Talk:Claude Debussy/Archive 3

Edit request from 122.111.137.20, 28 June 2011
Near the beginning it says: "This article is about the classical composer". Debussy is a Romantic composer. I can back this up because he is on the Romantic composers list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Romantic-era_composers

122.111.137.20 (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Classical music. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Debussy was a Classical Music composer, the sentence is not showing the era of classical music. Jnorton7558 (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither classical nor romantic is exempt of ambiguity. I suppose we all know the term classical music is used to refer to the European music comprised in the Classicist movement which occurred between the Baroque and the Romanticism, as well as for naming the whole Western art music that sometimes is called cult or academical music so they can be differentiated, and we avoid semantic paradoxes like: "Wagner's is classical music but it was part of a movement opposed to Classical music called Romanticism"... or "Modern avant-garde music is part of the Classical repertoire". On the other hand, saying that Debussy was a Romanticist composer is totally untrue. While certainly there has been no musical style outstanding enough to displace Post-Romanticism from the scene so far, Debussy was the very first musician who totally sought a break with Romanticism, doubtlessly influencing the appearance of a number of recent, rapid and hard-to-classify avant-garde styles and modern composers. I would suggest removing that "classical" from the beginning and letting the reader discover what kind of composer Debussy was. Saying "This article is about the composer" is enough to draw fair distinction between him and the eponymous asteroid and hills. Isn't it? --Isacdaavid (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The term composer implies classical (as in contradistinction to popular or jazz or folk). No qualification is necessary--and just because no qualification is necessary if you do put classical before composer, it does indeed suggest you mean as in contradistinction to Baroque or Romantic or modern. TheScotch (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sentance in the lead
I noticed this sentance in the lead:

Debussy is among the most important of all French composers, and a central figure in European music of the turn of the 20th century. He was made Chevalier of the Legion of Honour in 1903.[4] [| source is right here, in French --- google translate will translate it reasonably well]

The source definetly backs up the fact that he was made a Chevalier, but it doesn't say he is "among the most important of all French Composers". I'll leave it be for now, but, any one else think it needs to be removed as possible puffery ? @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons ► Markab -@ 16:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello ! good question...I am not sure it is a relevant information, as this award has lost a lot of its value these days, and is mainly a national award. I do think, though, that Debussy, due to the fact that he is one of the "inventors" of "western" modern music, and plays a central role in the music of the 20th century, way beyond opera houses and clasical music circles, should be referred to, not as "a central figure in European music of the turn of the 20th century", but more simply as "a central figure in the music of the 20th century". I am afraid I already did this change, which I hope you will not see as vandalism.. I do not know if you will go back to the former version, but it would be a shame, wouldn't it ? regards Etienne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.64.171 (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit, but not because I thought it was vandalism. The problem is that declaring Debussy "central to the 20th century" suggests that the music he composed up to 1900 was not particularly significant. His period of creative activity straddles the two centuries, which may have been inconsiderate of him (from an overly tidy historian's point of view), but it is a fact.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

- Mmh yes, you are right, hard to say whether this music is ending a period of time in music, opening a new one...Both things , actually...I want to bring another consideration to your judgement though. What do you think about saying "Debussy is a central figure in the music of the turn of the 20th century. " instead of "Debussy is among the most important of all French composers, and a central figure in European music of the turn of the 20th century."

Because, things being what they are in the english wikipedia, for instance it would sound odd to say that Händel or Beethoven  is "...among the most important of all german composers and a central figure in European music of the turn of the 18th century"... You would simply say "he remains one of the most famous and influential of all composers." (as they actually put it for LVB, btw).

Actually the first statement is correct and may be better, as it would help put things back in the right prospective : an Indian, a Chinese, a Bolivian or a Bantu music lover would certainly rather take the first sentence and leave us with the western ethnocentrism in music of the second. But wikipedia in english does not seem to work that way...

Now back to our western music...There should be an equal treatment, since those articles are influential on the thousands who read them to get an idea of who is who. Reading the article on Debussy and then the one on Beethoven for ex, one might end up thinking Debussy was an important composer among others, but after all, the way it is said, what characterizes him is that he was an important composer for France, as it is the first thing that is written in this specific sentence, and the one that catches the attention first...Whereas, reading the article on Beethoven after the one on Debussy or vice versa (you know, the kind of homework kids have to do on composers in high school)...he would end up with a more universal impression on Beethoven. Which I think is wrong. I think Debussy deserves the same level of consideration due to an equal influence (and too hard to measure) on both the music and the musician's community.

Personnally I wish people didn't use comparative words, and I suggest all kinds of "the most"s & "the main"s should simply be banned from wikipedia in english language (strangely this "disease" is not present in the spanish and french versions...). But since its the way it works, and we can't go and modify other pages to put everything in the correct relative prospective, leaving Debussy in his "frenchness / europeanness" when the others are just universal composers would be like giving him a B whereas he definitely stands as the A composers, i.e misleading. I would like to have your opinion, I tried to put it as objectively as I could and I hope I made a point here. And I suppose you love Debussy too. regards. (ps your have the same name as my brother's wife. from Hanover) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.64.171 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is what various basic sources say: "Debussy was among the greatest and most important of 20th‐cent. composers both by reason of his own achievement and by the paths he opened for others to explore, hence the homage to him paid by later composers such as Boulez, Messiaen, Webern, Bartók, Stravinsky, and many others." "Debussy, Achille‐Claude." The Oxford Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed. rev. Ed. Michael Kennedy.

Grove: One of the most important musicians of his time, his harmonic innovations had a profound influence on generations of composers. He made a decisive move away from Wagnerism in his only complete opera Pelléas et Mélisande, and in his works for piano and for orchestra he created new genres and revealed a range of timbre and colour which indicated a highly original musical aesthetic. François Lesure and Roy Howat. "Debussy, Claude." Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. 7

Just fyi. Eusebeus (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

jerome kohl, can i have your opinion on the issue i raised ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.64.171 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

actually a sentence like ..."A crucial figure in the transition to the modern era in Western art music, he remains one of the most famous and influential composers." fits well. just the way they put it for beethoven, another transitory composer. by the way, Eusebus's contribution confirms the idea that he should be more considered as a composer of the 20th than a composer of the 19th...which is logical: his influence on the 19h was small, his influence on the music of the 20th was huge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.64.171 (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Contents navigational box
Is there any way to remove the Composer Project's assessment from the Talk Page's Contents navigational box? It makes navigating to relevent conversations on this page much more difficult.4meter4 (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I hit a few WikiProject templates with sledgehammers to try to reduce the spam, but eventually hit upon simply using in this edit of the comments subpage. The drawback is the comments will now not show on this page - you need to click the subpage link. I guess this will work until the next comments subpage arrives, or until someone finds a better fix. -84user (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

About Debussy works' plays, piano Keyboard's touching pathways, techniques, and effects shown in Wikipedia need to meet some standards of impressionism, Sampling - Clair de Lune
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clair_de_lune_(Claude_Debussy)_Suite_bergamasque.ogg - Though this edition has been studio-produced without some unnecessary noises, It wasn't from the nature of life, and with the reasonability of impressionism. Meanwhile, it carried some mistakes. Therefore, I don't think its notation-reading and Piano touching techniques have met impressionism's standards, such as the seconds (0.46-0.49 note F, and 0.53-0.54 note D) - two long-keeping notes absolutely being made the technique-mistakes by being divided into two single ones which deeply broke melodic harmony. Some other mistakes can also be found, such as (0.57-0.58 root chord Octave E; 2.34-2.35 high pitch C in the middle part, the lost expression of Calmato from Bar 43; The no distinguish of 'pp' and 'ppp' from Tempo I etc.) Another perspective, from 1:39, the impressionism arpeggios produced by master Debussy, on the middle part by left hand, have been deeply broken into single notes' on-going; then, impressionism music's colour-fizzy impressions borrowed from its painting, which was reflected out by hands' skills have been totally ignored. Yes, every note was clear and run in beats, but impressionism disappeared and hands' abilities in controlling linking notes and running them in certain active speed hadn't been made the accompaniment with the whole theme's development. The very importance is the dynamic level of bass long-keeping notes in lowest part haven't been played with 'tender but highlighted forces' gently, which needed to give people some unconsciousness impressions as deep 'footprints of coming'. (2.23 - 2.24) - from these seconds， high tide's 'En Animant' hasn't been performed well with the sparkling lights upon the higher pitches linked as in a whole logical line, then required to be tenderly pressed the force into keyboards; meanwhile, it and its following paragraph are also too quiet without deep thoughts and without the dynamics level as motivating to 'f' etc. Rather than only these sampled points I pointed out, indeed, there are also some many keys lost accessing to impressionism, which haven't been performed well. Therefore, I need to say: I have to recover the original edition as both the respect of master Debussy and respect of fine artist' aesthetics. Though in last edition from wikiversity, some pink noises layer was existing. However, it was true both from life and from past experiences - then it was called deep impressions. Can life be pretended without noises? Impressionism is also. It cared about soul root's purity but fuzzyed the details (on purposes as by special techniques) Meanwhile, last edition in Wikipedia has also respected Debussy' original notation-reading and soul-expressions. Meanwhile, player's emotional changes about his own past tens more years regarding with this work had all been applied by tightly participant-observing the universal logical line of Clair de Lune implicitly, just like some symbolizations produced impressionism, overall. Then, you can hear some struggling feelings and self-releasing being deeply hidden from the root, which was also participant-observing Debussy's historical life-line. If some better editions can be found, after panelled discussions, we can push further more. Meanwhile, I am continuously researching this field. If some communications focusing on melody itself rather than some unnecessary issue, I am very happy to give my talks. Furthermore, indeed, I was very touched by this player's bravery of playing Fine Art's Digital Literacies earlier, but some details need to be up-to-date and regressed back the Composer Debussy his own thoughts from his historical background and life themselves, as engineering giving beauties to commons. Here, we need to think more ... Thanks! Jason M. C., Han (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TL;DNR – What's your point? That File:Clair de lune (Claude Debussy) Suite bergamasque.ogg is a sub-standard interpretation? Others don't agree; see Talk:Suite bergamasque. Your version, File:Moonlight - Clair de Lune (As the rememberance of Sir Debussy.ogg, has the distinction of being the shortest ever recording and as such is not a suitable example. It also has very poor acoustics, and its description overleaf is not in line with normal standards. I suggest to remove it again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Michael Bednarek that the file added by the OP is an undesirable recording. It's also self-promotional. I am going to remove it again. Softlavender (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't agree with your ideas. What reasonable comments I have alread stated. This edition's impressionism effect is really poor enough. What my anaylsis have already told the reasons that it wasn't participant-observing and creative thinking of Debussy' musicianship and literacies in his historical background. Then, the hands' abilities of controlling impressionism appeggios have also shown a lower level of dividing notes singlely. This player might be super-level, but he didn't put much time in professional train Debussy's Moonlight for tens more years, what have alread reflected out from his dealling pathways. Therefore, I have to re-removed it again. Causing in order add Debussy' Moonlight, we must repsect the ideas of composer himself and in Wikipedia, I am the one who first add this Debussy's Moonlight in this page. I need to show my respects of music itself and Debussy this master. I need to give the assessment whether or not it can be put. Therefore, I think waiting a really perfect one's coming-out, we can do more jobs. If this edition is the super-level of our worlds, it wasn't advanced, and wasn't from Debussy, and wasn't reasonable，and wasn't muture. Therefore, my assessment isn't 'Pass'.
 * In addtion, if you interview some others who have trained Debussy's Moonlight and his impressionism for long time, you will find this playing edition is really in a very lower level that he just knew how to make 'Piano', but don't know the dynamics level need to reflect composer's peotric thoughts deeply being implicitly symbolized out and hiddenly inputted - there are some struggling feelings, comflicts-solving feelings and self-releasing feelings and tender love. But, in this edition, there is 'Nothing'... Jason M. C., Han (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Jason M. C., Han, you can ramble all you want, but the WP:CONSENSUS is not to use the file you added. It's not very good, and it is obviously self-promotional. It's badly played, and extremely badly pedalled. The consensus is to retain the file that Michael Bednarek added. Softlavender (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, File:Clair de lune (Claude Debussy) Suite bergamasque.ogg is really very bad. I cannot allow you add this edition. It totally destory teachers and learners feelings of Debussy's impressionism beauties Jason M. C., Han (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I am a piano teacher for commons. I said I needed to take the responsibilities checking key points of Clair de Lune's impressionism which Debussy represented for, as shown above. Because I had fallen in love with Clair_de_lune for tens more years, I cannot bear any serious and unbeautiful points making it lose impressionist techniques and skills.

I wanted to see the heavenly moonlight. Yes, that's right that I have only a moblie phone, two hands and a pair of good ears as tools. To impressionism in life, that's enough. I will use them to give assessments whether or not anyone's version can meet the basic keys with the emotional depth as recovering Debussy' expressions. My ears were trained for tens more years by Moonlight in life and in some impressions of experiences full of love, friendships and sufferings. Wikipedia has also introduced Debussy's historical experiences, his musicianships and sufferings with his family members in his long-time composition-life. Then, what was moonlight like in his eyes? Where was it? Where was it when he was in his night-darkness watching silver moonlight to heaven? What did he really want to tell us? A very quiet and non-dynamics evironment, or a changing and sometime a little bit painful self-reflexivity of his channel, then after travelling too many places, too many thoughts, could he get self-released peotrically under the silver moonlight? Could he still keep love in mind, as the pizzicato tenderly departing away? Yeah, I have no advanced equipments to make sounds beautifully like, but I have heart-eyes to feel beauties and see heavenly imageries. There is my second version, I still want to have a try, even try to motivate the coming of someone's much better one in future, whoever, no matter, but from and for commons, as the sefless spirit of moonlight. Therefore, I put this version merely in talk as the entrance-door-stone to open the formal Wiki-article in the neighbour of this page. I will also frequently upgrade this version in my growth.

A small summary and Further talk
Some standards were not made by only one person but long-time's daily educational practices and then documentary summary. We need to respect some basic impressionism techniques, skills, hand-abilities' trainings and teachers and young teenagers' hard-working for many years. Without these respects, experts cannot be called experts and freedom will be lost. Meanwhile, Talk place is for commons and with freedom voices. Please don't damage it. Peace and freedom are existing when others treated you with them. No one wants to lose them. Thinking about it, if formal article don't let commons express their ideas, and talk place lose its freedom, commons will be away from Wikipedia. That's a very terrible future vision. Entrance-door-stone has already been put into our hands, which just depended on what you are thinking and how you are thinking. If you thought it was a war, it will be a war. But, if you change your minds to think it as a good way to motivate much beatiful moonlight's silvery coming, it was also going to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason M. C., Han (talk • contribs) 00:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

'''If we have enough time, please put these time and energy in researching a further and perfect version of Moonlight, then put it into the formal article. Talk place is free for commons.''' Jason M. C., Han (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Silver moonlight upon nightroad, is the love freely given from heaven, to all the commons. Debussy has found its beauties with France style romantics. Then, he contributed his this impression to peoples all round the worlds. The very important things are love itself and peace itself. Let us try to understand more! Jason M. C., Han (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Jason's Appealing to Debussy
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meng_Meng_with_Christmas_Uncle_Jason_in_piano_classroom.jpg#globalusage Dear peers: Please watch this picture. So beautiful it was that I and my kid, as normal commons - teacher and learner, were together learning Debussy' music in classroom. I am sorry that my emotion was a little bit upsetting... We were together to practise Debussy's 'Doctor' in Children's Corner - oh, and our simple classroom. It was a Christmas that we made up it. Though without beautiful cloths and graceful ornamentations, we felt very happy to share our joyfulness in playing this piece. You knew, many years we paid our endeavours in doing so. I wanted more kids on globalized views can get this joyfulness. Then, I sent up it. But currently, it faces the danger to be deleted. I felt very painful! Oh Sir Debussy! I didn't know why, why some people cannot accept those happy moments in pictures, as original purpose of Wikimedia Commons want us to be? Why did they select their happies from deleting others' works... though so small it was... I am praying, and please help me! Jason M. C., Han (talk) 10:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Debussy and other composers
I think this really needs looking at - this is the guy who said: “I am more and more convinced that music, by its very nature, is something that cannot be cast into a traditional and fixed form. It is made up of colors and rhythms. The rest is a lot of humbug invented by frigid imbeciles riding on the back of the Masters – who, for the most part, wrote almost nothing but period music. Bach alone had an idea of truth.' I therefore have some scepticism about his supposed love of Mozart, Liszt, Strauss (particularly as he was somewhat of a Wagnerian) and Beethoven. I know from Pierre Boulez's article in 'Notes from an Apprenticeship' that he adored Bach's 48 Preludes as well as Schumann & Chopin (and of Stravinsky he wrote: 'Dear Stravinsky, you are a great artist. Be with all your strength a great Russian artist.') so I can cite them. But for a composer who consciously opposed himself to the Austro-German tradition, we need some verification of these supposed adorations. Knucmo2 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm glad this topic has been raised here. Debussy's relationship with Beethoven's music was far more complex than this article indicates. If I'm not mistaken Debussy loathed Palestrina, but this article claims otherwise. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I know he tried learning one of the big Beethoven sonatas for a piano prize in the Conservatory but he failed rather spectacularly - interestingly Pierre Boulez would do the same thing some fifty years later with the same piece! 93.96.21.136 (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That may well be true, but he nevertheless had many reservations about his work. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes...my statement wasn't meant to counter that belief. What we need in any case are sources! Knucmo2 (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * should serve as a good starting point. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Exploring Music did a week-long program series on Debussy (some time in the late 2000s). Usually these profiles include influences and likes/loathes. One can listen to the five-episode (one hour each) series online: http://exploringmusic.wfmt.com/listen-to-the-show/112/debussy. Costs $2 for unlimited access to the 5-hour show; can listen to the first 7 minutes of any episode for free. Softlavender (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

De Bussy?
I have seen early concert reports (mentioned as I recall in a chapter or two of "Debussy Remembered") refer to Debussy as "De Bussy" (of...)--- was this a form the composer in fact and himself used in earlier life, or was it imposed on his surname by early newspaper critics? :) Schissel | Sound the Note! 05:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Monsieur Croche
Shouldn't this article mention Debussy as de:Monsieur Croche? See also Monsieur Croche – Antidilettante and here and here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was startled to read this but, sure enough, although the article does mention his activities as a music critic, the nom de plume is found only in the title of a reference. Would it be sufficient simply to insert a phrase like "writing under the pseudonym 'Monsieur Croche'", or did you have something more extensive in mind, like the separate article on German Wikipedia? It does seem to me that his critical writings deserve more attention in this article than they are presently given.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A phrase like the one you suggest would be start and would help enormously at very little cost. I too was startled when a search on "Croche" only yielded his name in a cited source. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Call me paranoid, but why do I feel like one of those "pioneers", who should soon find himself bristling with arrows?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Claude Debussy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150317060604/http://www.rodoni.ch/OPERNHAUS/pelleas/Debussy2.pdf to http://www.rodoni.ch/opernhaus/pelleas/Debussy2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead image
Isn't the lead image a bit too small? I've seen other composer articles with larger images. 191.255.89.212 (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We should just all be grateful he's not trapped. But yes, I'm surprised that Project Music doesn't have some kind of requirement for size here. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia recommends to show image thumbnails at default size, and images in portrait format should be displayed using upright. Forcing an image to display at a specific size is rarely a good idea and should only be done in very few circumstances. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it a good idea? I see many articles, even FAs, have larger composer images. I see Holst, for instance, uses upright=1.1. Why not apply it to this article? I understand it's not actually a major issue, but the picture is there for identification of the person in question (Debussy in this case), and if it's too small that really doesn't help. Thanks for the response, 191.255.89.212 (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a good idea to force a specific size because it may a) override users' preferences; b) result in awkward display sizes on mobile devices. See also WP:IMAGESIZE & MOS:IMAGE. Following Other stuff exists, the larger display size caused by 1.1 at Gustav Holst is not a valid argument to perpetuate the that mistake here. I can't see how an image of 170 horizontal pixels makes the identification more difficult. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand the Other stuff exists argument, but I honestly can't see how in Holst that is a mistake. I think this is really a matter of opinion. And I think most editors disagree with this rule, because I think the great majority of composer articles have larger images despite the upright rule. I've used Wiki on mobile several times and larger sizes don't get awkward there. 191.255.89.212 (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the current guidelines are the result of consensus. Anybody may initiate a process to change them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The guidelines are not really strict, to be fair. Many composer articles use "thumb" or different sizes instead of "upright", and that's because there is an individual consensus to make that so in those articles. If so wanted, a consensus among editors could decide to change the size here or not. Again, it's all about consensus, indeed. Cheers, K atástas i (κατάσταση) 15:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Missing source

 * I swapped images, and was reverted with edit summary "image is not better". Aesthetics were not the reason I swapped them. The current one has no source listed, which is an unacceptable licensing problem. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The replacement, File:Debussy nadar 1905.jpeg, is in several respects worse than File:Claude Debussy ca 1908, foto av Félix Nadar.jpg. I can't see how a photo by Nadar who died in 1910 can present a licensing problem. Note that according to this, that file has been used on the EN Wikipedia's main page in August 2014. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see stuff on the Internet that says Nadar took the photo, but I don't see proof (provenance). Plus no source for this image: where was it found? All I know is, we tried to use this image in a current FAC, and it got shot down for those reasons. I was unable to find the needed info for this image, but did find info for the one I recently placed on this page and that FAC. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The file at Commons says it's by Nadar, and there's no reason to doubt that. I think User:Nikkimaria's remark at Featured article candidates/The Oceanides/archive1 was bureaucratic and unfounded. The picture was found to be suitable for Wikipedia's main page on 23 August 2014. Oh, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works both ways; if people have a problem with this image, they should raise it here and at Commons. What happened at The Oceanides cannot automatically be extrapolated to this page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to find even a grain of merit in any of your arguments. Trust Commons? Sure, just like I trust Wikipedia (which is, with great reluctance and a constant desire to verify). Main page? Who gives a crap what's put on the Main page? Do they check images strenuously before placing them? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? This isn't s deletion argument; it's about selecting the better among two options based on Wikipedia's policies (and not aesthetics, by any means). Take a FAC concern and raise it at Commons? What kind of ... talk from left field? In practice, the two forums have vastly different (but hopefully complementary) processes, goals, concerns, etc. In short, whether because you've argued in its favor previously, or because you are attached to its aesthetics, you are subjectively committed to one image over a near-substitute at the expense of policy concerns. If you can simply find provenance for your preferred image, then all is well. If not, then hanging onto it flies in the face of policy. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Needs an Infobox
I think this article is in need of an infobox although a commented line says that it may be redundant and would affect the initial look of the article. Does anyone agree that an infobox would make it more professional and easy to quickly reference facts and dates for people looking for quick knowledge. I didn't want to go ahead with it without consensus so please respond.  Nikolaiho  01:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

How about this:


 * I think you will find that this is a contentious matter, and suggest you read this statement. With specific reference to your proposed box, please observe point number three in that position statement: "They can, conversely, become over-complex and thus vague, confused, or misleading, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article, e.g. by confusing style and genre, setting forth haphazard lists of individual works, or highlighting the subject's trivial secondary or non-musical occupations". In general, the word "impressionism" refers to a style, not to an era. This is a good illustration of why the Composers WikiProject objects to the use of biographical infoboxes on classical-composer articles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Prominent impressionist
Explaining my edit: The clause "Along with Maurice Ravel, he was one of the most prominent figures associated with Impressionist music" gives the impression (sic) there were several "most prominent figures", when there were exactly two. The wording "He and Maurice Ravel were the most prominent figures ..." gives the right impression. Zaslav (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Peacock
The claims about Wagner's music are peacock and should be removed. The fact that they are sourced paraphrases means nothing, because Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Part of Wikipedia's NPV policies is WP:DUE, which this text violates, as it pretends that Wagner's music is universally considered to contain "sensuousness, mastery of form, and striking harmonies". "Musicologist Nomen Nescio considered Beethoven a genius" should never become "Beethoven was a genius." The same applies here. Toccata quarta (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The specific descriptors of Wagner's music are not uncited "claims", they are cited (from an extremely notable and definitive source) specific elements which influenced Debussy. Please read WP:PEA and note the difference. Wikipedia does not disallow descriptions of elements of an artist's work -- or else this encyclopedia wouldn't be very helpful at all. It disallows superlative and unilateral blanket terms ("genius", "brilliant", "defining figure") which are uncited. The descriptors here are cited, and add important information for the reader as they explain exactly what specific elements of Wagner's work (out of hundreds of possibilities) had an influence on Debussy. Debussy was not influenced by Wagner's mythologizing, Gesamtkunstwerk concepts, excessive length, or any of dozens of other elements he is known for. The specific elements of Wagner's that influenced Debussy are important here as Debussy's own music reflects and mirrors those influences. I also invite User:Flyte35 to comment on his addition of this material and the source material he paraphrased from. Softlavender (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Please look again at the penultimate sentence of my comment. Wikipedia presents the point of view of notable sources, while being written from a neutral point of view. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There's nothing non-neutral about the cited information, any more than any of the cited pieces of information about the qualities of Debussy's music in this article are non-neutral, or indeed the cited information about the qualities of any major composer in an GA or FA Wikipedia articles. One cannot write an informative full-length article about a composer without mentioning certain (cited) salient qualities of their music. There are no superlative and unilateral blanket terms ("genius", "brilliant", "defining figure") in the text in question. Softlavender (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Mastery" is not neutral. Also, why are you using "neutral" and "sourced" as synonyms? Toccata quarta (talk) 08:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the specific textual question here is, but the general concept of neutrality is such that it's appropriate to have something like "John Smith said Debussy's work was 'brilliant and amazingly awesome due to the artist's superior understanding of culture'" (or some such thing) and then cite the Smith piece. It is not, however, appropriate to say "Debussy's work was superior due to the artist's cultural understanding" and then just cite Smith. This sort of thing is often trouble for wiki articles about artists, but it's a matter of how one presents the fact. The FACT is that someone says X about Debussy's work, not that X is a true about Debussy's work.Flyte35 (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops, sorry Flyte35, I thought you made the edit in question, but it had been made earlier. I'll find the editor who made the edit. Softlavender (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The editor who made the edit, User:Scotwriter, is no longer active on Wikipedia. However, the information was later cited to Grove online, the most definitive and indisputable source on music there is. I don't currently have a subscription, but perhaps someone who does can give the verbatim information from the source so we can see if the paraphrase takes any liberties or not. Softlavender (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't comment on the actual disputed passage because I can't easily find it in the article. Maybe it's been removed or maybe I'm too lazy to look closely enough, but it seems to me that talk-page editors ought to be more specific about where exactly passages they're discussing occur. I have access to Grove, but I can't tell what I'm supposed to be looking up. In any case, yes, Grove is a good and authoritative reference, but it is certainly not "definitive" or "indisputable"--no such source is. Moreover, by its very nature Grove is logically allowed much more latitude than Wikipedia ever could be. Grove can and often does make subjective value judgments about composers and other musicians, and Wikipedia can't do that. I quite agree with Flyte35 that in general Wikipedia should strive, wherever practical, to prefer "X says Y is so" (and still cite X) than merely to say "Y is so" and cite X where Y is so is in any way evaluative--whether or not X is Elmer Fudd, Grove, or God incarnate. (It's also my opinion, by the way, that people who say "descriptors" should be shot at sundown.) TheScotch (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

What was his birth name? When did he change his name?
These two facts need to be presented in the article. The birth name can go either in the first line of the body text, or in the first sentence of the intro. The date he changed his name is important, as it will help determine how important it is to refer to him as that or as his birth name. Please provide WP:RSs for both. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see fr:Claude Debussy gives his birth name some prominence. They use a device that I think is called an "infobox", or something? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow Marty, are you using the i-word? (Hafspajen runs away and not look back) Achille-Hafspajen (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the French article, it is the article itself that gives prominence to his birth name, not the infobox (where it is mentioned only once). In fact, one may be forgiven for forming from the French article the impression (if you will pardon the expression) that Debussy is always referred to as "Achille-Claude", and never dropped the heroic Greek name at all. Perhaps this is a peculiarly English practice ?—Achille-Jérôme Kohl (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's an English weakness. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, we have all kinds of problems here. We have an uncited claim that he switched his name at some point (when?) to Claude-Achille (which is much more euphonious than Achille-Claude and is in fact how he is normally referred to as evidenced on Google -- twice the results of his birth name). We have the first line of the intro referring to him as "Achille-Claude". Given the WP:COMMONNAME is either "Claude Debussy" or "Claude-Achille Debussy", we should use one of those in the first line of the intro. I'm going to do that now. Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Google is not a valid reference. Grove clearly says the composer's name is Achille-Claude Debussy, and obviously he usually goes simply by Claude Debussy. James Paul McCartney usually goes by Paul McCartney. (I hate to seem to compare my favorite composer and my least favorite Beatles member, but, unfortunately, McCartney is the first well-known example that comes to mind.) That doesn't mean he changed his name; he didn't. This sort of thing is extremely common. I've got a fair number of friends and associates who do that too. Claude-Achille, on the other hand, would appear to be just plain wrong, no matter how many random persons paste it somewhere on the Internet. TheScotch (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot
Hello Wikipedians,

This is to let you all know that we have a problem with this page when it comes to the bot doing the analyzing links on this page. Two jobs made by Feminist here and here both stops at this page and has not continued to do the remainder of the bot jobs until I have performed the same one without this page. Also, I have tried to analyze the page but it does not do it (I checked the history of the page and my edit should be there if there were any dead links found). I have spoken to the bot operator on this possible bug and the user who has performed the bot jobs, letting them know that I have recently performed it today without this page. Cheers, Iggy (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * p.s. the analyzing time on this individual page performed by me was around 11:15 and the time of the following time stamp: Iggy (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Result is just a blank screen which will not do it properly. Iggy (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Boring meaningless trivia, disorganization, gossip, etc etc...
I'm reminded of the 12 y/o Beatlemaniacs of yesteryear who were certain there was no such thing as boring meaningless trivia regarding the Beatles. ...or perhaps the student who thinks he'll get a better grade by mindlessly including stuff.

If some people find that crap fluff indispensable, reluctantly OK, (I find Wiki is much too often too dry & dusty) but please put it in the last half of the article, after the meaningful stuff. (Personally I think detailing his biological functions etc makes Debussy look small, it degrades him.)

Extracts from the article: "On their return to Paris in 1871, Debussy drew the attention of Marie Mauté de Fleurville,[8] who gave him piano lessons at her apartment on the Rue du Cardinal-Lemoine, where she accommodated her daughter Mathilde and son-in-law Paul Verlaine for the year after their marriage in 1870.[9] Marie Mauté claimed to have been an aristocrat, and a pupil of Frédéric Chopin. Debussy always believed her, although there is no independent evidence to support her claim.[10]"

Musical development "....Like Georges Bizet, he was a brilliant pianist and an outstanding sight reader, who could have had a professional career had he so wished.[12] The pieces he played in public at this time {which time???} included sonata movements by Beethoven, Schumann and Weber, and Chopin's Ballade No. 2, a movement from the Piano Concerto No. 1, and the Allegro de concert.[13]"

"Despite von Meck's closeness[citation needed] to Tchaikovsky, the Russian master appears[to whom?] to have had minimal effect on Debussy.[citation needed] In September 1880 she sent his Danse bohémienne for Tchaikovsky's perusal; a month later Tchaikovsky wrote back to her: "It is a very pretty piece, but it is much too short. Not a single idea is expressed fully, the form is terribly shriveled, and it lacks unity." Debussy did not publish the piece, and the manuscript remained in the von Meck family; it was eventually sold to B. Schott's Söhne in Mainz, and published by them in 1932.[15] {PURE GOSSIP???:} A greater influence was Debussy's close friendship with Marie-Blanche Vasnier, a singer he met when he began working as an accompanist to earn some money, embarking on an eight-year affair together. She and her husband, Parisian civil servant Henri, gave Debussy emotional and professional support. Henri Vasnier introduced him to the writings of influential French writers of the time, which gave rise to his first songs, settings of poems by Paul Verlaine."

Personal life "However, although Texier was affectionate, practical, straightforward, and well liked by Debussy's friends and associates, he became increasingly irritated by her intellectual limitations and lack of musical sensitivity. Moreover, her looks had prematurely aged, and she was unable to bear children.[23]" So what? Who cares? What's the point? A jumble of disorganized factoids and gossip thrown into a box. I think that's all in the first 15% of the article? Then I quit reading. This article is too long in the worst sense. But warning: "encyclopedic" does NOT mean dry and dusty! Good luck! --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:64C7:92A:F58E:B5EC (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford


 * Why is Alexander Poznansky "{PURE GOSSIP???:}"? And I think you mean "second half". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Much of the above comment strikes me as wrong-headed, but there are nonetheless some telling points in it. The article is a jumble, and needs a lot of work. I am slowly working on the Life section in my sandpit (see note in previous section), but it would be marvellous if someone - ? - would consider taking on an overhaul of the Music section.  Tim riley  talk    21:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You must mean "Musical development", Tim, as that "Music" section has far too many crotchety and quavery things for me to fully understand. Still awaiting a reply from our friend Doug Bashford. But I might attempt a pruning. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Overhaul with FAC in view?
Would anyone be interested in joining me to overhaul the article? With so many of the articles on the major French composers now up to FA standard (Bizet, Fauré, Massenet, Messiaen, Messager, Poulenc, Ravel and Saint-Saëns), Offenbach a GA and Berlioz a very serviceable article that could be brought up to GA standard with a bit of work, it seems a pity that Debussy's article is inadequate. There are good things in it, but it has acres of uncited material, inconsistent spelling (mainly BrE but a smattering of AmE here and there), a lot of personal opinion, and referencing that is a complete jumble and, in parts, incomplete (no page numbers etc). All this could be addressed, and having worked on most of the articles listed above I am prepared to have a go, but if any other editor would be willing to join me it would be good. –  Tim riley  talk    10:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First attempt now complete. Much work to do on the Early, Middle and Late sections of Works still needed. Also images and sound files could do with redistributing by someone who is good with layout (i.e. not me). I think it might be worth going to peer review with GA in mind. Any thoughts on this gratefully received.  Tim riley  talk    18:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts Tim. Triplecaña (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Peer review
I've put the article up for peer review here, where any contributions will be most gratefully received. –  Tim riley  talk    21:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A point that has come up at PR is this, on the "Influence on later composers" section. I reproduce the exchange verbatim here so that any interested editor with a contrary opinion can stake a claim:
 * Influence on composers. This list won't do imo. It would be better if you gave fewer composers and at least something of how the influence can be discerned in each case. E.g. Janacek (who you don't mention) studied Pelleas and the way in which Debussy set prose (Taruskin p. 443)
 * I agree, and will see if I can write something ad rem and then get it through, but this section is a hangover from earlier versions of the page, and I suspect entrenched interests may prevent my pruning the list of names. I think perhaps I'll leave a note on the article talk page and see what that provokes.

Comments gladly received,  Tim riley  talk    14:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "entrenched interests", but I agree that the list is cluttered and seemingly at random. I can think of a number of other composers and at least one jazz musician of equal or greater importance than the ones named who were strongly influenced by Debussy. In fact, it might be easier to list all the 20th-century composers who were not influenced in one way or another by him. I agree with the critique: there needs to be more detailed discussion of a small number of representative examples, not a cruft list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that, Jerome. Coming from such a source it encourages me to rewrite.  Tim riley  talk    17:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely agree and (at Tim's request) am trying to draft something in the course of today. Dmass (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've had an initial stab at this. Please feel free to tweak. I've struggled to find anything yet on his influence on jazz - lots of rather wafty statements of his influence on e.g. Bill Evans and Duke Ellington, but nothing concrete enough to cite. I'll continue to look. Dmass (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for this: so much better and informative.  Tim riley  talk    13:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The peer review is drawing slowly to a close, I think, and I urge anyone who watches this page to look in and comment, if so inclined. I think after the present PR I'll put the article up for FAC. All comments welcome at any point.  Tim riley  talk    16:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent howevers
I've removed both additions of "however" to the FA text. The first is ungrammatical (not a conjunction), and the second falsely imposes a non-existent apposition. I'll also trim, yet again, the part of the Garden quote irrelevant to the present context.  Tim riley  talk   12:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use of 'however' to emphasize contrast sanctioned by the University of Bristol Faculty of Arts; see http://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exercises/grammar/grammar_tutorial/page_27.htm, hence use of the word to emphasize the contrast between Debussy's rising professional success and contemporaneous declining health. Ptelea (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody else at PR or FAC seems to have thought the obvious contrast needed emphasising, and nor do I. You presumably no longer wish to insert the ungrammatical first "however"? Tim riley  talk  ''' 18:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 'Nobody else' evidently considered 'trimming' Garden's incisive perception of Debussy's character. 'However': used to introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously, seems to fit the bill. Debussy appeared emotionally remote from all those around him, with the exception, 'biographers agree', of his daughter.Ptelea (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if there is a consensus in favour of your suggested changes they can be implemented. Otherwise we can stick with the agreed FA text.  Tim riley  talk   20:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of keeping the FA text.--Smerus (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So am I Dmass (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Film
Melvyn Bragg has this entry:
 * "Screenwriting: The Debussy Film (1965)". ref:

Should this film (and any others) be included in this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I dimly remember seeing this when I was a teenager in the 1960s. It was a television programme loosely based on Debussy's life. It didn't make much impact at the time, as far as I recall, and it hasn't been shown since the 60s. Probably of some importance in M. Bragg's article, as an early step in his career, but not of much interest in an article about Debussy, I'd say.  Tim riley  talk   07:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see your source that "it hasn't been shown since the 60s." But fair enough. Are there no notable examples of Debussy in "popular culture"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * BBC Genome records the original transmission and two repeats in the mid-1960s and nothing since. If you know of any serious references to Debussy that should be mentioned, by all means bring them forward. As to adding a trivia/popular culture section, I'd sooner avoid it, if other contributors to the FA concur, having eschewed such things in other composer FAs. They are a magnet for drive-by edits from well-meaning souls who think it's important to add (usually without citations) that three notes from piece xyz are quoted in such-a-such a rock album, or that Beethoven appears in an episode of The Simpsons.  Tim riley  talk   08:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am shocked and alarmed that you should wantonly overlook the use of the String Quartet in G Minor in the 2016 advert for the iPad Pro: !! (I'd suggest that the 1965 TV special would probably not be notable had it not involved the notable Melvyn Bragg and the notable Ken Russell). Martinevans123 (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that so many commercials typically use various music that there's nothing notable about the usage unless the commercial itself is notable (of which there are very few). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my sarcasm. Only the second part of my comment is actually sincere. I'm sure Tim is used to my perverse ways by now. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Martin's quips enliven many a talk page, and cheer many editors up.  Tim riley  talk   15:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Achille-Claude??
In the first note, concerning the variations of his name, it is made clear that throughout his life he used "Claude", "Claude-Achille" and "Achille", but there is no reference, either in the note or throughout the article, to "Achille-Claude". So why is the last used to start the article? --Furado (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a very good question, and one I asked myself frequently when doing the research for the article. You'll find "Achille-Claude" in the sources from Grove downwards, including The Oxford Companion to Music, Who's Who in the Twentieth Century and The Oxford Dictionary of Music. but I'm blest if I know why they put it in that order. I have followed suit, because it doesn't do Wikipedia any good to be seen to be out of step with the professional and academic authorities, such as François Lesure and Roy Howat in Grove, Stephen Walsh, Robert Orledge et al, but I agree it's a bit odd. I didn't find any explanation in any source of why the names are given in that order.  Tim riley  talk   13:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that [n1] needs to be corrected to make the situation clear. It is Achille Claude (without hyphen) which is on the acte de naissance (cited in French WP):
 * "Du vingt-deux août mil huit cent soixante deux onze heures du matin. Acte de naissance de Achille Claude, du sexe masculin, né ce matin à quatre heures et demie, chez ses père et mère à Saint-Germain rue au pain no 38, fils du Sieur Manuel Achille Debussy, marchand faïencier, âgé de vingt-sept ans, et de Dame Victorine Manoury, même profession, âgée de vingt-six ans."


 * and which should be construed as his legal name. The note goes through the various combinations of names thereafter. One possibility would be to start the article with [Achille] Claude Debussy, prewarning that the the first name is not part of the standard usage. On this basis we could imo stand up to Grove and the rest.--Smerus (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This is reminiscent of the situation for the painter William-Adolphe Bouguereau. In that article there is this section William-Adolphe Bouguereau describing the different permutations of his name. As the footnote for this article is somewhat elaborate it might be worth considering a section like that one. Just a suggestion though if the consensus is for the footnote that is fine. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * , your suggestion sounds like a good idea: excellent find! This official certificate explains why the order of names is as it is in Grove and elsewhere, and bracketing the 'Achille' is the solution adoped by Grove: https://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/grovemusic/view/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.001.0001/omo-9781561592630-e-0000007353, though Lesure and Howat include the hyphen. But I can't open the linked copy of the manuscript document except as a thumbnail image – too small to be read. I can't find a more readable copy online. If need be I can check the major biographies in the British Library to see if any of them reproduce the document.  Tim riley  talk   16:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Try also here. p. 6 (3rd column). Again, no hyphen. --Smerus (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Happily the British Library obliged with a citation from François Lesure. Now added.  Tim riley  talk   12:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the solution adopted is a good one. That's why I love Wikipedia, because it's alive, always improving thanks to people like all of you.--Furado (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And to people like you too – spotting something that looks wrong and pointing it out. Thank you!  Tim riley  talk   13:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * La Cathédrale engloutie - Claude Debussy - performed by Ivan Ilic.ogg

Pronunciation of "Achille"
Regarding the pronunciation of Achille--the ch is /k/ as in Achilles. This is a general rule: ch in names and other words of Greek origin are pronounced /k/, as in English. Other examples include choeur, orchestre, and Chloë. I have no source to cite. I learned this directly from the French diction coach at Juilliard. I have taught courses in French diction at two universities. Randomperson1618 (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, and have changed back pending resolution. I can find many reliable sites that give the "sh" pronunciation in "Achille", but not that give the "k". Those sites may be wrong no doubt, and comments from Francophones would be exceptionally welcome. Speculatively pinging, and  who have been immensely helpful in French-related matters.   Tim riley  talk   12:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

'Further reading'
An editor has sought to add a new section, 'Further reading', and included a single book. No rationale given why this particular one, when there are many hundreds of books and articles available about CD. 'Further reading' might be justified when the article contains few sources, but this one already contains 70 cited works. I have reverted the addition. Opinions sought as to whether 'further reading' has a function in this article. If a book or article comes up with something new and relevant and not covered in the present article, the article can always we edited and the source cited. --Smerus (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I concur with assessment. If any info can be added to the article that is sourced to the book that might work but, until then, there are WP:PROMOTION problems. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this is right. My vague and not really thought-through feeling is that Further Reading sections are useful if they contain specialised studies not suitable for coverage in the article but of possible interest to those wanting to investigate further. But this book, though it looks impressive and has some top-notch expert contributors (I wouldn't mind a quick dip in, myself) doesn't at first glance stray off the beaten track.  Tim riley  talk   18:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Foreign pronunciations
The recent change puts the cited books. ISBNs etc into the references and not into the sources. This needs to be fixed (WP:CITEVAR) if it is to remain.  Tim riley  talk   08:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added the references & sources in their respective location. @Tim riley, if a problem like this arises in the future, demonstrate to users on how to format & use footnotes, especially to users who are new to this site.  Most articles I've vistied on Wikipedia has English pronunciation & then native language phonetic(s) with or without sources.  NKM1974 (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)