Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 73

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

→

Archive 80

Re: Draft:Nicholas Laucella - Request Administrator/eDITOR Review and Move to Main Page

Cioa Fellow Wikipedians - If an Administrator/Editor could review Draft:Nicholas Laucella and assist its move to the main page I would be grateful. Draft:Nicholas Laucella was the Prncipal Flautist with the New York Philharmonic in the early 1900's under Gustav Mahler as well as the Principal Flautist for several decades with the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra in New York City (at the Old Met), where he accompanied several leading baritones including Giuseppe De Luca and Lawrence Tibbett. In addition, he composed several orchestral works which were premiered by the Philharmonic as well as a four act opera. Several of his recordings from the 1920's have been designated as historically significant and are accessible online at the Library of Congress (seee links in the article). Since the article is well referenced with quality sources (including the archives of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra) it appears ready for a move to the main page. Many thanks in advance for your thoughtful and kind assistance -- enjoy the music. Respectfully yours 2620:65:8000:A203:E9A8:AC63:64C2:AE1C (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)GCU

Well done! I've tweaked it a bit moved it to article space. I've also added a couple of sources that you could use to flesh it out on the talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Needing opinion

Dear fellow members of this wikiproject, I started a draft in a request for article creation on your to-do list. I will humbly ask you to tell me your opinion about it (this is it). I haven't finished it yet. You are free to tell me your opinion and your ideas about it. I await your opinion, Enivak (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the beginning! I made some copy-edits, and hope for more about the music. I clarified that "flute" means flauto traverso, - the genral flute is pretty useless for classical music. The title will not be "Sonata in A minor for Solo Flute, Wq. 132, H 562" but what else? Sonata for Solo Flute (C. P. E. Bach). Or did he write more than one to have an article? - The client paragraph is too complicated, but I have no more time right now. For "advice", perhaps look at similar articles, such as Magnificat (C. P. E. Bach) and 12 Fantasias for Viola da Gamba (Telemann). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! About the title, CPE Bach wrote much sonatas, not only this. I of course will welcome all future contributions you want to do to the article. Best regards, Enivak (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

CPE Bach wrote many more flute sonatas, including another one in A minor, - the question is: will any of those get an article here, ever, or not. If yes, then Sonata for Solo Flute, H. 562, because then we need the catalogue number to differentiate the two in the same key. Or are the other normal flute sonatas, not "solo flute", - then we could again use just the composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

About the notability: This sonata is one of the few of it's kind in it's century,so it is worth of an small article. About the title: Another editor had sended me a link in CPE Bach's compositions, and the most sonatas are noted with Wq. If we must decide wich of the 2 we will use, i would wave the opinion of selecting Wq, for that reason, but i am not completely sure. About using only the composer's name, then there will be no differentiation between this and the other sonata in A minor. I await your reply, Enivak (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello there

Hello, I have been working on a draft of an Indian pianist: Milen Manoj Earath. I would be grateful if someone specializing in this field from around here takes a look at it and possibly even re-review it? Thank you, Yours Sincerely, - Refluxdonut (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Link? - kosboot (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Milen Manoj Earath. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I feel the article is a combination of WP:SOCK and WP:NOTABILITY. But as I attended a discussion yesterday where it was mentioned that there's too much Deletionism on WP, I'll pass on this one. (It was suggested there be a place where deleted articles could live until they could be improved, if ever.) - kosboot (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I am a new user and I don't know, but from a first view it seems relatively good, although little small. Enivak (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for writing. Regarding WP:SOCK, this draft's sole 'creater' is me, Refluxdonut. It's just that 4 times I forgot to login and then made the edits. My IP address, which is displayed in the edit history is (95.46.136.18). All the other accounts are editors who have been kind enough to help me continuously improve this draft. Initially there was an "Achievements" section which caused problems in terms of tone and possible promotion of the subject. Therefore, editors advised me to merge the section into the biography, making it compact, yet complete. It would be great if someone here specializing in this field re-reviews/gives feedback about my draft. Thanking you, Refluxdonut (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I've gone back and looked through some of the sources. The first source is merely a pdf of a word document without any indication that is an official publication. Since anyone could have created such a document, I believe that is unacceptable as a source; references to it should be found in other documents or deleted. The rest of the documents appear to be official publications and I believe they're acceptable. I agree with the comments that the WP:TONE is promotional rather than informational. - kosboot (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable advice. I just fixed the issue with the pdf reference. Regarding the tone, how would you suggest me to make the draft sound more factual than promotional ? Sincerely, Refluxdonut (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Subject's 'achievements' are nothing particularly out of the ordinary for talented 17 year old pianists (of whom the world has plenty) and none of the awards he is mentioned for meet WP:NOTABILITY imo (no secondary sources). No recordings, broadcasts. Lists his taking of standard piano exams as if that was something special. Seems to think a 90-minute solo recital is exceptional. Etc. etc. So if it were to go live I'd be inclined to nominated for deletion. I see that Refluxdonut declares an interest in this article on their home page, but doesn't make it clear what that interest is (but I suppose we can guess).--Smerus (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I do agree that the world has tons of 17 year old talented, gifted pianists. Nothing arguable there. Regarding recordings, the prominent modern pianists and I list: Mitsuko Uchida, Guido Agosti, Vladimir Ashkenazy, Sergei Babayan, Umi Garett, Freddy Kempf, Evgeny Kissin etc etc. don't mention 'recordings' in their articles. Regarding broadcasts: the subject was featured on Doordarshan, Broadcasting television network founded by the Government of India. He was given a 30- minute time slot which in fact is given only to prominent musical artists of India. If you search on YouTube you shall find his interviews on various media from India as well as those from abroad, eg. Germany.

About the piano exams: I agree these are standard piano exams available for everyone. But I would like you to name one pianist who had completed all the 8 grades in a span less than 1.5 years and then the three higher diplomas, ATCL, LTCL and FTCL (equivalent in standard to a postgraduate course at a conservatoire or university) by an age less than 14, the whole course in less than 4.5 years...? I'll wait. The 90 minute solo recital: I don't believe that sentence is meant to be perceived that way. It just states the first large scale solo recital; 90 minutes explaining the term 'large scale'. Nothing exceptional for a 17 year old pianist.

Appreciate your concern,

Refluxdonut (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

P.S the National Child Award is one of the highest recognition a child could get in India. If you think there was nothing special to be found in his achievements, why would the Ministry of Women and Child Welfare of India nominate him as an awardee for this prestigious award? Which is awarded by the President of India himself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refluxdonut (talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Smerus. Maybe it's a American issue, but we don't have any "exams" for being a musicians beyond the exams one takes in school which every student must take. In addition to the regular WP:NOTABILITY page you might want to read the one specific to music. Even though it's biased toward popular music, it does present expectations of what a player's notability should be: WP:NM. - kosboot (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

For your information, these standard exams, do exist in the United States too. If not just Trinity's, there also exists ABRSM, USMCE etc etc following a very similar grading system. Are you saying that one of the greatest American pianists of all time like Murray Perahia is on par with anyone who had taken exams in a music school? One of the key features that distinguishes such pianists is that they had studied in universities of higher education in music, rather than just 'exams one takes in school which every student must take'. The exams are 'recital diplomas' as indicated by TCL (exams refer to those from grades 1-8). These are equivalent to the diplomas taken by students in higher Universities of Music worldwide and in US, eg. Curtis Institute of Music; and are much higher in level than those mentioned by you. I suggest you take a look at this link here: [1]. Furthermore, these "exams" are present in the draft in the 'education' part. I see no reason as to why it shouldn't be there. Refluxdonut (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As I said we have exams that *every* student who wants to graduate from a school needs to take. But that's the point; the exams are not important at all. There are even cases where a students gets a recital debut at Carnegie Hall (never the main hall, usually Weill Recital Hall, the least of the 3 halls in the building). In the 1940s and 1950s, the New York Times would review some of these; nowadays it almost never does because these recitals are more like rentals and are not produced by Carnegie Hall. Again, I suggest you actually read the page at WP:NM. I suggest you post your article to your sandbox and wait a few years to see if the guy becomes anything. - kosboot (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, the exams by themselves are not important at all. What brings them up here is the way the subject passed these exams, which is not observed often. The National Child Award was awarded to him from the President primarily because he was the youngest Indian to complete FTCL. I believe, this makes the diplomas worth mentioning as it distinguishes him from the crowd. Regarding the solo debut, NCPA India unlike the Carnegie Hall, doesn't host rentals. Its a platform where only the finest selected musicians like Zakir Hussain perform. If you research you may find that NCPA has not yet given a 90 minute time slot to a pianist of his age. I believe that is also worth mentioning. Refluxdonut (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Refluxdonut that most of the article is not notable. There's many classical musicians biographies on here and the vast majority having a couple sentences dedicated to their early educations, the one you propose is mostly that and nothing else. I think it's too soon for an article about him. oncamera 16:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Richard Nanes

I recently stumbled across this curious article which has had a notability tag for a decade. The article is about a so called amateur composer and pianist from New Jersey. But the artist in question was a resident composer at a cathedral and had compositions of his recorded by the London Philharmonic Orchestra, and has had a review published (not a good one) in The New York Timesand a brief but more agreeable review in the Los Angeles Times. It's kind of borderline notability in my opinion, and with some professional achievements the term amateur is questionable. It would be great to get some clean up on this article, or, if others think it warrants one, taking it to AFD.4meter4 (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Update, I also found on Amazon a recording of his Fourth Symphony by the Moscow Philharmonic. All of his recordings were made by the Delfon Recording Society. I'm not sure what that is, but it's obviously some sort of small independent label (perhaps his own?) 4meter4 (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd not heard of him, either, but his Worldcat Identities entry shows a fairly large number of libraries holding copies of or recordings of his works ("62 works in 134 publications in 1 language and 899 library holdings").

Delphon may indeed be his own label; discogs.com lists only 16 Delphon releases, all of them of Nanes's work. TJRC (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

As the talk page notes, his French Wikipedia article was deleted; here's a Google Translate of the deletion discussion. TJRC (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd say AfD. When you peel back the vanity publications, there are only two independent sources and they both essentially just say he's bad at it. And without checking myself, the frWP deletion discussion claims he's known for paying for recordings and performances, so the recordings by the two known orchestras must essentially be seen as paid promotion not independent significance. There is some precedence for being bad at something conferring notability, and the same for being exceptionally agressive in self-promotion, but at that point we're in the sort of murky gray area that AfD is the best venue to resolve. --Xover (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Evidently a self-puffer, I would support a deletion at AfD.Smerus (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I read the article, and would agree that Mr Nanes has probably not made a significant contribution to music. But as I read the article, I learn something; anyone would ran into his name somewhere would look for more information at WP, and it is there, written and sourced. Not too much, but you know more after reading it than you did before. Meanwhile I see articles like Twitter marketing, whose entire function is to inform us that "Twitter marketing" is the use of Twitter for marketing. These articles can't be deleted, if only because the rescue squad has arrived, and everyone knows that Twitter is an important constituent of modern civilisation. If you are looking at Digital marketing and click a link to Twitter marketing you find it tells you less than you already knew. But I simply cannot see how the world would be improved by deleting this article. (Actually, I think "notability" in any normal sense is clearly established by a review in the NYT.) Imaginatorium (talk) 10:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

As I look more in-depth into this I am increasingly uncertain about what to do. While it's clear he was promoting himself shamelessly, he has had some legitimate achievements. His work was programmed by the Pacific Symphony in 1985 as a part of their season which is a professional achievement, and did receive a very brief mention in this review: Chris Pasles (April 7, 1986). "Music Review: Clark Leads Symphony In Taut, Lean Program". Los Angeles Times.. He also attracted enough attention to have his work reviewed by The New York Times music critic, even if the review was bad. He also presented and performed his work at the Kharkiv Festival in the Ukraine with the Kharkiv Festival Orchestra, which apparently was filmed and broadcast on public television in Kentucky [2]. This bio indicates that their may be other professional achievements that may make him notable. The issue here, is that it's difficult to parse out where self puffery has inflated his achievements to appear better then they really are, and where legitimate professional achievements can truly be verified. Further, if his works are commercially available and have been recorded by famous and notable ensembles (even if not on a major record label), it does lend some notability. 4meter4 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I decided to take it to AFD to see how things shake out. Feel free to comment there: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Nanes.4meter4 (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Renaming categories

[3]

Hello, I hope this is the place to attract the attention of established editors with an interest in classical music. I noticed a proposal to rename a lot of categories relating to classical music at the above address, but when I commented I was told my opinion didn't count because I was using an IP address. Please, I ask you to look at the proposal and express your opinion, whether you agree or disagree! --188.30.128.39 (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This proposal now seems to have been overturned. I don't know if that was due to anyone seeing my post here, but if it was, thank you! --188.30.128.39 (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It's also a good opportunity to register a username. IP addresses are usually very suspect because of vandalism. By registering a username it becomes easier to communicate with you. - kosboot (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A string quartet and the String Quartet

I just did a copy edit on Gabriel Fauré, and noticed a rather erratic variation in the capitalisation of generic work titles. Specifically, we have "Fauré wrote a string quartet, which was Fauré's String Quartet". So an indefinite noun phrase (with an indefinite article) gets capitalised differently from a definite noun phrase) with a possessive pronoun. Is this really intentional? Imaginatorium (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is intentional, but should probably not clash like that. It's the same a with professions. Someone can be a pope (king, profesor ...), but if referring to a specific one, it's Pope Paul V, King ... - someone is a composer of symphonies, but wrote Symphony No. 8. - So: please change the wording in that article, to "... wrote his String Quartet ...". We will not need a link to string quartet, because if readers really doen't know what that is, they can be sure to find a link in the specific article (I hope). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

AFD

An editor is creating articles on Frederica Von Stade's entire discography [4]. I have AfDed them all, as they all fail all of the criteria of WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings. -- Softlavender (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Notability of recordings should be rethought

I confess I am a bit confused about how this essay got created, and why it's being used as some sort of authority in AFDs without consensus from the wider community. It seems to me that it is raising a bar for notability beyond what's reasonable, and certainly way beyond the standard of inclusion for other recordings in any other genre of music. It flies in the face of WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Why should classical music be held to a different standard? If a recorded opera wins a Grammy Award, shouldn't that recording be notable on the basis of winning the most prestigious award given in recorded music? Raising the bar to three major awards given to recordings, an achievement almost never likely to occur in a field with few awards given to classical music, seems to be prohibitive to articles being created on any recordings. I strongly urge this project to rethink about the requirements specific to recordings, and consider what benefit it gives to the encyclopedia to cover albums in every other genre of music but this one. To my mind it creates a strangely biased system with an odd gap in coverage.4meter4 (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and tagged the policy for NPOV concerns and started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#NPOV Problems with recording guideline.4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Well let's take a random (just the one I happened to click on) page from this set under discussion -- Otello (López Cobos recording). Look at the page. The 'background', 'recording' and 'packaging' sections are pointless. The tracklist is...well....just the opera. The release history kinda falls under WP:NOT somewhere. So all you're left with is a page whose only real info is reviews. Not exactly something that should be an article. Almost all classical albums that are recordings of anything that's not some manner work written specifcally for an album would have these issues. To put it a different way -- Otello is oviously notable, and there certainly should be mention of its various recordings (and even mentioning in such a list if something won a Grammy or whatever is great)....but this individual one? It's pointless. I remember a similar thing happened with, IIRC, some recordings by Hillary Hahn. They ended being nuked from orbit. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This was the first recording of Rossini's Otello, an opera not often performed or recorded. That confers some notability. As for the meat of the article: recordings of classical music only have their reviews going for them – that's what makes them. This one was reviewed in major publications by reputable authors. That's what's required by WP:NALBUM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• 4meter4, some background to the addition of this guideline... It was added eight years ago on 1 November 2011 and made even more stringent three weeks later. It followed this discussion. IMO, it was completely out of line then and still is now, as I've said at the new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#NPOV Problems with recording guideline. Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Louis Chamber Chorus

I would appreciate any opinions at this AFD, whatever they may be.4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Thomas Roberts

Opinions would be welcome here. Whatever they may be.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Brahms's

I draw editors' attention to this discussion, to which of course all comments are invited.--Smerus (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I draw editor's attention to the further extension of this discussion by an editor who disputes the authority of WP:MOS.-- Smerus (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be editors'? Ha ha. Sorry. :) Antandrus (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

*Editors's. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• But it drew your attention! :-)--Smerus (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the fun, - as long as we go by the MoS, we have not even a choice. Why discuss? Probably takes 50 editors to get that message through, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

49. At least one has given up and walked off. DBaK (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoltán Arany

Comments would be welcome at this discussion.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

AfD – Vilmos Tátrai

AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vilmos Tátrai. Voceditenore (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Renaming categories

On 1 September I posted here drawing attention to a proposal to rename a lot of categories relating to classical music. My post is now archived here. The proposal to rename the categories was rejected at the time, but it has now been made again, so I would encourage anyone to express an interest here. Thank you! --188.28.84.222 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Issues at Talk:List of compositions by Claude Debussy

Would love some input on the pair of issues brought up about this list. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

MoS

Is Missa 1733 a generic title, or not, then Missa 1733. I read the MoS, but am not sure. I am sure that Missa in B minor would be generic, and that Missa angelica not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Italics has this example:

• Symphony No. 2 by Gustav Mahler, known as the Resurrection Symphony ... (generic vs. non-generic name)

Modified for the BWV 232 I (early version) situation the example could as well read like this:

• ... 1733 version of Missa, BWV 232 I ... also referred to as Missa 1733 ... (generic vs. non-generic name)

(the layout was copied as is in the 3rd paragraph of the intro of that article). I hope that answers your question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It does, thank you. That's what I thought, even. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Table at List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach

I posted a proposal to revamp the huge table of List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach at Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Size reduction proposal, and would like input on that: please post your comments at Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Discussion (Size reduction proposal). Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

After discussion of the first proposal, added a second one: Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Size reduction proposal 2 (without NBA), currently open for discussion (there, not here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a heads up

I'm not a member. I came across this post and added my comment, then went to look at the article and the changes, which made no sense to me because I'm not familiar with these type of articles, but what did catch my eye was the TOC, which frankly looks like shit, compared to what it looked like before the changes, so I thought someone from the project should have a look. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the first link isn't what you mean to link? But regardless, yeah the new TOC is horrible. Horrible layout changes seem to be part and pacel for this user -- who, by the way, is pretty clearly an alternate account of User:Chuckstreet. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok so, Chuckstreet/Barneyfiver has now been blocked, so hopefully we can fix his messes now. List of compositions by Johannes Brahms also has a wacky TOC, as well as uppercase headers --- personally I feel there's no reason there needs to be separate sections in these lists -- why need them in a sortable table which pretty much makes them pointless. List of compositions by Edvard Grieg is a good example of one done right IMO. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I generally don't have eyesight problems, but the dark shading in List of compositions by Johannes Brahms makes it almost unreadable. - kosboot (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to carry out some clearing up of the Brahms list as regards format, but as an article it has many shortcomings, in particular the notes which are without citations and sometimes appear WP:OR. Also, after my cleanup attempt, an editor thought fit to revert it to the previous stylistic chaos (I've re-reverted). I've set out a note on the article's talk page. I agree with ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ thatt he Grieg list would be a good model to move towards. The Liszt list also needs a thorough revamp, but as all the Liszt articles on WP are utterly useless my heart sinks at the prospect of ever getting them right. --- Smerus (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that the Grieg list looks exemplary: the intro is deficient, doesn't really explain which catalogue is followed, and its single reference seems to be a deadlink. As for the so-called "Genre" column: "Piano" is not a genre, neither are Hardanger fiddle, nor are "Choral" or "Orchestral" – one needs more than a vague indication of scoring to define a genre (concerto and symphony are genres, and "piano piece" is a different genre than "piano sonata"). The reference to the actual catalogue on which the entire list should be based is only found in six rows, entirely at the bottom of the table. The reference to that catalogue is given without ISBN, which makes it an incomplete reference. That are only the most immediately apparent problems with that list. I suppose such very apparent deficiencies can be repaired, but the list shouldn't be called exemplary until it is. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• It may indeed not be exemplary, but it's a sight better than the Brahms list! As the Brahms list is reconfigured, Francis's points should of course be taken into account.--- Smerus (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Also layout-wise there are some issues with the Grieg list: the "Norwegian title" column is less wide than the "Notes" column, nonetheless cells in the first of these often push rows to excessive hight, far more often than cells in the latter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Addressed some (not all!) of the issues in this edit --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think making the catalog numbers squished like that is better, but then again you're the one who somehow thinking eyeball gouging colors are a good thing. I never said it was "exemplary" anyway. But let's talk on that page about it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The Grieg list should, imho, not be used as an example for other composer lists. Period. The layout of it is far too defective to call it anything near exemplary for *any* other composer list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Again Francis Schonken showing he actually never bothers to read what anyone else is actually saying and somehow thinks he's in his own little world. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Above someone said "List of compositions by Edvard Grieg is a good example of one done right ...", I contradict that: my opinion is completely opposite, and I explained why (if you care to read). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

By Footpath and Stile

If anyone can add anything into the 84 year gap in the history of Finzi's song cycle By Footpath and Stile, it would be appreciated. Narky Blert (talk) 08:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

My thanks to those who responded. I consider this request  Done Narky Blert (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

See Talk:Nun liebe Seel, nun ist es Zeit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

External links to MuseScore

Yesterday external links to scores on the MuseScore project were added to Richard Wagner (multiple times) and multiple other composer articles (a couple now reverted). Discussion on their appropriateness at Talk:Richard Wagner#External link to MuseScore. Voceditenore (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Luc Grethen at AfD

Luxembourg contemporary classical composer born 1964. Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luc Grethen. Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Roman Academies#Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia

This section came to my attention because of a {{disambiguation needed}} tag which has been hanging around since May 2019. 'Fede' is not the easiest Italian word to search; suffice it to say, that I have not been able to find anything about this pair of singers. Neither appears to have an article in either English or Italian WP. A Google search for 'Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia fede' turned up nothing.

I looked more deeply into the section. After adding Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia as a {{main}} article, it quickly became apparent that this section and that article could almost be talking about two completely different organisations. As the very first point, the section says that the Accademia was founded in 1583 on the order of Gregory XIII, whereas both the English and the Italian articles say that it was founded in 1585 on the order of Sixtus V. Either is possible: Sixtus succeeded Gregory in 1585. However, the Accademia's website says 1585. That is by no means the only difference. The sourcing of both articles is poor.

The redlinked Ettore Finelli is another shadowy figure. He does not appear in Italian WP. The Accademia's website says that he taught violin there, but I have found nothing else of significance about him. However, that fact suggests that the section is based on some source or other: his name was not taken from thin air.

I am thinking that the whole section may need to be scrapped and rewritten. Insights from others would be welcome. Narky Blert (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, a couple of starts on this...

The "brothers Fede" refers to Francesco Maria Fede and Giuseppe Fede (both castrati) who were active in Rome during the second half of the 17th century and indeed celebrated singers. See this entry in the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. They are definitely article-worthy.

There's not much about Ettore Finelli, apart from a mention in the entry for "Regia Accademia di Santa Cecilia" in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and a notice about him playing in a benefit concert in Rome in 1880 here in the Gazzetta ufficiale del regno d'Italia. I'd suggest taking the red link off him.

The current WP article section, looks to have been copied almost verbatim from Catholic Encyclopedia which can be error-prone. It's probably better to give that section a good re-write using modern scholarly sources and the history page on the official website.

Hope that helps. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Thanks!

Francisco Fede too has a sizeable article in Treccani, and that's good enough for me: both brothers sail through WP:ANYBIO. Even better, both articles mention Congregazione dei Musici di S. Cecilia. (I had googled for 'Fede castrato' without success; the results were full of clutter.)

I too had found that Gazzetta ufficiale entry, but it didn't exactly seem to add much. I agree, unlink.

Good find, "almost verbatim" is putting it mildly. At least the 1913 CE is out of copyright. I too have found reasons to distrust that edition.

For factual info, I'm prepared to accept what the Accademia say about their early history. We aren't trying to prove WP:N here; I'd be ready to argue, though, that an institution extablished by a papal bull has a fair chance of passing that test. Narky Blert (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia has much more than "a fair chance of passing" the notabiity test. It is a renowned institution, a word one can't use in an article, but true nevertheless . The main article needs a lot of improvement though, especially with referencing and organizarion Voceditenore (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I did have my tongue in my cheek. WP could certainly say that the orchestra is famous (WP:RS, IMO). Narky Blert (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Winterreise — minor edit issue

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterreise text shows “Both were originally written for tenor voice but are frequently transposedto other vocal ranges, a precedent set by Schubert himself.“ I can’t fix the “transposedto” collision. Thanks. Jo3sampl (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. It may not be rendering properly on your end. Jmar67 (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

CFD: Proposed renaming of 1,342 "Compositions" categories to "Musical compositions"

I have proposed renaming 1,342 sub-categories of Category:Musical compositions to use form phrase "musical compositions" instead of the single word "compositions".

This would mean that for example:

• Category:Compositions by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov → Category:Musical compositions by Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
• Category:18th-century compositions → Category:18th-century musical compositions
• Category:1896 compositions to Category:1896 musical compositions

The full list of proposed renamings is at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical_compositions.

The discussion is at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical_compositions, where your input would be welcome. Please don't leave comments here, because the closer of the CFD debate won't see comments here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Brass bands

Hi everyone, I have a proposal open to see about creating a WikiProject for brass bands, similar to the inactive marching band project (but active). I know there may be some crossover in players and fans here, so I'd appreciate any input on the discussion and future help. Thanks! PotentPotables (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Fanny Mendelssohn/Fanny Hensel name change?

An informal discussion, perhaps a prequel to a formal name-change proposal, is taking place here on whether the article should be under the subject's married or maiden name.--Smerus (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Fanny Mendelssohn infobox

Ands there is also now a discussion about adding an infobox to the article.--Smerus (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move Große Fuge to Grosse Fuge.

See discussion here. --Smerus (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Category names

Setting up a guidance proposal about category names, after a recently concluded WP:CfD, that seemed to indicate such guidance would be welcome to avoid CfD timesinks. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#Category naming conventions: please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Harv warning

I'm obviously missing something here, but why do so many articles carry in their sources, in bols brown letters, "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREF[xxxxx]" ? And how to tidy them up? Sorry to be so dim. --Smerus (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

It often happens when a citation is declared but not used. If that is caused by {{citation}}, you can use {{cite book}} (or whatever it is). If it's caused by defining a harv ref, just remove it. Easiest: use the citation. Some templates come with it, such as citing biographies from Wikisource: use them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

For Vasily Kalinnikov, there are two Russian sources, which I can't read, so can't apply them. The English source: I don't know what that would support. Source "Anon|2006" is called properly, however in a style I'm not familiar with. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources are mostly fan sites (unacceptable). If I had time I'll use Grove to improve. - kosboot (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Smerus: I'm pretty sure you see those messages because you use User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js in your common.js. I use the same gadget, and I find it helpful on many pages to separate actually cited sources from "Further reading" items. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that much was clarified already. Problem in the example: they were meant as citations but not used. Another problem (also mentioned): if you use templates such as {{cite ADB}} - which you often get translating from German) - they come with the citation feature built in, and you can not just move them to Further reading, but have to use them, or define some other way. Best: use them. The error message even tells you how. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Re. "... use them":

• If you don't have access to the source, or for some reason can't check it, then don't use them (here is an example of how it should not be done) – move to "Further reading" or "External links" or whatever that seems appropriate.
• Otherwise, *check* the source and its validity for use as a reference:
  • If that doesn't pan out, either remove (if not suitable at all, e.g. for the reasons mentioned by kosboot above), or move to "Further reading"/"External links" if that is an enhancement of the article.
  • If usable as a source, then place an appropriate ref in the article (i.e. use them).

For clarity: error messages generated by HarvErrors.js or some such are *less* a problem (most users of the encyclopedia won't see them) than failing WP:V. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, "use them" was short for "check them and use them if appropriate". I see no reason not to use the biographies from the ADN template, our own source. In the example given, I did not use the sources because I was not sure. I never meant "use them blindly". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Brought the above back from archive, for a heads-up on harv warnings caused by the HarvErrors.js script: a recent update to the code of cite templates ("|ref=harv" by default) might multiply these warnings. Cite template developers deem that an error of the script, not of the template code. See here how to remedy: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive 69#Cite book Harv warning --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Gáty Zoltán at AfD

Hungarian composer and conductor of the early 20th C.. Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gáty Zoltán. Voceditenore (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested name change: Fanny Mendelssohn -> Fanny Hensel

A requested move is being discussed here.--Smerus (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC relating to MusicBrainz at WP:VPT

Now launched at WP:VPT#RfC: should the "Authority control" template continue to include MusicBrainz identifiers?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Prematurely closed move

Could people please have a look at this: Talk:Glassworks_(composition)#Requested_move_2_May_2020. Another editor closed the discussion whilst I was in the middle of typing, and the article has now been moved to a title that doesn't comply with the WP:NCMUSIC naming convention. Thanks. --188.28.24.246 (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

RM: Triple Concerto No. 2

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Triple Concerto No. 2#Requested move 11 May 2020, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested name change: Fanny Mendelssohn -> Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel

Following absence of consensus on either "Fanny Mendelssohn" or "Fanny Hensel", a requested move for the page "Fanny Mendelssohn" is now being discussed here --Smerus (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music publisher (sheet music)

Now being discussed. --Smerus (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Proms

The page title Proms has redirected to the concert series for many years, but someone is trying to change this. Please contribute to the discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 21 if you have an opinion. Thanks. --92.40.53.205 (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Paul Cambry

I have nominated the article about the pianist Jonathan Paul Cambry for deletion; see the link above. Graham87 15:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Zahn numbers

Do you know Zahn numbers? Johannes Zahn catalogued Lutheran hymns by numbers for their tunes. They are now inserted in hymn articles, for example here, in the lead, in the infobox, and an added navbox which appears at the top of all navboxes. What do others think?

• I wrote that article, think the number is not needed in the lead (this is not like BWV typically listed in concert programs), and would prefer the navbox at a later position, while first telling a reader which other hymns in German there are. I actually doubt the usefulness of the navbox which goes only by numbers, which is fine for Bach's cantatas that some readers will know by number, but I doubt the same can be said for these Zahn numbers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• See prior discussion (well, uhm, my soliloquy) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 64#Roud & Zahn. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  2015, and no enthusiasm ;) - I missed it completely then, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• On the ground of the matter, Zahn numbers (Z) are used in modern scholarship, see e.g. the third to fifth sources listed in BWV 227#Cited sources. They should probably be used more often in Wikipedia articles, e.g. Herr Jesu Christ, du höchstes Gut#History mentions two hymn tunes which are difficult to identify: I suggest their Zahn numbers be given, with, for WP:VERIFIABILITY, references that link to the respective pages in the Zahn index, so that it is clear which hymn tunes are mentioned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  It is fine to refer to them to identify, and nothing wrong with mentioning in an infobox. In the lead, they seem distracting for someone who wants to read about a hymn, while they are not attached to the hymn but a tune, which - for our average lead reader - might be hard to distinguish. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  I suppose identification is, in many cases, most welcome on first occurrence. Starting to talk about one or more hymn tunes without identifying them is... confusing. And inasmuch as a reader might be confused about these before starting to read a hymn article, it is no service to such reader to let that confusion persist beyond the point where the hymn tune(s) is (or are) first mentioned.

  Re. "for someone who wants to read about a hymn": some readers might want to read about the hymn text, others about the hymn tune(s), and I suppose most readers would want to read about both the hymn text and the hymn tune(s). Wikipedia articles should, I suppose, be without prejudice one way or another. Some hymns are best known for their tune (that is, if reliable sources say so, which is, for instance, the case for "An Wasserflüssen Babylon"), while others are probably better known for their text, or for both their text and their tune: anyhow, a Wikipedia editor's personal preferences ("it's always the text!" or "it's always the tune!") should not supersede that. So I suppose the "Herzlich lieb hab ich dich, o Herr" example, which was used in the OP, should be sorted at article level (i.e., at that article's talk page if "consensus by editing" wouldn't work). Anyhow, no general "rule" for all hymn articles can be engineered here afaics: hymn articles that have Zahn number info sometimes have that info in the lead, others in the body, and others in both the lead and the body. There is no general rule which is "always" best.

  Re. "which - for our average lead reader - might be hard to distinguish" – that's why the article should be clear on the distinction, starting from the lead, so that the reader is informed about the topic at hand (instead of leaving readers to their own devices if text and tune are not easily distinguished). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think the Zahn numbers can be a distraction, so much so that articles become unreadable. Here are some recent examples where Zahn numbers appear as part of titles: Ach Gott, wie manches Herzeleid or Herr Jesu Christ, du höchstes Gut. Mathsci (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ohrdruf

Apparently, Ohrdruf has other connotations than a town where some famous musicians lived: see Talk:Ohrdruf, Thuringia#Requested move 12 July 2020 (discuss there, not here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music)

I am looking for guidance regarding article titles, coming from a Schubert sonata for piano four-hands.

Looking at the naming conventions, I see no indication that we have to mention the key first, the scoring afterwards, and find the other order more sensible, and more common, see Violin sonata in G minor (HWV 364a), Piano Quartet in E major (Saint-Saëns). I was told that I waste my fellow editors' time, but would like clarification in the guidelines. I confess also to not understand why it is lower-case sonata here, but upper-case Quartet there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

There is the other Sonata in B-flat major for piano four-hands, D 617 (Schubert) to look at. (Listen to the vintage YouTube performance by Richter and Koscis.) Mathsci (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Do not understand what "other order" means. You cite articles that have key only. Do you have a proposed title that you think might violate the guidelines? Jmar67 (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

How is Violin Sonata key only? - It tells you "Sonata for violin and piano" before the key, which makes sense to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the guideline suggesting that is not proper? Seems fine to me as well. As to the capitalization, it most likely reflects the authors' preferences. I would prefer caps as in a book title. "Violin sonata No. 1" would be stylistically incorrect. Jmar67 (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The style seems to be Cello Sonata No. 1 (Fauré), Cello Sonata No. 2 (Fauré), Violin Sonata (Poulenc), Violin Sonata No. 1 (Brahms), etc. Mathsci (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I seem to have a language problem. Yes, I do see that there's an example which has the key first, and then the instruments, but I still try to understand why that would be chosen. Can we stay with Schubert for a moment, and whoever thinks I'm wasting their time should not waste time but do something else. What I see - and don't understand:

• Piano Sonata in D-flat major, D 568 (Schubert)
• Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert)

I don't understand why for one piece by the same composer we first say it's for piano, and for the other we first say it's in C major, and for both I don't understand why we mention the composer at all, which we would not do for Mozart and Bach. Is there a difference between catalogue D here, K. and BWV there?

• Violin sonata in G minor (HWV 364a) - Why is "sonata" lower case there, but not for Schubert? The guideline just says "not always".
• Sonata in G major for two flutes and basso continuo, BWV 1039 but
• Flute Sonata in C major, BWV 1033 ?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Really? Still refusing to read what is in the guideline? Still preferring to spread confusion? Asking other editors to sort out what is clearly described in the guideline? Saying you want us all to "stay with Schubert for a moment" and then not doing so yourself? Tx, but no, this is not helping. I am more than prepared to explain the guideline where it would be unclear, but that normally starts from what is in the guideline, not from what isn't there. Further, I pointed you to some Schubert-specific prior discussions, which, also, I'd be prepared to clarify where needed, but also there, that doesn't make much sense when we can't start from what was already discussed before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

One reason to put the key first is to avoid possibly interpreting it as applying to the instrument(s). For example the (fictitious) "Concerto for Clarinet in B-flat". Jmar67 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

While I understand in principle, that would rather be called Clarinet Concerto, and I never saw the type of clarinet in such a title, so rather theory. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The point is to get the key as close to the type of piece as possible for clarity. That is a general grammar principle. (I was thinking of Artie Shaw's "Concerto for Clarinet".) Jmar67 (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Many of our article titles about compositions don't have a key, look at Haydn's symphonies, Mozart's piano concertos, Beethoven's piano sonatas, - a key seems a disambiguator more often than part of a title. Exceptions exist, such as Concerto in D (Stravinsky). (Why is that not italic?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Recap: I wrote: "... see last two examples of the WP:NCM#Capitalization of generic names section" – which is:

Instrumentation included in generic names:

• Capitalized as part of the name of the composition:
  • Trio Sonata for Two Flutes (W. F. Bach)
• Not capitalized as natural disambiguator (after the key signature if there is one):
  • Sonata in G major for two flutes and basso continuo, BWV 1039

Following the first of these examples, without disambiguation of the exact composition, an article title could start like this:

• Sonata for Piano Four-Hands in C major ...

Alternatively, following the second example:

• Sonata in C major for piano four-hands ...

For the WP:NCM guidance both formats have entirely equal validity, i.e., to be determined on a case-by-case basis which one works best. For the Schubert ones, the choice was made here, in 2014. WP:CCC, but that would require a WP:RM to establish that such change of consensus occurred (as I said to Gerda from the start – all the rest is time sink: by now a decently initiated RM would have absorbed far less combined editor time than splitting this discussion over multiple pages, and in multiple sections on the same page, as Gerda did). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I really don't believe what I'm reading here. The guideline suggests two possible alternatives (without even the faintest suggestion that either of these formats is always correct). So, I still don't known why you're now making even more people loose time... because it seems too difficult to go to the exact place in the guideline where I directed you? Really? You said you had little time: the solution is not to make others loose time. That's just a lack of respect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

In general, generic names are not titles, hence lower case for sonata. - kosboot (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Generic names can be titles, and thus in title case, e.g. Hungarian Rhapsody No. 19 and Missa Brevis (Britten) – see WP:NCM for details. Changes to the guidance can be proposed here or on the guideline's talk page, but the current guidance is what it is until there's consensus for something else. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

<score> broken

The musical notation feature using <score>...</score> is currently broken. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 182#Problems with Lilypond and phab:T257066. The outage is expected to last for a few days. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It was a bit more than a few days, but it seems to be working again: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/rOMWCcda5a7fcd12945feac6523e3914f4a761dbbf647, thanks to Tim Starling -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

…and now it's disabled again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

…and it's back. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

External links

I have noticed the recent addition of questionable external links in the following list of contributions (and here as well). Would others say these qualify as spam? Do they have some encyclopedic value? Google yields next to no information about the website, and I'd be wary of clicking on the links. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd revert, and ask to discuss. Website is not well designed, and seems not to cover things that can't be found elsewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The website presents teacher/pupil relationships in an attractive interactive graphic way. I have no idea how reliable the information is, but it's easier to navigate than Wikipedia's Template:LMSTA/Template:LMSTT and the related lists List of music students by teacher: A to B etc. I don't think the website, which displays Wikipedia articles for the pianists' biographies, is harmful; it seems completely free of advertising. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Initially it looks unhelpful but upon looking around the website more it does seem worthwhile and I don't see any signs of unreliability. That being said, I don't see any clear signs of reliability either. Aza24 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

AfD

This AfD may be of interest to members of this project. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Michael Hannan (composer) AfD

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Hannan (composer). Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

We have no article for concert hall (it's a redirect to List of concert halls)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of concert halls § Propose to split the article. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)