Talk:List of symphony orchestras in the United States

regarding the new table of contents
template:ListByUSStateTOC

i, for one, absolutely hate the new table of contents, and want to see it gone! i'm wondering if i can get someone's else's impressions? --emerson7 | Talk 23:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

VSO inclusion
The Vancouver Symphony Orchestra is in Vancouver, Canada, not Washington as listed. Perhaps there is another VSO in Washington, but the article links to the Canadian SO's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.197.143 (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Beginning cleanup
In order for this article to conform to the WP:NOTDIR policy, and the WP:EL, WP:SAL, and WP:RED guidelines, I am going to begin removing the external, non, and red links from this list. Any assistance would be appreciated. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * External links are now done. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope of list
The rigid content restrictions employed here and in related lists of orchestras are based on a misinterpretaton of notability policy and are inconsistent with Wikipedia practice and policy. It is perfectly acceptable for a list of this type to include redlinks. Notability does not require that another article already exists, only that there is independent coverage of the topic that could be used to create an article. The universe of symphony orchestras is relatively limited and they typically are documented in 3rd-party sources, so it is reasonable to assume that any symphony orchestra is notable. Listing redlinks -- particularly redlinks that are supported by reference citations that help to establish the existence and notability of an entry -- helps build the encyclopedia by identifying articles that need to be created or expanded; refusing to list them stifles the development of Wikipedia. I have changed the lead section to indicate a less restrictive interpretation of the list scope. --Orlady (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Our notability policy contains no exception for symphony orchestras. Please read the appropriate policies.  The assertion that " it is reasonable to assume that any symphony orchestra is notable"  is clearly unsupportable according to Wikipedia policy. Dlabtot (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that if an entry is supported by reference citations that help to establish its notability (its exisitance is irrelevant) it can be included. If you can find any orchestras that meet that criteria and are not included on the list, please add them, along with the citations. Dlabtot (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, you accuse me of not understanding notability and not citing sources, but I don't think you actually looked at my edits that you summarily deleted. I revised the lead so that it is no longer inappropriately self-referential and so it includes some reliably sourced content to introduce the list, I supplied sources for BOTH of the redlink entries in the article (including the one that had been added by another user in an edit that inadvertently borked the page format), I created a See also section that links to other related articles, and I created a References section to hold the five references I added to this previously unsourced article.
 * I've had this article on my watchlist for a long time, and I've observed how you exert ownership over this and related lists. Your insistence that only orchestras with their own articles are notable is not a valid interpretation of WP:Notability; there are many orchestras that meet the general notability guideline, but don't have articles yet. Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists discusses the inclusion criteria appropriate for different kinds of stand-alone lists; the criterion relevant to this list is as follows:
 * Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.  This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers.  Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.
 * Please stop deleting sourced content added by other users, and please try to remember that you don't WP:OWN this or any other article. --Orlady (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, please stop deleting sourced content -- such as the extensively sourced lead section that I added to this article consistent with the principles expressed at Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. The content I have been adding is fully sourced and took this article away from being a self-referential "List of symphony orchestras with Wikipedia articles" and in the general direction of being a sourced, encyclopedic list of US symphony orchestras. What possible good reason could there be for deleting this content? --Orlady (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First, let me extend an olive branch and a hand of friendship. This shouldn't be a fight.
 * So let's try to find a way to work together to improve the list. My suggestion is that we start slow, as collaboration isn't always easy. Why don't we start with one orchestra. Pick one whose notability you believe is supported by multiple independent sources and add it to the list along with those sources. That way, instead of trading barbs about who understands policy better or arguing about generalities we can just look at the specifics of the sources and determine if they meet our notability criteria. I think it would be great if we could expand the list.  I still believe it would make more sense to just write the article for that orchestra first and then add it to the list, but I am open to different approaches, if they conform to policy. Dlabtot (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, let it be known that I have no particular interest in symphony orchestras, and I am not interested in being mentored to learn to write articles about orchestras.
 * My interest with regard to this list is in Wikipedia in general, and I have perceived this list as something of an embarrassment to Wikipedia in general because it is a fairly high-visibility page (over 100 page views daily), but it is woefully incomplete regarding its intended scope and it declared its scope in a self-referential fashion (most recently, "American orchestras with entries in the Wikipedia") that is contrary to Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid. Additionally, I have watched well-intentioned efforts to add to the list get reverted in a fashion that I think would discourage most contributors from trying to contribute to Wikipedia again.
 * This list had an ignominious history of being a mess of inappropriate external links. It was cleaned up to eliminate the ELs, but I believe the cleanup effort went too far -- and should not have been enforced through the continued deletion of any shred of content that wasn't a blue link.
 * As I see it, any bona fide established symphony orchestra can be presumed to be notable. There are only about 1,200 such in the United States, so the potential scope of this list is not nearly infinitely large. When all elements of a set can be presumed notable, but not all elements have their own articles, they commonly are listed in list articles like List of high schools in Pennsylvania, where redlinks are commingled with bluelinks. It helps when authoritative third-party sources have listed the items that potentially belong on a list, and it is admittedly harder to find good lists of orchestras than it is to find good lists of high schools, but some suitable lists do exist. For example, I found a third-party list of the 117 orchestras that had budgets over $2.5 million as of 2007; I would think that it would be easy to get agreement that all such orchestras would be notable, but when I listed and footnoted the names of the orchestras on that list that were not already on this list, my edits were reverted (along with others) for being "explicitly contrary to numerous policies". To what policies were those edits "explicitly contrary"? --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in arguing with you. But I would like to work with you. I have made a suggestion as to how we can do that. As far as I can tell you have not responded to that suggestion. Would you like to do so now?  Dlabtot (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion appears to me to be an offer to mentor me on creating an acceptable article about an orchestra of particular interest to me. As I have indicated, I am not particularly interested in orchestras (either in general or in particular), nor in being mentored. FWIW, some time ago after you reverted some sourced additions that I made to this list, I did create two symphony orchestra articles, Memphis Symphony Orchestra and Oak Ridge Symphony Orchestra. Please look at those articles if you wish to verify my ability to create valid articles about orchestras.
 * As for suggestions for additions to the list, please note that I already provided such, but you summarily reverted my edits. Please look at this version of the page. All of the redlink orchestras that are sourced to footnote 2 are orchestras listed by Infoplease as having had budgets of more than $2.5 million in 2007. I contend that the infoplease listing is sufficient indication of notability warrant inclusion in this list. Further, I contend that inclusion in the Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture article on Symphonies (footnote 8) is sufficient basis for inclusion of the one redlinked article sourced to footnote 8. The other redlinks in that particular version also have citations to sources. I think that some bluelinks that I added based on the InfoPlease list (orchestras that had articles, but weren't on this list) also were deleted when you reverted me.
 * Finally, please note that some of the bluelinks on this list fall far short of the notability threshold that you claim to be enforcing. For example, consider Grand Teton Music Festival and Valley Symphony Orchestra (McAllen, Texas). Rigorous enforcement of "the link must be blue" is not the same thing as ensuring notability. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never said, thought, implied, nor said anything that could be reasonably inferred to imply, that I am qualified to mentor anyone on any subject. Please desist in this disingenuous and false personal attack.
 * If I understand you correctly, you think this list should include a lot more orchestras than it does. I'm simply asking you to go ahead and add one. Of course, I can't force you to add more orchestras to the list, it's up to you. Dlabtot (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We've already done that, and the result wasn't good. As I pointed out above, I added a bunch of entries already (see this version of the article and you reverted my edits. (You have reverted some of my list additons more than once.) I could add those same entries again, but what's the point if you are going to revert me again? Did you have an objection to those specific entries, or not? (You can review them in the history without my needing to go to the trouble of adding them to the article again.) --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I have no desire to argue with you about hypotheticals or conduct a post-mortem of past edits. If you want edit the article, nothing is stopping you. Dlabtot (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This list article is full of admonitions that "The same notability criteria apply here as elsewhere in Wikipedia: entries with no independent sources listed either here or in other Wikipedia articles may not be notable, and are likely to be removed." Let's start actually following that directive by not deleting redlink entries that are supported by valid reference citations. I have once again restored the entry for the venerable Mississippi Symphony Orchestra in Jackson. --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The question is, what are 'valid references citations' for the purpose of establishing notability? (BTW, notability requires non-trivial mention in multiple reliable sources.)  My suggestion is that you start writing some articles instead of just adding items to a list. Perhaps the Mississippi Symphony Orchestra would be a good place to start. I'm not sure why the idea This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of lists. I'm not clear on the objection is to having articles about these allegedly notable orchestras. Dlabtot (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I estimate that at least 90% of U.S. orchestras can be demonstrated to be notable according to the general notability guideline. Regardless of that, most of the orchestras that I have been trying to add here are clearly notable -- they are on a published list of the ~117 biggest-budget orchestras in the country. These are topics for articles that should exist, but haven't been created yet. Some of them have been listed and deleted here many times over. If they appear on this list as redlinks, it increases the chance that someone will finally create the articles.
 * Note that the emphasis on bluelinks is no guarantee of notability. For example, I found that Columbus Symphony Orchestra was bluelinked in two states (it only belongs in one of them). Also, there are several bluelinks that point to pages that are emblazoned with templates like "notability" and "unreferenced". --Orlady (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now, as for your suggestion that I should "start writing some articles instead of just adding items to a list"... I don't like playing edit-count comparison games, but I will do so this time only because the comparison makes your bluster look particularly ill-advised. Among my 50,000+ edits to article space in this encyclopedia, I've created at least a few hundred articles, including several for symphony orchestras. I see that you, on the the other hand, have created exactly two pages, while the vast majority of your 111 edits to this page removed other contributors' content from the page. Next time you get the urge to lecture someone that "this is an encyclopedia" and "start writing some articles", consider delivering the speech to a mirror. --Orlady (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that many well-established orchestras are being excluded from this list is horrible! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:V initial discussion
WP:V states, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Note that blue links are not references. See Talk:Elizabethtown, KY. Unscintillating (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I see what you're trying to do, and I support your attempt to make things verifiable, but that isn't a good analogy in this case. The issue at Talk:Elizabethtown, KY is that inline ref links are needed to say that said people are from Elizabethtown, KY . I don't disagree (particularly if it's not referenced in the person's article). If you take that analogy, however, there are a couple of issues. The first issue is that it's silly on its face to need to verify that these orchestras are from the United States (the scope of the list). Seeing somebody named Jane Doe doesn't verify that she is from Elizabethtown, Kentucky—but seeing an "Elizabethtown Kentucky Memorial Symphony" clearly indicates that the organization is from the United States. Challenging that fact via WP:V is misguided. Now, that being said, I can see someone saying "Hey, the Elizabethtown Kentucky Memorial Symphony doesn't even exist!". Well, then take a look at the Elizabethtown Kentucky Memorial Symphony article. Does that article have references verifying its existence? If there is no article for the Elizabethtown Kentucky Memorial Symphony, then yes, references can be used to verify its existence and any other criteria related to inclusion (so long as they follow WP:LISTCOMPANY, the scope of the current list, and WP:ELNO). IronGargoyle (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Since I was heavily involved in the Elizabethtown list affair, I can say that I don't recall the issue ever being requirements on the references, rather the consensus was that they had to be there. Since you are arguing that there should be an exception, where is the exception stated in policy?  As for another point, it is incorrect to say that the references can be found at the blue link, because the editors at the blue link are not trying to maintain upstream use of references, and are free to remove whatever references they choose.  Relatedly, the blue link could be deleted.  In balance, I don't dispute your point that it would seem in this case that any references at all, even the previous existence of a deleted article, should be evidence of references.  But this view goes back to the point that, why are we trying to find exceptions so as to remove references?  WP:V is a core content policy.  Why remove policy-compliant functioning citations?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear what's being disputed. Can someone explain? --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Elizabethtown link you should find extended discussion on WT:V. I haven't read it recently, so let me know if you have any trouble finding the discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still unclear what the dispute is here. A simple, clear description would make it much easier for others to weigh in. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand it, I removed a bunch of inline reference tags in cases where I did not feel they were necessary (symphony orchestras with an existing article). Unscintillating added Unreferenced section templates to basically every section in the article. I reverted Unscintillating's addition (including an intervening attempt by another editor to insert promotional links to a couple of local orchestras) because I thought it was unnecessary to have nearly 50 templates, and then my revert (including the removal of the promotional links) was reverted in turn. That's about where we stand I think. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:LINKSPAM refers to external links, yet your edits have been removing citations that are not external links as linkspam. Unscintillating (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely untrue. Perhaps I have a mistaken edit summary in my thousands of edits maintaining lists, but at this page I removed external links to both Lincoln's Symphony Orchestra and Hastings Symphony Orchestra. I noted that the removal of reference links to the near-useless Information Please Database was the removal of "reference bloat". Also note that the Information Please Database reference links were used multiple times as falsified reference material. I don't know if this was a deliberate attempt at deception on the part of previous editors, but the vast number of unneeded references to that poor source made it that much more difficult to uncover the falsified reference use. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely untrue? It is easy to search the edit history for "linkspam" and falsify your claim.  The two times you've removed the following citation, both edit summaries have had the word "linkspam":


 * Unscintillating (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not 50 templates, it was 49, because I had fixed the one for Kentucky. That one template is an important difference, as it represents the start of fixing the verifiability problem.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the OP. If this post is saying that the OP is not clear and simple, please explain why the OP is not clear and simple.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed templates have been added to virtually every section of this article.

According to WP:MINREF:.

Clearly, inline citations have been asked, and per policy, they should be added. Failing that, challenged content may be removed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What would be challenged here, is someone questioning that an entry is actually a "symphony orchestra" or that its location is as stated? If an editor does not have a good faith reason to believe either of those criteria are incorrect, they should not be removing any entry from this list. That's what it means to "challenge" in this context (as policy at WP:PRESERVE should also make clear); it does not mean merely to insist on a particular format. postdlf (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is settled policy, that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, that verifiability requires reliable sources, and that lists in mainspace require verifiability.The sum of your view appears to be that it was ok to remove 110 citations from the list, that there is no need to codify an exception to WP:V for lists like this one, and that WP:V is not enforceable either by adding tags or by removing unreferenced material, because WP:V is about good faith.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But your view still doesn't explain why the citation to the LPO was called linkspam, or why the article was protected before the removal of the 110 citations. Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is all a non sequitur to my comment above. postdlf (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that it is settled policy; that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, that verifiability requires reliable sources, and that lists in mainspace require verifiability? Unscintillating (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Still nonresponsive, and I should caution you that such rhetorical questions can come across as aggressively condescending, particularly to someone who has been doing this as long as I have. None of which helps persuade anyone to the position you're trying to advance. Do you agree that the removal of an inline cite from a list entry by an editor who thinks it is superfluous is not reasonable grounds for an editor who thinks the cite is necessary to remove the entry itself? Because that's what the comment I was responding to suggested by saying "challenged content may be removed". If there isn't an actual dispute whether an entry is in fact verifiable as a member of the list, but instead just over how or whether to demonstrate that within the list with an inline citation, then the content itself is not actually being "challenged". There is then no basis for content removal, and blanking by someone who wants the cite (and they therefore must believe that the entry can be verified by the cite) would then just be disruption to make a point and violative of policy at WP:PRESERVE. So I hope no one tries to go down that road, which would be sanction worthy regardless of who is "right" about whether inline citations should be included here. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that User:IronGargoyle has three times, , removed an inline citation for Lexington Philharmonic Orchestra; twice where the edit comment included the word "linkspam", and once where the edit comment included "WP:POINT"?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You can continue to discuss that issue directly with, I hope constructively and without assuming that there is necessarily a right answer here. I'm going to assume you understand the point I just made above. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So unverifiable material can't be removed? What I understand, in addition to the fact that you have excellent writing skills, is that you are imposing your personal opinion ahead of the consensus at WT:V that there is no exception case here.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment on my writing, but it's all for naught if it is not met by excellent reading skills. And you have not demonstrated understanding of what I wrote; quite the opposite. postdlf (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I called it linkspam because I felt it violated points 4 and 19 of WP:ELNO. These entries need reliable independent sources to verify them if they don't have their own Wikipedia articles (which presumably would have their own sources). That's it. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * See WT:V. Unscintillating (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

CHALLENGE status
WP:CHALLENGE says "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable." The footnote says, " For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified."

So: User:Unscintillating, it seems that you are trying WP:CHALLENGE this material. I would like therefore to see a plain, clear, unamibiguous statement from you, in compliance with that policy, that you sincerely believe that the entries in this list cannot be verified, including through basic methods such as "checking your favorite search engine" or "looking at the linked articles to see if there are sources there that prove that the material is verifiABLE, even if not yet CITEd in this particular list".

If you feel that you are unable to provide such a statement on the grounds that it would be dishonest, then we're done with the whole BURDEN/CHALLENGE/MINREF stuff, and y'all can get back to normal editing – which might, optionally, include any editor choosing to voluntarily provide some inline sources. Please ping me when you reply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * the League of American Orchestras website and publications provide verifiability for hundreds of these orchestras, naming them and their contact information in their members directory, and naming hundreds of additional orchestras in their other publications. Hence, the material in the Wikipedia article is verifiable, and any challenge to its verifiability can reasonably be put to rest. Regardless, the article can be improved by including inline citations that verify the information. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 11:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The core issue here started last August when I added an inline citation for Lexington Philharmonic Orchestra in accord with my experience obtained in participating at WT:V. Recently this inline citation was removed, along with over 100 inline citations. Note that the "citation needed" tag states that it is used "when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided."  Now take a look at the tag I initially added, and then removed from the Kentucky section after I added two inline citations:




 * }
 * There you see the statement that "Unsourced material may be challenged..." So while there is an interpretation that my actions were or are a wp:challenge, what I want is not based on a previous challenge, what I want is to be able to source the article so that the issue of a challenge is no longer germane.  I'm also open to a new consensus at WT:V that symphony orchestras in the United States are an exception for which blue links are considered reliable sources, but you won't see that those removing citations want a new WT:V consensus, rather they want to do things based on their own opinion without establishing a new consensus at WT:V.
 * What needs to happen next is for someone to inform User:IronGargoyle that inline citations are not WP:ELNO external links. Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating has kindly clarified that no CHALLENGE is meant and that there is no actual concern about the article's contents, which resolves that question completely. (Thank you for that.)  IronGargoyle's interpretation of ELNO above is not unreasonable, but also not what was meant by either of those points.  (I'm very familiar with that particular guideline, and most of the six copies of "this guideline does not apply to inline citations" were added by me.)
 * I think therefore that we can be done with the arguments about what policies do or don't say, then, and just talk sense like we're friends. It sounds to me like this comes down to a simple difference of personal styles.  One editor thinks that a string of references mostly to a not-so-brilliant website constitutes an improvement to an article (a net improvement, even if only a smallish improvement); another editor thinks that providing inline sources for undisputed (and unlikely to ever be disputed) information does not constitute an improvement to the article.  Does that sound like a fair description of each of your views?
 * IronGargoyle, I wanted to add that if the prominent style of the ref tags annoys you, then there are some unobtrusive styles that could be used as an alternative, particularly if nearly all of the content could be sourced to a small number of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on what to look for in WP:EL. Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As for if this represents my view, my view is that unsourced material requires sources, and if not sourced may be challenged, although there is no deadline for either. There is no consensus that there are exceptions that allow blue links to be used as reliable sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The following quote is from :
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"


 * == Important points to remember ==
 * == Important points to remember ==
 * == Important points to remember ==


 * 1) This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section. This specifically includes e-commerce and other commercial-sales links, which are prohibited in External links but allowed in footnoted citations.
 * == Notes ==
 * == Notes ==
 * == Notes ==


 * }
 * Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding verifiable references to reliable sources
According to the League of American Orchestras, there were 1,224 U.S. orchestras in 2014. Referencing this fact to 1224 different sources is unwieldy. Thankfully, hundreds of them can be referenced to the League of American Orchestras website. The article currently lists about 300. 259 can be cited to one page alone.$[n1]$ Referencing it in a "notes" section that doesn't link back to the inline reference will prevent clutter like the long string of "$^ a b c d e f g h i j k [...] aa ab ac [...] za zb zc [...]$" in the reference section. This will both make the list inline-verifiable and not clutter the reference section with hundreds of links.

What do you say? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017
The Meridian Symphony Orchestra in Meridian, MS has been in existence since 1962. meridianso.org Meridianguy (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Meridian Symphony Orchestra does not have an article. Can you provide a secondary source to support that it should have one? If not, then it shouldn't be included in this list. postdlf (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that you mean to ask for an independent source, rather than a secondary one. The local newspaper has carried many articles about it, including this editorial about its 50-year anniversary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017
Missing from New York: Genesee Symphony Orchestra geneseesymphony.com Swearenger (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No article exists for this orchestra. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2017
Please add the Orchestra of the Southern Finger Lakes (OSFL) to the orchestras in New York. The OSFL just completed its 23rd season, having been formed with the merger of the Corning Philhamonic Society and the Elmira Symphony and Choral Society in 1995. Those orchestras date back to the early 20th century. They play orchestral and chamber concerts at venues in the neighboring cities of Corning, NY and Elmira, NY, and in the surrounding area. Their website is http://www.osfl.org Marshallhyde (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Does the OSFL have its own Wikipedia page? We usually require lists to have items which are shown to be Wikipedia-notable. --Izno (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2017
PLEASE ADD (NOT CHANGE) BEACH CITIES SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA UNDER THE CALIFORNIA SYMPHONY ORCHESTRAS LIST, AND ADD OUR LINK Beach Cities Symphony Orchestra BECAUSE WE ARE THE OLDEST CONTINUOUSLY PERFORMING FREE-OF-CHARGE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA IN ALL OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND QUITE POSSIBLY ALL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CURRENTLY ENTERING INTO OUR 68TH YEAR. WE EVEN HAVE ONE MEMBER WHO WAS THERE FOR THE FIRST REHEARSAL AND STILL PLAYS. HE'S THE OLDEST (AND ONLY) LIVING CHARTER MEMBER OF OUR SYMPHONY AT THE AGE OF 96, NAMED BOB PETERSON WHO PLAYS 2ND FRENCH HORN. THE SOURCE IS ME AND BOB PETERSON, BECAUSE I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE BEACH CITIES SYMPHONY, ERIKA SNOW ROBINSON, AND I PLAY 2ND BASSOON - AND HAVE BEEN WITH THE SYMPHONY FOR 18 OF THOSE 68 YEARS AND I SIT IN FRONT OF BOB PETERSON AND HE'S MY SOURCE - SINCE HE'S THE KEEPER OF OUR HISTORY. Erikasnowrobinson (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)erikasnowrobinson
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We only add symphonies with Wikipedia articles. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2017
Add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_City_Symphony for Kansas City Symphony Orchestra in the Kansas subsection. Mezrot (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done shiv am ''(t) 18:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of symphony orchestras in the United States. 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://archive.is/20120906015630/http://www.mellon.org/news_publications/annual-reports-essays/presidents-essays/the-orchestra-forum-the-orchestra-forum-a-discussion-of-symphony-orchestras-in-the-us to http://www.mellon.org/news_publications/annual-reports-essays/presidents-essays/the-orchestra-forum-the-orchestra-forum-a-discussion-of-symphony-orchestras-in-the-us

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) 12:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2018
I would like to add the Western Piedmont Symphony under North Carolina PercussionistsUnite (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is a list of orchestras that have demonstrated notability through having their own article already present in the project. The Western Piedmont Symphony does not.   Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018
Add Starkville-Mississippi State University Symphony to the Mississippi section. Link is here: http://www.starkvillesymphony.org/

Add Mississippi Symphony Orchestra to the Mississippi section. Link is here: http://www.msorchestra.com/ 130.18.104.81 (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done:: added the latter. The former doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia page. --Deskford (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2018
Please ADD the Wilmington Symphony Orchestra to the list of orchestras in North Carolina. 2606:A000:FA40:1000:B5FC:4928:2D8D:BD46 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not done. Wilmington Symphony Orchestra does not have an article, nor have any sources been presented to support notability. postdlf (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018
Add Piedmont Symphony Orchestra to Virginia Orchestras Jlsrodriguez (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We do not appear to have an article on an orchestra with this name. --Deskford (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2018
Please add to South Dakota section: Aberdeen:   Aberdeen University-Community OrchestraManhartg (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Manhartg (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC) Dr. Grant Manhart
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I don't see a Wikipedia article about this ensemble. Entries are only added to this list if they have an existing Wikipedia article. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 13:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019
The Williamsburg Symphony Orchestra should be added to the list of symphony orchestras in the United States, under the state of Virginia. See: https://www.williamsburgsymphony.org 70.160.38.81 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: does it have its own article yet? If not, it can't be added, sorry -- DannyS712 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2019
PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA TO THE LIST UNDER THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA: Salisbury Symphony

PLEASE LINK THE TITLE TO OUR WEBSITE USING THE FOLLOWING LINK URL: www.salisburysymphony.org Billbucher2012 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ – this list is only for those with Wikipedia articles already. And if you're thinking about creating it, you should read about notability and conflict of interest policies.  (Please also read WP:SHOUT).  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 20:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2020
Under the Georgia section, the "Albany Symphony Orchestra" links to an orchestra in New York. I believe the link needs to be updated or removed. Bookrat1 (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * (2 years later) Why wasn't this request attended to? If you're going to block this article from editing, at least follow up when people request corrections to be made! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Add: Solano Symphony Orchestra (California)
Community Orchestra in Solano County- California - founded in 1987. www.solanosymphony.org 2601:640:C600:EDE0:152F:ECE5:76D4:896B (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Why wasn't this added? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Was not able to edit page
I wanted to add a listing for the Southwest Florida Symphony (est. 1961), one of the oldest symphony orchestras in the United States, but the article seems to be blocked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2022
Add "Symphony NH" to New Hampshire. Symphony NH (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It must be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023
Add Hastings Symphony Orchestra under Nebraska orchestras. 162.219.193.139 (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: They must be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2023
The Villages Philharmonic Orchestra located in The Villages Florida should be included in your florida listing. They are a long established orchestra. See: thevillagesphilharmonic.org 107.145.73.77 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Villages Philharmonic Orchestra. see WP:WTAF Cannolis (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023
Add Santa Rosa Symphony 12.131.191.142 (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Santa Rosa Symphony, see WP:WTAF Cannolis (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2024
Add the following under Kentucky: Paducah Symphony Orchestra 2601:84:8680:11A0:5058:2EFF:FEEC:85C8 (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This list only includes orchestras with Wikipedia articles, please WP:WTAF. Jamedeus (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Scope question
Is this list of only current orchestras, or all time? Because if it's is just current ones, then defunct ones should be removed (there's at least a couple on here). If it's all time, then the list needs to add a notation to distinguish the defunct ones. Either way, it is misleading to list orchestras that folded decades ago alongside current ones without anything to indicate there is a difference. oknazevad (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)