User talk:Aza24/Archive 1

Portrait of a Musician
Nice research work. Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I had just messaged you on your talk page when you sent this! Aza24 (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say in the lead that among all the intrigue as to the sitters identity, the painting is considered not especially good. Ceoil  (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edits are super helpful, thanks! I would add that but in all of the sources I read no one really said that, probably out of respect for Leonardo. I think people use that it is unfinished and probably mostly not by Leonardo as an excuse for why its not "very good." Because I did see people say that it "wasn't good" but it was mostly in unreliable sources. Aza24 (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also... do you think it makes sense to nominate this article for featured status? Or are there some content or formatting, per the standards of FA, that this is lacking? This would be my first FAN, so its uncharted territory for me. Aza24 (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha, now that I look back, the "not very good" was in a blog! Re FAC, the page needs a bit of work still to be honest, but not major surgery, more tidying up. Let me read through again, and I might make some notes for you. If its your fist shot at FAC, maybe nom for Peer review or GA first. Your on the right track. Ceoil  (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'll go for GA for now. Thanks again, it looks way cleaner now.
 * not wanting to preduice the GA, here are some points, mostly light weight, I thought of earlier


 * You have some harv ref errors
 * I would merge books, articles, online in the refs, its fussy and pointless to distinguish
 * some of the notes are not referenced
 * "refined and articulate dedication to accuracy" sounds like the voice of a particulat writer; - needs attribution and to be put in quotes
 * But since comparisons of Leonardo's notation of music from drawings - dont understand this, pls clarify
 * The issues that have since discredited this theory - could be more straightforward...this theory has been disproven because...or some such Ceoil  (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ps, this is obv not exhaustive, and might keep plugging at the page. Ceoil  (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is probably similar to Léal Souvenir re speculation around the sitters identity. Would use some of the language to bring this across, as was agreed on there.  Ceoil  (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I've followed all of your suggestions, with exception to the merging of sources, its just cleaner and I've seen a lot of other articles do it that way. Just some questions:


 * I tried to rephrase the line at the end of "The musical score" section but I'm not sure if it makes sense? Basically what I'm trying to say is that drawings by Leonardo of like musical notes don't resemble to style of musical notation in the painting, so the music on the sheet music is probably not by him.]


 * I understand what you are trying to say, but it could be better expressed. In these situations, imagine the reader knows nothing, and if it takes more than 15 words to explain, or you are clarifying explanations, you not doing it right. Ceoil  (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "refined and articulate dedication to accuracy" is my words, should I rephrase them to sound less individual still or is that fine?
 * I find it very hard to parse. As we say in Europe, you wot? Ceoil  (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What are the harv ref errors?
 * Listed sources not used as inline references. Fixed. Ceoil  (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * At the end of the the page statistics theres two bugs that I'm not really sure how to address?
 * I wouldnt worry too much about them; both are Wikidata related, which is a sister project, but "off site". Ceoil  (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Orlando Gibbons
Following your kind invitation to review your text in the Life part of the article I'm afraid I have found so many points that seem to me to need a tweak that I hesitate to wade in and make wholesale changes to what you have written. Would you mind having a look at what I have put in my sandbox and considering whether you are happy with my various alterations? I may say that apart from my reservations about the prose, the article seems to me excellent: well proportioned, properly sourced and with a wealth of information but avoiding excessive detail. I'm more than happy to discuss any or all points further if that would be helpful. I'll keep an eye on this page, so perhaps you'd add your thoughts here in due course.  Tim riley  talk   19:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I've gone through edits in each of the sections and I must say they are very helpful and concise! I've implemented almost all of them into the article. I had some questions I thought you might be able to assist with now that you've read through it:
 * 1. Any idea about a 4th picture I could put in Gibbon's "Late career" or "Final years and death" section? I was thinking about a picture of Westminster or Maybe Charles 1 but I'm not sure.


 * I think you're right that Charles I (preferably when young) or the Abbey would be a good choice. The latter would be more to the point, but the former would break up a longer slab of text.  Tim riley  talk   08:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I went with Charles! Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 2. Were you confused at all in reading the section about his doctor of music? The sources I found were really confusing and conflicting on that so it took me a bit to write that part.
 * I've tried to tighten it up a bit. See what you think.  Tim riley  talk   08:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah it looks much better now, thanks again! Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 3. Would it make sense to put the post-mortem section as the last section in the life and career? Or is keeping it where it is better?


 * Either way seems fine to me. On balance I'd be inclined to leave it as it is.   Tim riley  talk   08:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll keep it out due to your note on balance and the fact that it really isn't part of his "life and career"! ;) Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you once again for your help, now I have no excuse to start drafting the music section! Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar for work at Abraham Lincoln
this is very much appreciated, thank you! The article is looking better everyday and I'll continue to make small edits the references when I get a chance. Also, I know you work on a lot of US Presidents, so if you ever find yourself working away on another one with messy or disorganized references, I'd be happy to help out! Aza24 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

How to request protection of a page ?
Please explain in a simplistic manner Editor wikip6 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, basically you go to Current requests for increase in protection level on the requests for protection page and you paste this at the bottom of the section and fill in the appropriate information:

Example Article Name
Level of Protection: Explanation for why. ~

The main "levels of protection" are:
 * Fully protected
 * Extended confirmed protected
 * Semi-protected

Most pages do fine with "Semi-protected" by the way, just make sure you specify "Temporary semi-protection" or "Indefinite semi-protection."

Also make sure the article name is exactly the name of the article you want. (Capitalization matters!) Any other questions you might find the answers to on Requests for page protection.

All the best -- Aza24 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Cosmetic edits
Edits that just do things like change double spaces in wikitext to single spaces are frowned on; see WP:COSMETIC. By all means make them as part of substantive edits, but just doing them alone simply wastes processor time and resources. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! I was only doing them on some of the Level 1 and 2 vital articles because they are quick and easy and I was finding 30-40 on these pages that should seemingly represent the best Wikipedia has to offer. I will cease doing so unless they are part of bigger edits. Aza24 (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your positive response! Peter coxhead (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Things
The internet eh? You meet all sorts. Just wanted to say keep up the good work, your efforts on the page I won't mention are not in vain. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks for saying that. It is truly hard to sit down and work on that article when I'd much rather be working on getting Portrait of a Musician to FA quality, cleaning La Scapigliata or starting Lady with an Ermine. (I have all of these books just sitting here!) In light of the recent editing I'll probably take some time away from that article to focus on those mentioned above. To be honest, I'm not really thrilled about the article saying that the work is "generally attributed to the workshop of Leonardo da Vinci" – to me that sounds like saying "the earth is generally considered to be round" haha – but that's a compromise I don't think I'd care enough to fight against. I fear that Leonardo's works (and apparently those associated with them as well) invite serious controversy in their subjects, dating and especially attribution. I've been working on his list of works to try and create a good place to hold the articles for his works together, dating and attribution wise. I think the synergizing of dating between multiple scholars has worked out well, but I wonder what you think of the attribution statuses I've added? At the moment there universally accepted ones are easy, with the widely accepted denoting works that were controversial in the past but not in the in the present. The generally accepted ones are trickier, but their basic definition is works that were controversial in the past and are still controversial. The reason I had "Widely attributed" in the Portrait of a Musician article was to match the painting's entry in the works list – which still needs some cleaning, especially in everything below the major extent works. Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer the shorter, matter of fact lead, which am very happy to see now is accepted. Re things we enjoy vs things we have to do; hear you, and can see as plain as day what is going on. I think you have brought the page forward to a more than acceptable extent, and it has enough watchers now, that you could take the foot off the pedal. Congrats on the FL bty. v cool. Ceoil  (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK for List of operas by Claudio Monteverdi
— Wug·a·po·des​ 23:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC) 12:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Great job, thank you! - Sad about the death of a great artist whom I had the honour to have met. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for all you put in the operas. Sorry about the reverts, - a partly restored the ibox, and would support advanced referencing style for Poppea. I was reverted for pic placement - of all things - as if we hadn't a rather objective call to let subjects "look in". Sigh, won't fight over trivia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Edward Thomas Daniell
My nomination for Daniell has failed, so it's no longer at FAC, so I'm now putting it through the peer review process. I'll check to see what I can do to copy edit it myself, but I'm looking for positive and helpful comments to get it to FA. Fell free to help me! Amitchell125 (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that the failed FAC has not discouraged you, I would be happy to comment on the PR. If the prose/need for copy editing is what you think led to the result in FAC, the WP:GOCE might be something to consider. Aza24 (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

TFL notification
Hi, Aza24. I'm just posting to let you know that List of operas by Claudio Monteverdi – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for August 21. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008  ( Talk ) 23:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Luke Syson
I have started a draft on Luke Syson - it is pretty bare bones at the moment, but his notability is clear. You are welcome to work on it; otherwise, I will be sure to get back to it in a few weeks. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting that started, I'll be sure to work on it soon. Just wanna get through a couple more things first so it'll probably be a couple of days. Kind of surprising that Syson doesn't have an article already, he's definitely note worthy enough. Aza24 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop for a while on editing "List of cyclists..."
I was in the middle of fixing cite errors and now am running into some horrendous edit conflicts on both the List and the FLC. I appreciate your zeal but this is a mess at the moment. Please hold off on editing the List until I post back here. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Deepest apologies! I am done with editing the article and FLC and am now just waiting on your responses – no rush at all though, take your time. Aza24 (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I caught up. No worries. Thanks for all your time & attention to the List. Taking a break for a day or two. Shearonink (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Wholeheartedly agree! Shearonink (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) As I'm working on various lists at the moment (hopefully eventually FLs) I figured it was appropriate to help out and keep the FLC process moving with the source reviews. Btw any plans to get Plan B Entertainment to GA for your Brad Pitt FT nomination? Aza24 (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

WorkHorse Award


You have been recognized by Shearonink (talk) with the WorkHorse Award as recognition for your amazing amount of work around Wikipedia. Thanks for staying the course and doing so much heavy lifting.

Feel free to pass some WorkHorse-kudos on to other similarly-minded Wikipedians by adding   to their talk page with whatever additional message you might like. Please make sure you include the four tildes for your signature.

Source reviews are so much work and necessary but not easy or quick to do. So, thank you. Shearonink (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is very much appreciated! I was frustrated in seeing many lists have a lot of time and attention given to them, yet wait 3 weeks for a source review – something I hope to continue, plenty more are pending. Thanks for your cooperation in the source review, with lists like those (ones with a lot of refs I mean) it can take a second, but it looks like your FLC should be wrapping up soon! Aza24 (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Akihito
 days and months are pointless and defeat the purpose of an infobox.

Is there an actual explanation buried in that bit of handwaving? --Calton &#124; Talk 08:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "handwaving", in my mind since the MOS defines an infobox as something "that summarizes key features of the page's subject" days and months would not be included in this idea of "key features". The years for a reign could be considered a "key feature" as it may be useful to see how long a ruler reigned with having to "do the math" yourself, and that is probably why articles like Augustus and Cleopatra have such information – without the days and months. Aza24 (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured list 21 August 2020
Thanks you so much for your work, in memory of Brian. See Today's featured list/August 21, 2020 and 21 August 2020. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The front page, how exciting! Lovely to see the featured topic included as well, in great company with FTs like the Solar System and the Song dynasty. Aza24 (talk) 08:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the GA review. As mentioned there, I had some other work to do first, which I got done, - but now am too tired. Same may happen tomorrow, because LouisAlain began 3 (!!) articles about women singers one day, a week ago, and I don't know yet how much work that will be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Come to it whenever you have time, no rush at all. These new articles sound more important and urgent than the GA review so I wouldn't mind at all if you put them first. If need be, as I said on the GAN page, the one typical one week hold can be extended. Aza24 (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I replied now! - The new articles are of course not more important, but more urgent, as DYK requires 7 days (and then they linger in review for seven weeks ...). I did what I could, nominated two of the three ladies (I have a soft spot for alto singers), and much work it was, finding references, and I gave up on the third one (too short, and not easily expanded) so can work (de-tagging) on her anytime later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the GAN article, I changed to sfn, and added a few, even in English ;) - I also added a bit to Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda, - more welcome if you would like to join. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Citations looking good – would love to help with Il combattimento! Not very familiar with it so I'll pull it up on Youtube right now as I look through your responses in the GAN :) Aza24 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Lovely. I just saw how much you collapsed, and liked collapsing in that case ;) - As usual: daily chores first, today a long article to translete, - couldn't believe Franz Leuninger had nothing in English. I looked at combattimento because it was almost part of the featured topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ... less work than I thought because my friend LouisAlain began already! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ... and then I realized that an article on Mendelssohn songs was 7 days old, and had to be expanded, and then I met a newbie's operas singer who needed formatting ... - but I still hope to get to the GAN today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Always so much to do... My do to list is also expanding too quickly! I was having so much fun working on Carlos Kleiber discography but at this point it's just entering in information to get it finished, especially the casts for opera performances, and I still have 10 or so Verdi recordings left... He was famous for performing and recording so little, but believe me, it doesn't feel that way when I'm making this list. Hopefully up for FLC soon. Your GAN is almost ready to go, just two points left to address. Btw I did end up listening through Il combattimento but my reaction feels "wrong" because I think I enjoyed it more than L'Orfeo! Aza24 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Great work on the list! You should have seen Orpheus from the Komische Oper Berlin, staged by Barrie Kosky. It was on YouTube for a few hours, and I made 2 people enjoy it. I saw it life, imagine. They do (almost) all in German, like the ENO does everything in English. I also saw Kosky's Salomé which had only a few performances before the opera house was closed for the pandemic. Lucky me! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you much! That thrills me to so much to hear about the mass promotion as that is exactly why I was doing the source reviews. I hate seeing so many nominations stalled for weeks just waiting for one! Don't worry they won't slow down any time soon :) Aza24 (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2385 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is much appreciated, thank you! I must say, even in my short time on Wikipedia I have noticed you yourself making super impressive articles about Bach Cantatas. In fact, your List of Bach cantatas page has encouraged me to, at some point, go for a "List of Motets by Josquin des Prez" and eventually a formalized "List of Compositions by Josquin des Prez", cheers! Aza24 (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The Bach list was partly translated, and much expanded with detail by Francis Schonken, the person to ask about Bach. I don't deserve too much credit for that. I'm prouder of the Reger works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, good to know. Well either way, your edits and contributions, including your noble efforts in support of infoboxes (a topic I personally make an effort to avoid!), haven't gone unnoticed by me.
 * Thank you! You said that well, I support infoboxes, but I waste no time in fighting where I know they are not wanted. Did you know that I believed in 2013 that the "infobox wars" were over, when we had a decent discussion for Robert Stoepel? I thought so again in 2015 when the community arrived at a consensus for Beethoven. Some still use terms such as "infobox warrior" and "idiotbox", and it's just sad. As if we had no other problems ;) - Live and let live is what Voceditenore said (in 2018), for whom you might also want to find a place in reliable people, - opera perhaps. She supported infobox opera, which is now in more than 1000 articles, but yes, the beginnings could be described as war if you didn't look closer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Another name: Brianboulton, Monteverdi, and infobox compromises. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah thank you for the background. I had skimmed through some of the logs in the Beethoven and Mozart articles, and I to be completely honest found myself smiling at the silliness and passion of the arguments. (On both sides, dare I say) If you're referring to Brian's "identiboxes", I must say, in my opinion that is by far the best solution, but like you said, I won't push for something where its not wanted. While I can understand the argument against infoboxes for Composers, I simply cannot for musical pieces and operas, so I'm happy to see the norm has been in support of them in those contexts! Aza24 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you like to see a short discussion, go to Wagner's Siegfried ;) - Operas: widely accepted but don't add boxes to articles created by Folantin, Smeat75 and Smerus without a discussion. Other compositions: no recent complaints. Please avoid "insane" in describing some discussions even if true ;) - The safest thing about composers is also to look up the creator, no-no for Jerome Kohl, SchroCat, Ssilvers and Tim riley. (I failed to do so for Georg Katzer, or would not have bothered expanding.) I guess we have by now hundreds of composers with infobox, - I can't tell because I use infobox person for all (even composer are persons, not semi-gods, right?), restring myself to articles I expanded (such as Alexander Vustin), to avoid conflict, because these conflicts are no good (insane indeed, not healthy) for all involved. See WP:QAI/Infobox, in case of more interest, or just proceed carefully based on the above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Another composer's works list I like is List of compositions by Francis Poulenc, remembered when talking to Ceoil about his exquisite TFA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine! - Look for Monteverdi here (yes, the very end) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out at peer review!

 * thanks! Good luck at FAC; if I see your article there I'll try to do a source review, cheers! Aza24 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

July
Thank you for the list of operas by Weber improvements! Did you know that one of my friends calls himself Wehwalt, after Walküre's first act. Did you know that this pic shows "the woman who can't believe what she has to see"? So blühe denn, collaboration in spirit ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I had seen Wehwalt around but the connection never even occurred to me! Likewise I had never heard about the 1976 Bayreuth performance, how fascinating - I resonate especially with Winifred Wagner's when she says "isn't it better to be furious than to be bored?" - interesting stuff. Aza24 (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw the scene on the Bayreuth stage, - one of the hightlights of my life (... saw not the whole Ring, but Götterdämmerung). Then Der Ring in Minden. - Back to today. Why don't you nominate the FT with the articles as they are, stable for five years and more. If anybody raises the ibox topic (which I doubt, because it always hurts - all who touch it, as you may have seen) you can argue that the arbs decided in 2013 that there be no uniformity (consistency) but consensus on each article's talk page. Three of five articles have an infobox, one still has an identibox (by Brian, who added one to Arianna in 2013, so going back to the side navbox would be nothing anybody could use his name for), one has nothing. This is so, historically, and if that's a reason not to declare the topic featured, so be it. - ... to listen to the music at the end --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for th FT nom, - advertised a few places, including Brian's talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With some amusement I just noticed that the lost operas have an infobox, after all, and by me in 2016, and what Brian did was improving the article but nothing about the infobox, - so much for my reading his mind, - it's based on facts even when forgotten ;) - Did you know that he and I were declared awesome the same day? Did you know that his reply to me giving him Precious (No. 7, for the Lost operas) was about the greatest I ever received? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good call with the "advertisements" – it looks like we are quickly getting much support, which is no surprise based on the quality of Brian's articles. I'll probably try to bring the List of operas by Carl Maria von Weber to FL at some point and was considering trying to do the same with List of compositions by Claudio Monteverdi and maybe List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven since this is his 250th anniversary. It seems that the classical music section lacks featured lists for most composers' lists of compositions, so I might try to start working on them, especially those of giants like Monteverdi and Beethoven. Although these will have to wait as I'm currently trying to save List of national anthems at WP:FLRC right now! Aza24 (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You did it!! Monteverdi's operas are now a featured topic! ... exactly 10 years after both Brian and I were declared awesome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow what a coincidence – had no idea the FT would align with your and Brian's 10th anniversary! Wikipedia is truly something valuable. Now especially to me as irl issues make life more frustrating than ever, a place to escape while also doing important work is something that I never thought I'd find so easily. Used to write music a lot of music as an alternative before WP but have been under a serious "composition block" for a while now... yet I always have a piece stuck in my head :) - Aza24 (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing, - and we enjoy the results of your block, - isn't that cruel? You may have seen that my first edit day was the day before, and my first article - about a comoser who is a friend - deleted within minutes, but DYK a few days later, with the help of dear fellow editors I received in abundance from the first day on, and now yours also! I was reminded of one of his compositions. This year, I wanted to celebrate a birthday inviting friends to another one that was just published, - would have been the German premiere, but not possible, of course. Yes, Wikipedia is a good escape. Can't believe Klaviermusik mit Orchester (mentioned with Leon Fleisher) has no article yet, - and so many more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your courteous message regarding links to the compositions lists. Try it on the project page without fear ;) - Do you know my favourite viola joke? A fast viola player, a slow viola player, Santa and the Easter Bunny are in the foor corners of a football field. On a signal, they have to move to a ball in the centre, and kick it. Who wins? - One of my early articles was about a viola player, DYK? Those were the days when a suggestion made it to being in the queue for the Main page in ten minutes, and received such a nice response. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I will bring it up at some point... but yes, so many more! Hindemith is among a handful of post Beethoven composers who have yet to receive such flattering attention as Wagner or Berlioz per say, makes me tempted to devote more time to them, but I am more motivated to work on Pre-Bach composers first, since seeing people like Dufay and Palestrina in a state as they are now is pure blasphemy! Aza24 (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

To go with the sunflowers: Rhythm Is It! - I expanded that stub on my dad's birthday because we saw the film together back then, and were impressed. As a ref said: every educator should see it. Don't miss the trailer, for a starter. - A welcome chance to present yet another article by Brian on the Main page, Le Sacre du printemps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen that before! I used to have a subscription to BPO's Digital Concert Hall and saw it there I believe, lovely production. Btw, shouldn't the BPO be mentioned in the lead since they played the music? I'll probably make a template for BPO later today, many things to include like this article, the Digital Concert Hall, The 12 Cellists of the Berlin Philharmonic, Scharoun Ensemble etc. Saw the signpost, cheers!! Aza24 (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * I appreciate the thought. :) I was careful in assuming good faith initially, but the continued responses from the OP showed some questionable motives and rude behavior. Systematic bias is undoubtably present in Contemporary Classical Music, but (like you explained) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that reflects reliable secondary sources and when these sources are victims to systematic bias (which most are) then there really isn't anything we can do about it. We're a reflection of society, not the other way around – whether that's a good thing, or not. Aza24 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Very well-put; I agree wholeheartedly. Noahfgodard (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Misunderstandings in re: 'School of Athens' Talk
Just an additional note concerning our exchange concerning my postings on the 'School' page...

Yes, I think I understand the Wiki rules about original research and am reasonably well-versed in academic citations and their use as well. Again, I never suggested that any of my observations be included in the article.

I think, though, that we are all responsible for our own observations and logical deductions that flow from those observations.

My purpose in trying to bring these points to the attention of others is to show what the work and the associated IDs are NOT.

What not to include. One point, for instance, that I forgot to include in regard to the Pythagoras mis-identification was that, if you look closely, the person holding the tablets is looking directly at Averroes, not "Pythagoras"...and Averroes, in turn, is reacting. Really doesn't have anything to do with the "Pythagoras" figure. My feeling is that, regardless of any amount of citations to the contrary, we are all responsible for our own senses. And, if you do an image search for St. Paul, you should be able to see that Raphael simply followed widely used 'templates' for his depiction of St. Paul. So, the question becomes, "do citations from an alleged expert overcome personal observation"? I think not.

So far as we know, Pythagoras never wrote anything.Yet, some would have you believe that is him, writing. Doesn't that give you pause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias316 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Raphael left his "key" to the IDs in the work itself. I had it complete, some 9-10 years ago. I don't expect anyone to believe that. But it's true. It can be done.

I have recently written a fairly detailed explanation of how the process works on my Talk page. I would appreciate it if you would review it, particularly the section on the 4 figures to the right of Aristotle, and let me know if you understand. What is astonishing, is that Raphael (and 'friend')?...did this in a manner that seems to indicate that they had a just incredible sense of what they would need in order to make the correct IDs.

Why did Raphael do this? Once you have deciphered the thing, the purpose is obvious. Some things are being said that would not have pleased his patron. At all.

Anyway, thanks for your attention. And I hope my remarks were not the source of any personal upset or affront. Didn't mean it that way.

Thanks. (And feel free to delete this after reading).

Tobias316 (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you bringing your comments here. While I disagree with your point about "citations from an alleged expert overcome personal observation," I think there's a fundamental flaw with your theory.
 * Raphael was consciously painting figures from the time of ancient Greece, philosophers and scientists. He would have no reason to hide Christian figures that represent a connection between the ancients and Christianity since he was already painting them in the other Raphael Rooms! Pythagoras is writing in his book, while his student shows a diagram to Averroes since Averroes is responsible for transmitting a lot of ideas from the west to the Arabic world. Pythagoras is widely known for having a large group of followers and many students, the one showing the diagram and another one looking from behind his shoulder and taking notes represent this. Additionally, Pythagoras was placed there on purpose, as to mirror with Euclid on the other side.


 * Lastly, a painting that Raphael did do of St. Paul (on the right) does not prove a likely comparison.
 * I hope you can understand that there doesn't seem to be enough convincing evidence, or plausible explanations to my concerns here to prove that that man is not Pythagoras. - Aza24 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but when you say, "Raphael was consciously painting figures from the time of ancient Greece..." Well, that's an assumption, isn't it? And is that assumption correct? I assume you've noticed that there are also figures dressed in a manner consistent with the Renaissance?

And I am not relying solely on the visual comparison to other images of St. Paul. Although, Sts. Paul and Peter are represented in Disputation of the Holy Sacrament. On the lower level, at a younger age. On the upper level, older, much more aligned with traditional images, 'templates'. So, I wouldn't assume too much there. And, if I am not mistaken, Vasari did acknowledge the presence of the "Evangelists" in the 'School'.

I am also insisting that the image of the correct Pythagoras is seen next to the Delphic Sybil, or 'Pythia'. Raphael is telling us. Or, trying to, at least. The Delphic, Cumean, Persian, Libyan and Tibertine sybils are arranged throughout...ALWAYS...standing next to a figure whose name begins with the same letter.

I think that when we are trying to work through these issues, it is very important not to allow our expectations to influence our conclusions. Easy to say, hard to do. But the notion that this work represents, exclusively, a grouping of ancient Greek philosophers is simply wrong. That unfortunate conclusion is like putting blinders on. You cannot progress under that assumption. (Diogenes, Thales, Averroes, Plotinus, Archimedes, Socrates, Aristotle and Plato are included, yes).

But I can show you proof of what I say.

If you go to my 'Talk' page and read carefully what I have said there...and are successful in ID'ing the 4th figure...you should be able to see that the idea of the 'School' is simply refuted. The ID of Zechariah is proven correct.And it can't be a 'school' of philosophers if Zechariah is there.

And, in addition, my association of the work with the Divine Comedy is correct. Why? Because the ID of Francesca and Paolo is also proven correct. You will realize this, once you are able to identify the 4th figure.

I don't mean to sound immodest. But please consider that I just may be a bit further ahead on the learning curve. I made multiple errors in the process. Trust me on that one.

What I think was supposed to happen, what was intended, was that we were supposed to pick up on the fact that Plotinus is standing to the immediate left of Plato...and Archimedes is to the right of Aristotle. If you are recoiling, now, because it sounds as though I am suggesting that the work is akin to a kiddies' menu puzzle at a family restaurant... no. Much, much, more sophisticated than that. They give you Plato and Aristotle. You are supposed to go from there. And notice that a similar pattern is displayed in Disputa, as well. Some of the Saints are identified, leaving you to work out the rest. There's a purpose to this.

Please try it. Consider it a "working hypothesis". The arrangement, placement, of the figures, is amazingly and brilliantly composed so that the IDs of one aid identification of others.

What I am trying to do is steer others along the right pathway. So that they can solve it for themselves. In order to do that, I have to point out what it is not.

Tobias316 (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

And...

...just so there is no misunderstanding, I never asked that the figure I identify as being Pythagoras be included in the article as such. I understand that, whether I am right or wrong about these matters, there needs to be a consensus of opinion. I was simply saying: don't include this one. St. Paul. It's wrong and misleading.

But also, as to the figure of St. Paul who has been erroneously identified as being Pythagoras...can you explain why? Other than generations of mistaken opinions? He's not touching or holding the tablets. She's showing them to Averroes. He's seated next to St. Peter. ???

Tobias316 (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

''Well? '' Any response? Have you read my comments in re: Zechariah and Judas on my 'talk' page? Do you understand that it is not possible that those IDs are a product of coincidence or a product of my expectations? Have you considered the implications, the logical conclusions that flow from the presence of those figures?

Since you were so kind to say that you found my 'theories' interesting...I was expecting some sort of response.

You see, these are NOT my 'theories'.

Tobias316 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I should have responded. Frankly I don't really not what to say because you're seemingly collecting all of this evidence for something that just wouldn't make sense in the first place. I mean you said yourself that you agree with most of the people identified, so why would it be in the company of people who were hundreds of years older? What's the point? Why wouldn't he make it more obvious? There would be no reason for him to have to hide St. Paul so why would it take this long for someone to think that that is St. Paul? Aza24 (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No, no, no.

I most assuredly did NOT say that I "agree with most of the people identified". Only a few are correctly identified. Diogenes, Socrates, Aristotle, Plato and Averroes. Raphael. The rest are incorrect.

If you are going to disagree, please do so on the basis of what I actually said.

Please read what I haven written on my 'talk' page. Try to identify the 3rd figure, woman with arm raised. I will help if need be. That should explain. I can show you...if you wish. These statements of mine...are NOT "theories". (The mere relation between Zechariah and Judas should 'clue you in', I would hope).

You see, because of the way the work was meticulously composed, the relation of figures to one another, there ARE, indeed, correct and incorrect answers. It's similar in nature to an algebraic problem, and, in the case of some of the figures, there are actually confirming 'proofs' contained withing the work. (One of these 'proofs', confirmations, is the odd sprawl of Diogenes).

I'm sorry, but I have to tell you that a good deal of the article is simply false. Almost all of the purported IDs. The statement that the work shouldn't be viewed as an 'esoteric treatise'...absolutely, completely false.

But I don't want to waste any more of your time...if you don't want to understand. (If you do wish to continue, perhaps it would be more convenient to do so privately)?

But I would suggest that you also consider the purpose of writing an article in the first place...

Thanks, again for your attention and consideration.

(Sorry, again, but don't really understand what you mean about 'hiding' St Paul, so don't know how to respond. You seem to be interjecting your personal expectations, interpretations into the work. And that doesn't 'work'. If I understand your question in regard to why figures from centuries apart be included...well, why not? And isn't that precisely what Dante did in the Divine Comedy? Again, the reference to Dante and Virgil has somehow been amazingly overlooked).

Tobias316 (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Tobias316 (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Tobias316 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Tobias316 (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I would indeed prefer to stop this conversation as I don't feel I can give it the same energy that you are able to contribute :) For the record, those few that you consider "correctly identified" are (besides Zoroaster and Pythagoras) the only ones that have a strong scholarly consensus for identification, so that's what I meant when I said you "agree with most of the people identified"... but I apologize if you felt like I was putting words in your mouth. Either way, I wish you the best. Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

One last thing--I think that you said something to the effect of 'my presuming to be the only one' that understood? Something like that...

No. I don't think that at all. What I would say to you in that regard, though, is that those that understand are not likely to say very much about the subject. Because of what is involved, what it says. And hopefully, I am not going to feel compelled to say anything more on the subject.

And again, I would direct your attention to the 4 figures to the right of Aristotle. If you are able to identify them, then you should understand what I was trying to draw attention to. (And I assume you cannot name them. And more to the point, you didn't ask me).

So,forgive me, but it sounds like you don't have the "energy" to try to either understand the work or what I am saying, but DO have the "energy" to admonish others who DO understand the work what they should and should not post?

"Interesting"...

Thanks.

Tobias316 (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Byzantine composers
I also left some comments for you on my user page.

I just thought these handouts for a lecture about Byzantine music might be useful:

This unit is about the oktoechos hymnography and the cathedral rite (5th century until 1260)

https://www.academia.edu/37091715

The other unit is about the Palaiologan period (1260-1453)

https://www.academia.edu/30387137

--Platonykiss (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just getting on WP now and am happy to see all the information you have generously provided! I'll return this conversation to your talk page – just to keep everything in one place. Aza24 (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyright for sheet music
Even if the underlying music is out of copyright, other aspects of the publication are likely copyrighted, such as arrangement or elements are drawn on the page, which quite possibly exceed threshold of originality (IANAL). (t · c)  buidhe  07:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * makes sense, thanks for the information! Aza24 (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Templates
I think I'm not doing any more work on this music history template as long as its reverter-in-chief Francis What's-his-name maintains his reign of terror. Instead, I've found another pre-existing template that starts earlier in pre-history and is much simpler because it only covers the periods and eras without all those numerous and sometimes dubious "movements" and "schools". It's current title is "Western classical music eras" and it can be found with the article "Common practice period". The only problem is the current title doesn't quite match the content, so I went onto the edit page to try and expand the title a bit by adding "periods" to "eras". However, when I clicked the save button, it didn't publish the edit, but replaced the edit page with a "Create new template" page that I can't seem to delete or cancel. I don't think it should be necessary to create an entire new template just to add one word to the title. If that's how it works, then I'd rather just leave the title as is. If you can go to this template in the aforementioned article, I wonder if you could go onto the edit page yourself and see if you run into this same create-page I want to get rid of, or if you just see the original edit page. If you see this create-new-template page, can you figure out how to delete it? I've looked and poked around this page and elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I cannot see any instructions or click-ons to get rid of this page. Can you help me with this? Many thanks if you can and thanks also for your support in out battle with Mr. Dk-head! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:22, 3 September 202(UTC)
 * It is indeed rather frustrating when a user pretends they are open to discussion but uses straw man arguments. The template you bring up is actually one I tried to get deleted since I found it repetitive to the one that shall not be named. In any case, I have changed the title to "periods and eras" like you asked – it looks like there is both a "name" and "title" parameter, the former of which actually results in the output, don't ask me why... I have also removed ancient and prehistoric music since they are neither Western nor classical :) From what I can see, the strength lies in this template, as you say, in its brevity and simplicity. I'm thinking we try add the Transition from Classical to Romantic music and Transition from Renaissance to Baroque in instrumental music to it – formatting them with Galant music as transitional periods. Then we would have a rather thorough and complete template, only missing an article like Transition from Medieval to Renaissance music which is yet to exist. Aza24 (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you were able to access the edit page for the alternative template and edit the title; I thank you for that. Unfortunately I'm still accidentally blocked from the edit page myself because of my abortive effort at doing that same edit. Worse still, Wikipedia is now telling me there are 2 templates with the same title and I can only access the edit page for the false template I accidentally created (which fortunately is blank except for a brief message of explanation I gave for the mishap).  I don't know how any of that is possible, and I still can't see any way to delete the false template which at least doesn't seem to be displaying anywhere else on Wikipedia except the version that shows on my own computer!
 * Anyway, your removal of the links to the ancient and prehistoric music articles raises some interesting questions about what is "Western" and what is "classical" in music. The article on ancient music doesn't use either of those words to describe the type of music composed in ancient Greece or Rome.  However, I gather those cultures were at least proto-western to some extent, and the article seems to imply that at least some of what was written (and still survives, at least in fragments) is art music of a type that has some similarities to medieval plainchant.  If this is the case, we can maybe do one of two things: Eliminate early medieval music from the template and have the list begin with the first art music written in polyphonic or harmonic style around 1150 AD, or include all "serious" monodic music of European origin which goes back to roughly the dates given in the article on ancient music (which I see is not limited to ancient European music, another reason to exclude it from the template I suppose).
 * My main point here is that it doesn't appear to me there was any major shift in musical styles around the time the West Roman Empire collapsed just before 500 AD. Rather, whatever serious music there was in Europe back then evolved gradually from ancient Greek to ancient Roman to the medieval Roman Catholic Church (Gregorian chant etc).  Various articles I've read both in and outside Wikipedia indicate the fall of the Roman Empire in Europe was a political/historical event, but not a cultural event in any major way.  A fair bit of the old Greco-Roman culture persisted for some time into the medieval period.
 * In any case, either of the two possible changes I've suggested to the dates, titles and links on the alternative template will create more differences between it and the template we've more-or-less had to abandon for now; and for me, the more differences between them the better. I don't trust Mr. Straw-man any further than I can throw him when it come to any possible attempt he might make to interfere with the alternative template we've started to work on.  The less overlap or duplication of information we have on the 2 templates, the harder it will be for him to justify any further interference with our work.  For now, I'll have to rely on you to do any further editing to the proper alternative template, since I've lost access to the edit page.  I like the ideas you've proposed so far about the transitions, so I'd say proceed at will!  There's also a short Wikipedia article about the transition from Romanticism to Modernism which includes composers like Mahler, Debussy, and Richard Strauss, but it wold likely have to be expanded and rewritten to be condfidently included on the alternative template.  We can talk further about the pros and cons of changing the date for the beginning of classical music if you want to.ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , Hmm I'm not sure about this "false template" – I checked your contributions and found the template; I'll ask an admin to delete it, so no worries there! Here's a link to the original template that may help you regain access.
 * You bring up some interesting points about where classical music began, something which I have actually been thinking about a lot lately. While it's true that there is some remnants from Greek and Roman ideas, however, "Ancient music" as a whole (and prehistoric music for that matter) is not really a period, eras or movement, but an umbrella term for a massive time period that categorizes the music of many diverse countries. (at least 3000 years in Egypt, Greece, Roman, Mesopotamian music etc. for "Ancient music" at least) That being said while I have seen some musicologists attempt to start the history of Western music in Ancient Greece, the vast majority of them seem to consider the Medieval era as the "beginning" arbitrary or not, the Classical music it self says that classical music is from the 6th century to the present. So in that sense, we'd have to follow most reliable sources that describe Medieval music as the "first era". That being said, the more I look into it, you can actually see somewhat well how the development of classical music traces directly back to the Medieval era. I actually just mate a Template:Medieval music sidebar that I'm rather proud of, it somewhat nicely lays out the pattern of Medieval music. Things like Guido's invention of the staff, Medieval plain chat, the writings of Boethius (which I suspect is perhaps one of the main things that sets the time period at 500 CE, besides the fall of the Western Roman Empire) created a strong foundation for the various roaming groups (Troubadour, Trouvère, Minnesang) whom eventually settled down into somewhat organized movements (Ars nova, Music of the Trecento, Ars subtilior) and rather quickly transitioned to the Renaissance (Franco Flemish School especially). So there is more structure than there seems to be from the outside. That being said I've seen quite a few estimates for the beginning of Medieval music and while 500 CE comes up the most often, 800 CE and 1150 CE are also rather common, so to your point, an argument can definitely be made for beginning at 1150 CE, but I think most of the time the scholarly consensus defaults to 500 CE, simply because that's the time frame of the actual middles ages, if that makes sense? Aza24 (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Medieval music categories
Hi, to my mind Category:Medieval compositions should only contain articles on specific works, not types/genres. Johnbod (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it looks like I may have misplaced a few – was kind enough to catch some of them. In any case I was sorting quite a few categories yesterday and was already planning to return and look over what I had done for errors, but it seems I will have to be extra thorough in doing so now to make sure I didn't make any more mistakes. (Especially since this involved the creation of 4 or 5 new categories, Medieval compositions included!) Since you're here John I'm wondering if you think it would make sense to create a sub category in Medieval compositions for Medieval songs, to differentiate something like Messe de Nostre Dame from Se Canta, or is the specificity too much? Aza24 (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe - there are also several "song forms" in the genres. Note L'homme armé is not medieval, per present cats. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, the Burgundian School was pretty clearly a Renaissance school, perhaps even the first one. Aza24 (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The song is usually though of as a popular-ish song of the early 15th century, which would count as medieval for most people. The mass settings etc came later. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for most people following the general time frame of the middle ages. But Medieval music is generally agreed to have "ended" around 1400, which is, oddly enough, a century before the generally agreed time for the Middle Ages period as a whole. To that point, it wouldn't fit in with Medieval music (rather oddly it would fit in the beginning of Renaissance music but the end of the Middle Ages period), but I will take note of it nonetheless. Aza24 (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Portrait of a Musician
It seems grand to me already, would take to FAC. Ceoil (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed... the only reason I haven't is because I wanted to take Cai Lun there first (for some reason). However, as Cai goes under a GA assessment, it seems that I still have some work cut out for me there so don't be surprised if your see Portrait of a Musician at FAC in a few days...! Aza24 (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are being a bit tentative; obv after you dip your toes in the water there will be more pages you have been storing up for review. Excuses excuses! Ceoil  (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Its Showbuzzdaily...not Shoebuzzdaily
Aza24, thank you for your good faith edit, but it appears that you made a typo and that error has affected over 200 refs.  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  03:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh shoot lol thank you catching that. Do not worry there's a tool I use to mass change stuff, should only take in a sec. Aza24 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well done Aza24, you fixed it almost instantly, and left the list looking even better. This list is currently a Featured List Candidate and its going to need all the help it can get. Cordially,  History DMZ  ( talk )+( ping )  04:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

September
I like today's Main page, with the TFA (thank you for the source review!) on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Many congratulations! The source review was the first time I listened to the piece (John Eliot Gardiner's recording, of course) and was happy I decided to do so, astonishingly powerful and moving. The lead of the article is especially is very well written imo, it entices engagement and intrigue for a reader to go through the rest of the article. Aza24 (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, especially for listening ;) - The pic of our concert last year (my 2020 lead image in the infobox on my user page) looks so unreal these days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My theme song failed GA a second time. Would you consider a review if I nominated again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would be happy to Gerda, let me know when/if you take it back to GAN. Aza24 (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Relief, - I thought nobody would dare. End of next week the earliest. Louis Vierne first, until 8 Oct. Also RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The one who failed it first now nominated it again, - no idea if that's good process, or doesn't matter. You can start a review if you like, - then at least it's in good hands! - I reverted some linking in Robert Burg: when an opera has an article we (project opera) don't link the composer, to avoid a sea of blue. The main page does it differently, for the many who don't know Busoni ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since he has contributed a decent amount and is familiar with the topic I think it still aligns with the rules. Odd that he wouldn't let you do it as the main contributer but oh well. If I'm not doing it as a favor to you I will probably do other (older) GA reviews first, since the backlog is huge rn... Apologizes on the linking, my thoughts were that if it was a Wagner and Puccini opera it would make sense not to link, but Busoni and Hindemith are definitely on the "less mainstream" side of Classical music; I totally understand the hesitation for too much linking though. Aza24 (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey
Hello Aza24,

Thanks for your offer to help me continue with List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey. I think I only want to continue with it if there is a chance of picking up the info from Wikidata.

The reason it did not pass to be a FL is not anything to do with Wikidata as I did not know about that at the time. But having looked into it since then it seems the most efficient solution in the long run. I withdrew my RFC but do you think it would be worth me raising a more specific request to allow Wikidata for only that particular list? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would be very surprised if that proposal got much traction. From what I've most users are against further Wikipedia–Wikidata association, mainly because Wikidata is far less moderated and less referenced to reliable sources. Why do you want to use info from it in the first place? Aza24 (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * For the reasons stated in the RFC linked above - and I am lazy to type the same info (e.g. power generated by a particular station in a particular year) in 4 times or more Chidgk1 (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you mean updating the same info every year for a column like "Generation to grid in 2019"? I'm not really following. Aza24 (talk) 06:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I mean the info is in the power plant article in Turkish, the power plant article in English, the list in Turkish and the list in English (and occasionally surprisingly there is a Norwegian article too! Such as no:Kemerköy kullkraftverk).

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverted
Reverted good faith edits by Gremista.32 ? 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I reverted your edit because you added a reference that was unnecessary to the first sentence of the lead. It is the recommended protocol in WP:MOS:LEADCITE and common practice when the information is already sourced later in the article to not re-reference it in the lead. Aza24 (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi This article relies too much on references to primary sources. help ? 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're correct, it definitely does. If you add references throughout the text that support various claims that would be helpful. In WP if we add a reference after a sentence, it is supposed to support that preceding sentence(s) (see Inline citation). When you added a ref after was the second Roman emperor, reigning from AD 14 to 37. He succeeded his stepfather, the Roman emperor Augustus. it was placed to support only that sentence, which in this case doesn't really help since this information is uncontroversial, obvious and cited later in the article. Aza24 (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Help me ? 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Help me ? 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * sorry I missed your earlier message. What do you need help with exactly? Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Source 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I'm going to need a little bit more information to help you out. Are you confused about what sources to use for Tiberius, how to source things in general, or something else? Aza24 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

In which part of the article do I place the reference undone by you ? 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , well the issue with Tiberius is that it relies on too many primary sources, as you recognized above. This includes sources by Tacitus, Cassius Dio, Josephus, Velleius Paterculus and Suetonius. To address this you would have to find a line where one of these primary sources is used, and add an appropriate reference. However, you have to make sure the reference you add supports the text that you put it after, for example if you find this line:


 * Problems arose quickly for the new Princeps. The Roman legions posted in Pannonia and in Germania had not been paid the bonuses promised them by Augustus, and after a short period of time mutinied when it was clear that a response from Tiberius was not forthcoming.


 * you would need to find a reference that supports this information. So if the reference you added from thoughtco says this, you can add it after these lines, if not you have to find one that does. Does that make sense? Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Where ? 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I seem to be bad at explaining this. I recommend you ask at the Teahouse, they're good at explaining things there. Aza24 (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks good night 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

United States ? 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WikiProject_Gremista.32 Wrong ? 👀Gremista.32 (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest
music today, - enchanting, said a critic about the Mendelssohn that I heard on 3 October, - this video is older, and the YT in the article comes with a Bach encore as she played for us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A lovely recording, thank you for sharing. I believe I've heard her play Tzigane before, albeit on Youtube, not in person :( – btw I do plan to return to Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda, I just have quite a few other things to get through first. Aza24 (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I also heard Tzigane only on YouTube, Mendelssohn in person. - Thank you for adding to the opera template discussions, there's also a batch on the 5th. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 16 October memories --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not often I come upon a conductor I'm not familiar with... I will have to check out Szenkar! Aza24 (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Beautiful Main page today, don't miss the pic by a blocked user (of a 2013 play critical of refugee politics), nor a related video, interviews mostly German, but music and scene. - Yes, ping me when you think it's the right time for the list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sharing of three different mediums – an article, video and picture – and all equally interesting, thank you! I will let you know about the list, should be in a day or two now. Aza24 (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

RE: 1917 accolades list for FLC
Hi there,

I fixed all the issues you mentioned for List of accolades received by 1917 (2019 film) regarding its prospects for featured list status. Thank you for your feedback.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ugh this is the second (maybe third) FLC review I've failed to return too in the last few weeks... clearly I need a new system. Thanks for your post here, looking now. Aza24 (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Kleiber discs
Just three informal questions regarding the admirable list: why use a redirect such as Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra which causes a line break, why link a composer when a piece has an article (which we don't do in articles), and why colons between composer and work in the first batch, but "by" in the later? - Too tired for formal comments, - later I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your initial comments Gerda, the list is a little bit in disarray at the moment since its undergoing big changes based on Francis's suggestions (most of which is happening in my sandbox right now). I greatly appreciate your willingness to leave "formal comments" however, I wonder if you would be so kind as to wait a day or two for me to update the list with these changes? I can let you know when this is done of course. Aza24 (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * just to keep you updated, I've withdrawn the list for the time being to make more changes outside of the FLC process, I'll let you know when I renominate it – probably in a week or two. Aza24 (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you ever consider to have one complete list, differentiating the type of recording by some status (coloured?), to make it sortable by composer? I also thought that the precise days of a recording might be good for sorting but clutter the first column, where showing a year might by enough. I wouldn't make the cast listings small, for accessibility. Just ideas ... - I don't want to come with such things when it should be stable. - 2 birthdays today, see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)