Talk:Imperial Bösendorfer

Speedy deletion
User:Fanoftheworld has marked this article for speedy deletion. Given User:Fanoftheworld's history of single purpose editing, which is to promote Steinway & Sons pianos at the expense of other brands, I feel this deletion template is suspect. I vote keep. The page does need expansion, however.THD3 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is nothing else than promotion, it does not cite any references or sources, and it got lists that only can be for promotional reasons.
 * User:THD3's comment about Steinway & Sons is only a postulate and is not relevant regarding this article. User:THD3 has not given any reason for keeping the article nevertheless the template is deleted. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment was not about Steinway, it was about Fanoftheworld's pattern of editing.THD3 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, you are not making comments about the case but about an editor. Comments about an editor shows your lack of arguments, because the editor is not relevant. A laywer can explain that to you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposals for changes
Let us seek consensus when making changes. In that spirit, I propose the following changes:
 * Currently, there are two sections for well known people who use(d) the Imperial Bösendorfer. I believe we should merge this into one section and provide citations.
 * Also, in the current composer section, there are work titles next to the composer names. Are these to suggest that the works in question were written specifically for the Imperial Bösendorfer in some way that was unique?  Perhaps they use the extra notes in the bass section?  If we can't find evidence of this, I propose we delete the work titles.THD3 (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can upload a photo showing the 9 extra keys?THD3 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be best if the composers and owner/users information is incorporated into the text rather than left as section-headed lists. – Athaenara  ✉  22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have combined the lists into one, and trimmed the extraneous material.THD3 (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Lack of references
The article has a lack of references. If no references can be added, the unsourced sentences can be removed according to Verifiability. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely nothing has been done for a long time (several days), including nothing done since the announcement written just above. Some unsourced, disputed and questionable content is removed according to Verifiability as written earlier. The article still needs additional citations for verification. Fanoftheworld (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Imperial Bösendorfer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111181650/http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/model-290-imperial.html to http://www.boesendorfer.com/en/model-290-imperial.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016010654/http://www.boesendorfer.com/de/modell-290-imperial.html to http://www.boesendorfer.com/de/modell-290-imperial.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)