Comments on the first table "Release" doesn't need a capital in the headers "Lps" should be written as "LPs" Think that's it on that one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC) All done as well Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments on live recordings table

• Official is spelt incorrectly in the heading
• In some cases where there are multiple refs in a cell, they are not in numerical order
• The words "Released as a DVD in 2003" are wikilinked but don't seem to go anywhere.....?
• In one place you use "Released: ?" but in another you use "Released: Unknown" (the latter looks more professional IMO)
• Why are a handful of refs in the first column (eg 51 and 56) whereas all others are in the dedicated refs column
• Think that's it on that one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: The "Released as a DVD in 2003" goes to the first row of the DVD table (which has the recording in question), due to the formatting it may appear that it is going to that table as a whole, but I'm not sure if there's much to do about that. The refs you're referring to in the first column were there as sources for the order of the concerts/recordings, but looking closer they seem unnecessary so I removed them. Everything else is fixed! Aza24 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The "released in 2003" link works for me now - how weird. Anyway.......

Comments on remaining tables

• Video recordings
  • My only query here is that I don't understand how some of these recordings are "not commercially available". If they were not released on video, how are they video recordings? Does it just mean that a performance he conducted was broadcast on TV? To my mind that doesn't make it a "video recording". The BBC televise dozens of performances at Glastonbury each year but I wouldn't expect to see them included as "recordings" in the discographies of the relevant bands.......
• Posthumous Documentaries
  • No need for capital D in the headings
• That's it on the tables

Comments on notes

• Notes b, l and p need full stops
• Conversely notes f and g are not full sentences so don't need full stops
• In notes q and r, "Since the concert begins" should be "Since the concert began", because we are talking about events in the past
• Think that's the lot from me, great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
• @ChrisTheDude: All fixed. My thoughts with the video recordings that aren't commercially available is that they do exist in the Stanford archives (and are available to see there in person), I've added a note to each of them to explain that. The other thing is that since there's such a limited amount in the first place, in my mind there's no reason for them not to be included. Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I still think it's bizarre to include recordings which have never been made available commercially in a discography. Let's see what other reviewers think. By the way, notes s and t say exactly the same thing so could be combined...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Commments from 3family6

I'm seeing several instances of the use of rowspan in the middle of tables. This makes accessibility more difficult for some screenreaders. The merged rows need to be unmerged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@3family6: Thanks for the comments. I'm not seeing this in MOS:DTAB, would you point my towards the right policy? I just want to read it carefully to make sure I can make the appropriate adjustments here. Aza24 (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Izno is the one who has pointed this out to me. There seems to be some new guidance Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial/Internal guidelines#Avoiding rowspan/colspan. According to this, it's not mandatory, but encouraged, to not use rowspan unless necessary.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I've thought about this and as something that is optional I've decided I'm going to keep the rowspans. My thoughts are that without it it makes the table confusing, since performances on the same dates appear as separate ones. With that in mind there are faults to having and not having, but I would rather benefit the larger audience that will have screen readers able to see the rowspan formatting. Aza24 (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

List format

I don't think the way the list is formatted is working very well. This is an over-all comment, not some nit-picking about whether or not completely optional features such as rowspan are used:

• Why split studio & life recordings (& videos, etc) in separate tables? Seems rather something one would like to use for sorting.
• The collapsible sub-tables are imho completely unacceptable, e.g. if the cast of a performance is not used as something according to which one sorts, then what is it doing in the sortable table? I'd make a non-table list of all of Kleiber's opera recordings, and retain, in the table, only the limited part of the recording data that are used for sorting, referring with a link to the full details.
• A separate column for references is completely ridiculous: don't loose space with something that has no use for sorting

Etc... too many problems to name – this accumulated mess, that doesn't appropriately exploit the technologies wiki-editing has in store, should never be a featured list. In other words, a complete makeover is necessary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Francis Schonken I appreciate you taking time to leave some comments. Some of the things you find issue with are standard for featured/discography lists. The split sections for example is part of virtually all FL discographies (Kronos Quartet discography, Isobel Campbell discography, Bryan Adams discography as some random examples, there's some more on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies) and the references in another column is common practice for FLs as well (for example Ray Bradbury Award or List of Most Played Juke Box Folk Records number ones of 1945 which were just promoted last week). As far as the embedded cast tables, I understand your reasoning but don't find much of an issue there myself; it's hard for me to visualize what it would look like with links to an unsortable table below. However, if you would be open to it, maybe you could put a sample of your idea in a sandbox and share it with me? I wonder if perhaps I should insert the information into "custom" notes? Do let me know what your other concerns are, because I would be happy to address them or make the appropriate changes. Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Re. "are standard for..." – Don't care which standards were acceptable in the past: if these are *still* the standard, then these standards need to change. Now. That is: before the formatting of this list is accepted as anything near good enough for a 2020 featured list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Something like this might work (other approaches are possible, just showing that it is possible to present something practical/acceptable):

---

Recordings by Carlos Kleiber

Rec.	Composer: work	Orchestra (choir)	Soloist(s)	Rel.	Co. cat. (medium)	Type
...	...	...	...	...	...	...
1975-10-09– 1975-10-28	Strauss, J. II: Die Fledermaus	Bavarian State Orchestra (& Chorus)	Prey (et al.)	1976	DG 2707 088 (2 LPs)	Studio
				1986	DG 415 646-2 (2 CDs)
...	...	...	...	...	...	...
1978-10-12	Schubert: Symphony No. 3	Chicago Symphony Orchestra	—	1992	Exclusive EX92T21 (CD)	Live
...	...	...	...	...	...	...
1986-05-19	Strauss, J. II: Die Fledermaus (ov.)	Bavarian State Orchestra	—	1986	NHK (TV: 19 July)	Live
...	...	...	...	...	...	...

... section header about works that are presented in a detailed list ...

Die Fledermaus

Die Fledermaus by Johann Strauss II (Libretto by Karl Haffner)

October 1975 studio recording

Recorded

9–14, 28 October, 1975; Munich

Orchestra and choir

Bavarian State Orchestra and Chorus; Chorus Master: Wolfgang Baumgart

Fledermaus Oct. 75 cast

Role	Cast
Gabriel von Eisenstein	Hermann Prey
Rosalinde	Julia Varady
Frank	Benno Kusche
Prince Orlofsky	Iwan Rebroff
Alfred	René Kollo
Max	Bernd Weikl
Dr Blind	Ferry Gruber
Dr Falke	Wolfgang Brendel
Adele	Lucia Popp
Ida	Evi List
Frosch	Franz Muxender
Ivan	Nikolai Lugowoi

Die Fledermaus overture

Recordings of the overture of Die Fledermaus as a stand-alone instrumental piece:

• ...
• 19 May 1986: Japan Tour – Tokyo, Hitomi Memorial Hall.
• ...

Notes and references

References

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC) (updated, as explained below, 16:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC))

Francis Schonken, I like a lot of the ideas you've proposed here and I will work to implement them soon and update you accordingly. However, the standards I've recognized on having sections are present standards, not past ones – the most recent featured list discography (Lecrae discography) was done so this way, as is virtually every featured list discography. The reference column on the other hand I agree with you, I suppose it just takes up unnecessary space. Aza24 (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Re. Lecrae discography: completely different type of artist, and the formatting of that list is also *completely different* from the formatting of the Kleiber list. E.g., date-related info is one column in all tables of the Lecrae discography (and never the first column); in the Kleiber list there are, depending on table, two or three columns that sort by date, a date-related column being the first column in every case (but for some tables a recording date, for others a release date). That is not the same. So please, spare me from the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS justifications: what works for Lecrae does not necessarily work for Kleiber (etc.). It is about presenting the Kleiber material in a layout that is eligible to be called "featured". Not about presenting the best hack-work on mingling a pre-existing table style with content that is not suitable to be presented in the layout that is used as model. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an "Other stuff exists" argument, it's a "Every single other discography does this", if you need examples closer to Kleiber look at Lang Lang discography, Vladimir Horowitz discography or Kronos Quartet discography. What do the other reviewers here (3family6 and ChrisTheDude) think about keeping the separation of "live", "studio" "video" etc., vs combining into a single list? Aza24 (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Still OTHERSTUFFEXISTS all over. I don't say some ideas might be useful, but no, the current format of this list is and remains way below "featured" status as far as I'm concerned. If these were the standards until yesterday, then today they have to change. I've always been an opponent of basing one "featured" page on what was acceptable for a previous one. Standards change all the time, e.g., fairly recently opposition against collapsed content in mainspace has become much stronger (the most obvious templates with which this can be done were recently disabled for mainspace: surprised you found one that still works in mainspace, apparently {{collapse top}}, the documentation of which says "Do not hide content in articles. This violates the Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Scrolling lists and collapsible content and Wikipedia:Accessibility guidelines." Clicking through to such guideline one can read "Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. This includes ... tables ...") than it used to be, so using collapsed content in a new "featured" submission because previous featured pages had it is really going nowhere. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Saying how this article fails to meet featured status multiple times does nothing but create a negative and discouraging environment. I am happy to work with you and already plan to implement many of your suggestions. See below for the rest of my response. Aza24 (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Tried a TV recording in the table above: it would be nice to know if (and if so: when) this was broadcast, a date which could then be used in the "release" column. Again, just some brainstorming ideas: other ways to approach this are possible. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Found the broadcast date (in Barber), added to example table above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Also in my mind, it makes sense to clearly distinguish his 9 studio albums that were meant for releasing, from the live recordings/video recordings of random performances that just happen to exist, often without his permission. Aza24 (talk) 07:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

For Kleiber, in my mind: no. IMHO it makes much more sense to put all of Kleiber's Fledermaus recordings in the same table, *sortable* so that studio/live/video recordings of the same work can be grouped for those who like this to be grouped in this way – someone else might like to see all of Kleiber's Fledermaus recordings grouped to compare analogue recordings with digital ones of the same work. (etc). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is an essay. Either way, I would consider combining live and videos (as they are effectively both "live"), but not studio. A random live recording isn't in the same category as a studio recording rehearsed over many months and putting them in the same table, even with a sortable column, would make them appear that way. The 9 studio recordings have received much more attention and acclaim, and are ones that Kleiber intended to release. However if (with the input of 3family6, ChrisTheDude and hopefully others from the CM project) a consensus exists to combine Studio, live and video I would support it, at the moment I support all separate or combining live and video. Aza24 (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

This is what I meant by exploiting Wikipedia's sort feature for tables: the current list does a very bad job at it. It puts a lot of info in the table that is *not* in any way used for sorting, while something as obvious as grouping all studio recordings (using the sort function) or grouping all recordings of the same work (using the sort function) is simply not implemented. As for the "bootlegs" – the *current* table does a very bad job at making that clear too: so if that is an important distinction for Kleiber's recordings, then it should be explicit in the list, which it currently isn't, and so can't be used as an excuse for bad formatting. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't have an issue with the organization of the list. I'll do a double-check, but it looked fine to me. I agree that this is something different from Lecrae.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, reviewing it again - I don't care either way. If Francis Schonken cares that much about it, that's fine, too.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Francis, I've redone the Studio albums section to see what it looks like, I'm quite happy with the result and I think you might be as well. I will expand to a similar format in the rest of the list over the next few days. I'm concerned that linking to a more detailed section results in two lists – the second of which would be organized by piece, something which is already available with the sortable tables (so redundant in that sense). I've opted to only link to the full cast below. However, both methods, yours and mine, will result in a massive list and one that I don't believe is ideal. Would you have any ideas about how to better conceal the cast? I attempted to put the full cast table in a note but the html doesn't allow such a feat – however, I could put a bulleted cast list in a note instead... I'm unsure how to proceed so any insight would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Better, thanks. Of what follows, only the first remark is quite essential (the others are editorial choices):

1. If cells in a column have content such as

   22 January –
   6 February 1973;
   Leipzig

   then that won't sort right, unless with some help. That help is called sort keys, see Help:Sorting#Specifying a sort key for a cell. Such sort key has to be introduced before the second pipe preceding the cell's content. For the example, the sort key may read:

   data-sort-value="1973-01-22"

   if sorting on date of the start of the recording, or:

   data-sort-value="1973-02-06"

   if sorting on the date the recording was completed (which of those two dates is chosen is an editorial choice). This has to be done with the same method for all cells that have such content that otherwise doesn't sort right.
2. I'm not totally convinced the recording venue is best given in the table (now appended to the content of the cells in the first column)
3. I'd definitely keep names of libretto authors out of the table. As far as I'm concerned this should not even be given anywhere in this discography list: all of these vocal works have a wikilink where mentioned, and a reader interested in knowing who wrote the libretto can click through to the page on the vocal work. But as such, it is quite unrelated to the conductor's discography. For me, for example, I'd think the date of the composition (i.e., placing the composition somewhere in the style evolutions of Western music that took place over time) would be more essential for this discography (i.e. knowing which kind of repertoire Kleiber was most comfortable with, and which kind of repertoire he chose only exceptionally) than libretto authors. Surely, Kleiber did not choose which works he was going to conduct because of who wrote the libretto. But he, apparently, broadly chose works from the 19th century, something like pre-romantic to pre-modern, but for instance, only exceptionally works from an earlier or later repertoire.
4. There's something wrong with row heights vs column widths: every row is three, or sometimes four, lines high, while for most columns (on my screen) the content is only one or two lines high. Especially the "Soloist(s)" column seems way too wide for the content, on average, contained in it.

Not commenting on merging the studio/live/video (etc) sections in one table yet again: I want to see where this is going first. Likely, though, I'd stick to that as something I'd see as an "essential" rearrangement needed for me to support the FL nomination. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Trying to reply to some of your questions. Let me say first that I have no "comprehensive" answer to them, while much of this depends on editor choice. I'd never oppose a FL nomination that is based on sound and defensible choices, even if I'd have chosen widely different if I had been the main editor of the list. Some points:

• Are you sticking to the table format for the casts? Something like this would, of course, be possible too:

• Hermann Prey (as Gabriel von Eisenstein)
• Julia Varady (as Rosalinde)
• Benno Kusche (as Frank)
• Iwan Rebroff (as Prince Orlofsky)
• René Kollo (as Alfred)
• Bernd Weikl (as Max)
• Ferry Gruber (as Dr Blind)
• Wolfgang Brendel (as Dr Falke)
• Lucia Popp (as Adele)
• Evi List (as Ida)
• Franz Muxender (as Frosch)
• Nikolai Lugowoi (as Ivan)

...could even be put between "small" tags and/or moved back to the main table.

• For my next suggestion, which, as you will see, goes in a completely different direction, I'd suggest you first take a thorough look at Wikipedia:Content forking#List formats (disclosure: I initiated that piece of guidance). If, as is confirmed in some suggestions by others above, and also in that piece of guidance, certain browsers and/or screen readers may have issues with Wikipedia table formatting, and if, per that guidance, it is even allowed to have two separate pages with the same content (one as a sortable table, the other as a bullet list) as an exception to normal content forking rules, then it is surely allowed to present the same (or similar) content in both formats on the same page. One should have no qualms about that. Furthermore, if looking at the two main external sources giving a comprehensive listing of Kleiber recordings, then the first (Barber) lists by "Type", and then collates by composer within the by type list, and the other, the Kleiber website, has separate pages by composer (which is the main subdivision of this listing), and then chronological (by recording date) for each of these pages. Wikipedia's table technology makes possible to reproduce both of these collation schemes, appearing in reference literature, by a diligent use of the sort function. If it is an editor's choice *not* to use such multilayered sorting schemes in a single table, then, for instance, sortable tables can be used to reproduce Barber's scheme (as it is now), and a bullet list (accessible by all screen readers) reproducing the collation scheme of the Japanese website. If you don't believe that this "double listing" happens in Wikipedia, I can point you to some examples (but am not doing that yet, while such examples would hardly be suitable for blunt imitation in the Kleiber list, so just ask if you don't believe me).
• Further (taking another direction again), did you know that it is technically possible to have section and subsection headers, complete with [edit] button, within a sortable table? This can also be a way to unite benefits of a "big" sortable table with those of a structure with section titles appearing in the TOC. Again I'd point you to some examples if you don't believe me, but none of these are, afaik, suitable for blunt imitation in the Kleiber list (this kind of formatting is over-all somewhat tricky, so needs a lot of diligent choices to make it workable).

So... options enough, just make a sensible choice, please, tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC) (third bullet added 09:22, 27 October 2020)

Plenty of options! And thanks for them of course. I'm leaning towards something like your flat list for the casts rather then mini-tables... I've removed the librettists' names (not sure why I had them in the first place) and will think about the recording locations. The row/column issues don't occur on my screen but I think I may know why they occur on yours and will mess around with it later to try and solve it. And yes I've been meaning to set the dates so they sort correctly, but was not aware of that help link, so thanks – that should help. Aza24 (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Building on earlier suggestions

Proposing some tweaks (mainly layout tweaks; some of the tweaks, such as sort keys, are only visible in edit mode):

Recordings by Carlos Kleiber

Recording	Composer: Work	Orchestra (chorus: chorus master)	Soloist (role)	Release(s)
				Yr.	Label Cat (Medium)
Studio recordings
...	...	...	...	...	...
9–14, 28 October 1975; Munich	Strauss II: Die Fledermaus	Bavarian State Orchestra (& Chorus: Wolfgang Baumgart)	Hermann Prey (Gabriel von Eisenstein) Julia Varady (Rosalinde) Benno Kusche (Frank) Iwan Rebroff (Prince Orlofsky) René Kollo (Alfred) Bernd Weikl (Max) Ferry Gruber (Dr Blind) Wolfgang Brendel (Dr Falke) Lucia Popp (Adele) Evi List (Ida) Franz Muxender (Frosch) Nikolai Lugowoi (Ivan)	1976	DG 2707 088 (2 LPs)
				1986	DG 415 646-2 (2 CDs)
...	...	...	...	...	...
Live audio recordings
...	...	...	...	...	...

References

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• The updated proposal now also illustrates how "(sub)section titles within a table" (see suggestion above) work.
• I've encountered some issues with referencing, including plain errors, original research and malformed cite template usage (see updates to the Gramophone reference in the above table example, as opposed to how the same ref displays in the previous "Recordings of Carlos Kleiber" table example higher on this page). I suggest that a full check-up on all references be conducted. IMHO, a FLC should not be accepted with serious referencing issues, at least not with referencing issues that would fall short of core content policies such as WP:V and WP:OR.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Francis, I'm wording what you think of the state of the list now? Aza24 (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Was following the updates (via watchlist) – seeing major improvements. A question: I saw, that on one point you experimented with the section-titles-in-table format, but then, later, stepped away from it again. What were your major issues with the format (I said it was somewhat tricky, I'd be happy to hear about your experience)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes well I tried it out, but I realized that combining all three sections means they all have to share one column name, which created an issue between the "recording" column of Studio vs "date" of the Live ones. I don't know – I mean I suppose they could both probably be "date" – but the main hesitation I'm having with combining studio and live now is that there's so much more written about the studio ones, it seems weird to group them together with a random recording from Teatro Juárez (Guanajuato) for example. Aza24 (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Since no official (even no unofficial) disc releases seem to exist (afaics whatever recordings may have been made at that concert they are also not listed in Hirasawa's discography) – why keep these in the main list? It would make more sense to list these separately, that is, keep everything that has been released on disc in a list of disc releases, and the bootlegs in a separate list (maybe not even as a table as this is really some far-fetched info to present in a discography list). Compare bibliography lists of an author: there too it is often the case that books and articles in periodicals are in separate lists (a writing published in, say, a newspaper or magazine also not "strictly" being a bibliographical publication). I don't think the big distinction is studio vs live, but recordings made in circumstances that made a digital (re)mastering, by professionals, result in a meaningful commercial product, as opposed to something recorded from a radio transmission or some such without any professional studio or label seeing anything that could under reasonable circumstances be commercialised as a Kleiber recording. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really sure such a format would help the reader, since the divide between studio and live is very similar (in the case of this list) to the divide between official and bootleg. The only exception to this seems to be some of the video recordings which were published by DG or Phillips – but it seems like studio recordings more or less fall under your category of being a commercial product, hence retaining that divide. Aza24 (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Nah, as said, that is not the distinction of the Hirasawa listing. I can not support this FL candidacy as long as I can't see the recordings that are grouped at, for instance, http://www.thrsw.com/ckdisc/strauss_johannjr_1825_1899_/ also being grouped in the Wikipedia list. I'll be working on the list soon, but will give you some time first to withdraw the FLC. Thanks for your efforts, you made great improvements, but, in my assessment, not resulting in a FL thus far. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not really following, are you saying that every single release should be on the list? I'm confused what your objection is here. If it's combining studio and live – I mean, I'm not as against that I was before so I would be happy to. Aza24 (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

No, all recordings which at some point in time were digitally sampled, and then commercially released, in one list, and the few that weren't in another (not necessarily sortable) part of the list. Regarding what I want to see grouped, giving the Hirasawa page as an example, should also be clear enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Or, the distinction made here (if you don't understand the German I'd be ready to translate), i.e., if not "released", not in the main list (& bootlegs listed separately). That would work for me too – this list of Kleiber's recordings lists "video" releases separately from "audio" releases, and, within these categories groups by type of work (opera/symphonic/mixed programs) and within these subgroups alphabetically by composer (i.e., no separate lists for studio and live recordings – if you want to keep these distinctions, following Barber, I'm OK with that, but two other representative lists of Kleiber recordings don't make separate lists according to that criterion, thus with whatever Wiki technique, also do what more than one other list does: allow or display grouping by composer across the studio/live distinction). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

So what you're saying is there should be.a clear division between private and commercial recordings? I'll see what I can do... I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep telling me to withdrawal, rather than just explaining the issue. Aza24 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. Not at all. Frankly, for me, this is getting too tiring. I'd rather you retract your FL candidacy, it will cost me less time to improve the article than explain & list all options. And then explain them all over again, and add a few more. And then arriving at a situation where even the simplest things about what should be a minimum are still not understood. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it is the bootleg concept (for instance, the German discography refers to it too) – not all private recordings are necessarily bootlegs, but I don't see a clear distinction between bootlegs and other recordings in the list. This seems, however, a significant distinction when talking about Kleiber's discography. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

There are no bootleg recordings. They're either private/commercial, studio/live and audio/video. I have now combined the studio into the rest to make sorting by composer optimal, and added a color scheme (that sorts properly too) to make the the private/commercial recordings divide clear. Aza24 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Above I linked to the introduction Alexander Werner gives to the discography section of his Kleiber biography. Werner lists bootlegs in a separate section of the list. If you don't understand German, I'd be happy to translate (I already said so above), but bootlegs there are, evidently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see, yes, I have access to that book now and agree the best option is to withdrawal and renominate when I clarify the bootlegs. I see that you said earlier you were willing to work on the list, help would be appreciated but I would ask that you not alter the list in any dramatic ways without discussing first, since I still plan to work on it as well and would like to renominate it myself. @WP:FLC director and delegates: I'd like to withdrawal this nomination. Aza24 (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.