Talk:List of classical violinists

Contemporary violinists
There seem to be no clear ground rules here. There is a full list at List of contemporary classical violinists, but here we have a shorter list, presumably showing only the most prominent names. But what criterion decides who’s in the short list and who’s not? It’s never been discussed.

Recently we’ve had the removal, by an anonymous editor, without any explanation, of Takako Nishizaki, Kyung-Wha Chung, Midori, Cho-Liang Lin, Anne Akiko Myers, Maxim Vengerov, Chloe Hanslip, Ray Chen and others. These removals are hardly sustainable if we have a short list.

However, my preference would be to have no short list at all ; simply a link to the main list, where ALL notable contemporary violinists are shown. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   20:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * First, I object to anonymous undoing of the work of others, especially with a lack of explanation of deletions. I am not sure what Jack is saying. If he means the deletions are okay because of the longer list, then I disagree, at least regarding some of the deletions. According to the list of other contributions from the deleter, he fancies himself (and may well be) an expert on various subjects involving classical music. However, I doubt the expertise of anyone who thinks that Kyung-Wha Chung is not an important contemporary violinist. Likewise, Midori (like her or not, she plays with top flight orchestras and conductors and has a bundle of major label CDs), Jimmy Lin and Vengerov, to say the least. I have created a talk page for the deleter and asked him to explain his criteria. If I see no answer in a week, I shall restore at least the most important of the deletions.


 * If he means the deletions are okay because of the longer list, then I disagree, at least regarding some of the deletions. No, they are NOT ok, if we keep this short-list approach. But I'm arguing we should do away with this short list entirely, because there will always be disagreement at the margin about who qualifies and who doesn't.  Having only one comprehensive list of contemporary violinists is much more sane.   Whether it's part of this article or has its own article is neither here nor there - that's what links are for.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Jack's suggestion. Have one list for historical (i.e., dead) classical violinists and another for contemporary. Or, at least, merge the two lists in one location or another. Of course, in either case, when someone on the contemporary list dies, someone with knowledge of the death will need to move the name to an appropriate list. Eventually, there will need to be a list of dead 21st Century classical violinists. Msilbergeld (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)