Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov/Archive 1

Orchestral
A well known piece that is attributed to Nikoli is Dance of the Tumblers, played often in middle and high school orchestras.

R: That's actually "Dance of the Skomorokhi" from Rimsky-Korsakov's opera Snowmaiden, Act III. Perhaps the Workslist should include a sub-category for "famous orchestral excerpts." (Fifi)

List of Musical Works
In my Wikieducation today I learned about the proper use of lists. So I removed the prospective list of Rimsky's works from this article to create a proper list outside of it. Given that this was a major act of cleaning up the article, I removed the "clean-up" template that had been inserted this month. Mademoiselle Fifi 23:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Major Literary Works
The current listing of his literary works is missing the critical information about when he wrote them. The dates mostly refer to publication of editions, which is nice for currency, but we need to include when he wrote each and when they were FIRST published, please. --QwertyAZ 10:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made a stab at revising to include some of this information, although exactly how it should be formatted remains unclear to me (a straight book-listing format doesn't necessarily "allow" for what an encyclopedia should provide in this regards). I'll look at some other samples in Wikipedia. --QwertyAZ 10:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't the Practical Manual of Harmony and Principles of Orchestration scientific textbooks rather than works of literature?--Cancun771 19:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think one would call them music theory texts; not scientific. I assume that it says "literary works" in its broadest sense, any sort of writing (i.e. "according to the latest medical literature" or in this case music theory literature), as opposed to his musical compositions.  I'd say this usage is okay, but if we think readers might get confused and think that the Practical Manual of Harmony and The Brothers Karamazov are the same sort of literature, then maybe we should change it/--JayHenry 20:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The synesthesia question
I know that Scriabin had this, but this is the first time I have heard the R-K did too. The citation refers to a single book that apparently discusses the condition generally, which I have obviously not read. Is there some confusion here between Scriabin and R-K or did they both have it? Wspencer11 12:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * RK associated different tonalities with different colors. This was documented by Yastrebtsev.  I'd have to do some more research to find out whether RK's perception of other aspects of music (instrumental timbres, etc.) had comparable effects on his senses. Mademoiselle Fifi 13:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
A strong consensus has emerged against using infoboxes designed for popular contemporary artists on the pages of historic composers (see Infoboxes_for_composers). I propose to leave the photo where it is but move the infobox here for comments etc. Thank you. - Kleinzach 03:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The infobox has just been put back on the article page - without any explanation here - and against the consensus at the Composers Project. Does someone want to start an edit war? If so I'm not participating. --Kleinzach 04:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding this particular box: Rimsky-Korsakov was not a Romantic. The word Romantic doesn't even occur in Richard Taruskin's article in Grove. Also the way the dates are presented is confusing. As in the case of the other (bio) infoboxes for composers - this one merely misleads. It doesn't inform. --Kleinzach 04:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kleinzach. Until a better userbox for composers can be designed, the modern-music infobox is hopelessly problematic. --JayHenry 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Get rid of it per centralised discussion. It's inaccurate. --Folantin 08:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Keys or Notes"
The synesthesia section is confused: the text says key, and the table says note. For example, Eb=dark bluish-grey, but is this the note E flat, or the key E-flat major?? --Vlmastra 01:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keys: I clarified it, and added another cite (from the Oxford Companion to Music, "Colour and Music").  Scholes gives the list there as "the colours evoked by the major scales in the minds of two Russian composers" -- and then titles the list "keys".  Antandrus  (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Atheism
An anonymous user removed the "Russian atheists" category from the article earlier. I've added it back with back-up sources. They are lengthy, and may be obtrusive and not placed in the appropriate place in the article. But perhaps a claim of some controversy such as this does need more than one source. If anyone wants to edit or rearrange them, feel free. Dekkappai 02:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a tremendous amount of material in the footnotes for compositions devoted to RK's atheism. Could this be condensed?Jonyungk (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and Spelling Mistakes
Because I do not know the accepted spellings for many names in this article, I do not feel competent to edit them without further knowledge. However, a more informed individual might strive to clean up the varying (from one line to the next, as it happens) spellings of names and groups. There are also a number of grammatical mistakes in this article. I hope to point all inconsistencies out, but as it is, I am just pointing out the general problem. 67.35.243.183 (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I was not signed in when I wrote that... Sorry. DeftHand (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review
I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is a high-quality article, clearly approaching GA quality. It may be good enough as is for an A-level rating; I will seek additional opinions. My detailed review is on the comments page; questions or comments can be left here or on my talk page.

I do take issue with some of the inline citations. Many of them say "Rimsky-Korsakov"; I'm guessing these refer to his son's biography of him, and not his autobiography (which is not listed as a reference). This should probably be made more explicit, using "A. Rimsky-Korsakov" or similar. Also, editors should beware the Alma Problem and WP:SELFPUB in using those sources. --  Magic ♪piano 17:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The R-K references are to the composer's autobiography, My Musical Life. All footnotes have been modified to reflect this. Jonyungk (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Mussorgsky
It is written here: "While Rimsky-Korsakov's arrangement of Night on Bald Mountain and his orchestration of Pictures at an Exhibition are still the versions generally performed today". I won't argue about Night and Boris, but Rimsky-Korsakov's orchestration of Pictures is definitely not the version generally performed today. The most performed orchestration is by Ravel, and there are many other orchestrations performed more frequently than Rimsky's (Like Stokowski's). Moreover, the original suite for piano is by no means less popular than any of the orchestrations. AdamChapman (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did Rimsky even orchestrate Pictures? Grove Online lists no orchestration of Pictures at an Exhibition by Rimsky-Korsakov among the works by other composers that he was involved in.  (I've heard portions of an orchestration by at least one other Russian composer, although the name escapes me at the moment.) Methinks the apparently erroneous information should be removed from the article. Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He never did. Rimsky's student Mikhail Tushmalov orchestrated one Promenade and three of the pictures, and some people over the years have for some reason attributed it to him. (As for the Russian composer you're thinking of, it's probably Gorchakov, who did his version in the 50s, and was recorded by Kurt Masur) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rimsky-Korsakov did not orchestrate Pictures but he did edit the piano version that Ravel et al have used as the basis for their efforts. This is probably where the confision about a Rimsky-Korsakov version arose. Vladimir Ashkenazy spoke out about corruptions in the Rimsky-Korsakov edition and used Mussorgsky's original version when he orchestrated his version of Pictures. Jonyungk (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

what instroments did he play ??? need to know ..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.198.28 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rimsky-Korsakov? Piano plus he learned to play several brass and wind instruments during his time as Inspector of Bands. Mussorgsky was an excellent pianist. So was Rimsky-Korsakov's wife, who was R-K's lifelong musical assistant. Jonyungk (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Good bio of Rimsky–Korsakov in English?
Can anyone recommend a biography of Rimsky-Korsakov in English other than his autobiography? I would eventually like to bring this article to FA status but to do so need to find other sources of information than the autobiography and the New Grove whch are currently the primary sources for the article. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's the little book by Montagu-Nathan, but it's very old and dated. See http://imslp.org/wiki/Rimsky-Korsakof_(Montagu-Nathan%2C_Montagu). Mademoiselle Fifi (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead link
This is a dead link at the bottom of this article: http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/3606/start.html

Guess I don't know whether it should be simply deleted, or some substitute found.

Abuelo jack (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy wording
Article has All, Many, all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , all , any , any , any , many, many, many, many, many, many, many,Several,Several,Some ,Some ,a few,a few,a number of,a number of,a number of,several,several,several,several,several,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some ,some of them. See reviewer and how to eliminating redundancy. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 06:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrey Nikolayevich or Nikolay Andreyevich?
The McAllister entry at the middle of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov calls him "Andrey Nikolayevich Rimsky-Korsakov" instead of Nikolay Andreyevich. Is that a typo? Art LaPella (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a typo. Andrey Nikolayevich is the composer's son, who is referred to briefly in the article. Jonyungk (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible typos
"kilometres" (UK) for "kilometers" (U.S.); "instil" for "instill" (ditto); "Chancellory" for "Chancellery". As to "fakeloric" I dare express no opinion. Another excellent and most readable article. - Tim riley (talk) 07:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment and for pointing out the typos, some of which I have corrected. The mile/kilometer conversion formula evidently uses the the UK spelling "Kilometres" and cannot be changed, and I'm still getting used to "fakeloric" (the presently correct term for "folkloric") myself. Jonyungk (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Navbox Romanticism + The Five note
I added a note for The Five in the lead section, so we do not have to leave the page to know their names. I have also added some  in Footnotes, References, and External links, so they have the same font size of the Note section.

But, why is Romanticism featured on this article??? That is a navigation template, a group of articles' links used in related articles to facilitate navigation between them. So, please, ADD Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov to that template OR REMOVE IT from the article and eventually add a link to Romantic music in See also. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 09:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think whoever added that template did so because of the link to Romantic nationalism; this article links in turn to musical nationalism, which relates to Rimsky-Korsakov's music. I agree that either Rimsky-Korsakov should be added to the list of composers (which is also missing Tchaikovsky], BTW) or the template removed. Jonyungk (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

someone has just vandalised this page. pls can someone revert (i dont know how to) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.155.33 (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Portrait


This pic is better, eh? Longbowman (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good addition. Jrt989 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So I add. It goes well into free space that formed with TOC.Longbowman (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! Antandrus (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Two points. First, we really don't need two photos in the lead section. Second, is this photo in public domain? If it's not, it shouldn't be here--the guidelines on FAs are clear about this. I deleted it before reading the talk page for the reasons mentioned. If someone can prove beyond a doubt that the photo is in public domain and have it approved as such, go ahead and use it in place of what's currently in the lead section. If not, and especially till then, please do not use it in this article. Jonyungk (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Signature
Can we use this signature image? Mahler has its own signature below its portrait. OboeCrack (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't see why not if there are no copyright issues with it. Question, though: Has anyone else tried finding out the copyright status of the photo in the thread above this one? If it's PD or otherwise okay per copyright, let's use that for the lede image but it has to be indicated on the image page. If we can't clarify the status, we can place the signature under the picture already in the lede. Jonyungk (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sadko
I find that there is no mention of Sadko (opera) anywhere at all in the article titled Sadko (musical tableau). In fact it seems more than a little strange that the two are not combined into a single article, which would be considerably less confusing and inconvenient for readers. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not strange at all, given they are completely unrelated musically. Though I do agree there should be mention of the opera in the article for the tone poem. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That answers my question - thanks very much. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Rimsky-Korsakoffee House
Should Rimsky-Korsakoffee House be connected to this article/subject in any way? The name of the classical music-themed coffeehouse is obviously derived from Rimsky-Korsakov. Perhaps a see also link? Perhaps the two are not related enough. Figured I would ask the subject experts to make the call. -- Another Believer ( Talk )
 * Your point, well intentioned enough, doesn't seem relevant since the article is about Rimsky-Korsakov's life and achievements. I applaud the thought regardless and appreciate the suggestion. Jonyungk (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the above response, otherwise we'd be linking all sorts of marginally-related things to articles which have very different intensions. But thanks, "Another Believer" for raising it here first. Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov - Claimed atheism as stated fact
Adding individuals to atheism category may be in violation of several WP rules and guidelines.

Statements and claims presented as a fact must be backed by balanced, certified and strong unequivocal research and scholarship with the help of multiple sources. Loose claims here and there are just opinions and does not amount to an fair and balanced view. Varying authors can be be used as a source for presenting an opinion for such and such, but it is still not to be deemed authoritative and conclusive.
 * PLEASE OBSERVE THE FOLLOWING


 * WP:BLPCAT - Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question


 * WP:CHERRY fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject,  a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to  be bold and trim off excessive biased content


 * WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources


 * WP:SCICON The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.


 * WP:FRINGE -A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article


 * WP:YESPOV Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.


 * WP:WEIGHT -Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.


 * WP:YESPOV -Avoid stating opinions as facts


 * WP:NOR -Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)


 * PS


 * These may be furthermore of use


 * WP:NOTOPINION -Opinion pieces, although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes".
 * WP:NOTRELIABLE - Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional
 * WP:ASSERT When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution.
 * WP:SYN :Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.


 * Thank you and hope to make Wikipedia a better place!


 * Pgarret (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Rimsky-Korsakov's atheism is not particularly controversial. For example the big article in the current New Grove, by Marina Frolova-Walker, states it clearly (see "Life, 4" if you have access).  See also Simon Morrison, Russian Opera and the Symbolist Movement, where it's even mentioned in the abstract.  A quick search on JSTOR also turns up a bunch of results which we could use for references.  Antandrus  (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at it a little more closely, 1) there are already three citations in the article on Rimsky's atheism -- did you miss them? 2) There is an entire article by none other than Richard Taruskin which includes Rimsky's atheism in its title (Kitezh:  Religious Art of an Atheist) (1995).  By the way, WP:BLPCAT applies to living people only. Antandrus  (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoever would go through all this detail about a facet of R-K's life that is cited and apparently passed FAC without question from everyone else who read the article gives the distinct impression of apparently being a troll.Jonyungk (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There has been made some claims that Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov held some unorthodox views about this and that. One of the areas it is claimed involved is attitudes towards the Russian Orthodox Church. The fact remains that Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov was a baptised and had his Chrismation in the Russian Orthodox Church. He never expressed views or actions which could be interpreted as him disowning or leaving the church in to which he was baptised and buried. Pgarret (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What Rimsky-Korsakov did was to redefine the interpretation of orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality in Russia.
 * https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/41117


 * Rimsky-Korsakov Grave.jpg in the Alexander Nevsky Monastery]]


 * "He never expressed views or actions which could be interpreted as him disowning or leaving the church" -- that's your opinion. The text is backed up with cites.  I have restored the category. Antandrus  (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

PGarret, I think you have got rather the wrong end of the stick about WP biographies. "Statements and claims presented as a fact must be backed by balanced, certified and strong unequivocal research and scholarship with the help of multiple sources." Not at all. One reliable reference is standard. There is no such thing as 'unequivocal research'. Strong sources, such as encyclopaedias, authorised biographies and academic articles often give contradictory information, such as birth dates. WP:RS describe what WP holds to be strong sources. 'BLP' stands for 'biography of living people'. Clearly this does not apply to Rimsky Korsakov (or Chekov, Nobel or Halley‎, for that matter). One source is fine to reference a category. If you add text such as "he never stated his atheism", you are required to add a reference for that. "Varying authors can be be used as a source for presenting an opinion for such and such, but it is still not to be deemed authoritative and conclusive." I think here you mean "deemed authoritative and conclusive by you". You may not be comfortable with the way WP works, but the guidelines are clearly laid out. Span (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The major biographies and scholarship do not present Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov as an atheist. In this book, Rimsky-Korsakov "My Musical Life" he gives the inside story of his life and there is nothing to support fanciful claims of atheistic worldview. Controversial opinions,  liberal political view, and hint of Russian pagan pantheism; maybe yes but that is all. He was buried at the Alexander Nevsky Monastery an this was only possible if one was a member of the Russian Orthodox Church i.e. he was Orthodox. If not broadly supported by scholarship it is an exceptional claim,  original research and is especially appalling when making a blanket statement.


 * Please observe the following


 * WP:SCICON The statement that all or most scholars hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.


 * WP:FRINGE -A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article


 * WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources


 * WP:CHERRY fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject,  a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to  be bold and trim off excessive biased content


 * Pgarret (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The article gives three strong sources to support the atheism. OR cannot be cited here. You offer none for the subjects ongoing Christian practice. As stated above, WP works through verifiability. Some more sources:    Span (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There are strong sources to support the pantheism claim (Oxford Dictionaries - Pantheism i.e. doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God).


 * Musicologists and Slavicists have long recognized that Rimsky-Korsakov was a pantheistic and ecumenical artist whose folklore-inspired operas take up such issues as the relationship between paganism and Christianity and the seventeenth-century schism in the Orthodox Church. This edition shows that he expressed his antidoctrinaire sentiments on a smaller scale in his hymns and psalms. His conception of sacred music was one that, over time, expanded cultural, historical, and even liturgical boundaries. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/900592?uid=3737976&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103152206941


 * As preface to the score, he quoted portions of the 68th Psalm and the 16th chapter of Mark, and added some lines of his own which make reference to a more primitive and more universal vernal symbolism, in keeping with his own basically pantheistic outlook.http://www.kennedy-center.org/calendar/?fuseaction=composition&composition_id=2478


 * I know that Stravinsky referred once to his teacher's (i.e. Nikolai) more or less trendy “bourgeois atheism”. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on his provo atheism as a stable reliable fact, but more one his bourgeois sentiments and bourgeois nationalism. His pantheistic sentiments goes well with his bourgeois era instrumental reasoning mixed with some proto Bobo hippieness. If I remember rightly trendy provo-atheism was the great rage in Russia in the bourgeois intellectualist circles before the great heap came tumbling down. By the time of his death in 1908, Rimsky-Korsakov was something of a hero to the Russian left. Despite his poor and shabby gentile background he managed to make his way up to leading cultural echelons and hence sympathized with the hunger and frustration of the left-leaning bourgeois which included some of the petite nobility, like the great Lenin himself. Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Religious Views
There seem to be differing points of view among reliable sources regarding Rimsky-Korsakov's religious views. Musicologist Andrew Clements writing for The Guardian claims he was "a devout atheist", and that he was disparagingly described by Stravinsky as "closed to any religious or metaphysical idea". The author also goes on mentioning pantheism, but only to suggest that it merely served as inspirational material.

In fact, the reference already existed in older versions of the article (like this one), along with another reference to Russian-music scholar Simon Morrison, which very clearly states that Rimsky-Korsakov was an atheist. I wonder why these were put aside as the article evolved.

Meanwhile, one of the two present references (the one by First Things) only states the possibility that "pantheist" may be a better label than "atheist". So the rather strident wording in favor of the "pantheist" hypothesis seems to come from a single source.

The fact that this last differing source acknowledges that he's often described as an atheist is testament to the unsettlement. Unless I'm missing something bigger here, those few sentences I'm calling into question are failing Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. --Sisgeo (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * He was an atheist, according to most reliable sources, but I'm aware of at least one calling him a pantheist. The article was fought over a couple years ago by an anti-atheist pusher, and it's more or less still in that state. See discussion on this page, above. I blocked a bunch of that person's sockpuppets myself so I'm not sure if I should edit the article myself to restore the way it was -- but feel free. ("Septimus Wilson", "Pgarrett" and a bunch of others are all the same person). Richard Taruskin actually called Rimsky an atheist in the title of an article he published. Antandrus (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I would say this concern has been effectively addressed by User:DrKay, allegedly basing the change on a featured version of this article. --Sisgeo (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you both -- that looks better now. Antandrus (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

ENGVAR
I looked back and this early version uses American spelling. Was there a reason it was changed? --John (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it was just the undefined undefined template that I saw that caused me to get this wrong. I think it is ok now. --John (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Template
Can anyone make template on this page? --SQORP (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced additions
A portion of the article was removed today as unsourced. Looking at the article history, it made no mention of Czech ancestry until this edit. Later, another edit split a paragraph in two, leaving a new one without any references, which culminated in its deletion today. Could somebody knowledgeable on the topic of Rimsky-Korsakov's ancestry have a look at these edits and restore the article into a form befitting of a FA? Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)