User talk:Jerome Kohl/Archive 19

Common tone
I would appreciate it if you would look over "Common tone". It seems crazy that there are no links to articles about the term or concept in other languages. Hyacinth (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you have been very busy with that article! I did a quick scan of the German Wikipedia, where it appears that the expression "gemeinsamer Ton" is regarded as such an obvious notion that it does not merit a separate article. However, given the discussion by Engebretson, it does seem as though the idea is important enough in both German and French theory (never mind in the English language) that your astonishment is well justified. I shall need to look into this a little further, since the terminology in those languages may vary from one author to another. BTW, the mixture in that article of up-to-date professional-level research sources (such as the Douthett/Hyde/Smith anthology) with century-old introductions for school children or undergraduates (such as Diller 1921, Klauser 1890, and Woodruff 1899) is rather disconcerting. It suggests that there are really two competing articles in there, both trying to get out. Perhaps this is part of the reason multi-language links are absent?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Presumably there should be a redirect from "gemeinsamer Ton" to an article such as the German for "voice leading" (or maybe "arranging" or "inversion"), which should already mention it if it is so obvious.
 * Are you saying the modern professionals and the old teachers are in disagreement? Are you suggesting that there are two separate terms which would have obvious links in foreign language Wikipedias? Hyacinth (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC) One of the problems is that the concept is considered so obvious that it is usually not defined in sources which mention it. Hyacinth (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on the article. Hyacinth (talk) 22:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What I am trying to say is not that there are two separate senses of the term, as that it is odd to juxtapose such disparate sources. It appears (perhaps even is true, though I do not believe this) that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries this was a simple concept that could be explained to just about anyone in a few words, but has somehow turned into a technical term with a much more exact meaning. Either that, or we (the collective author of this article) can't make up our mind whether we are addressing complete beginners or aspirants to a graduate music-theory seminar. As for the German Wikipedia, the most closely related article is probably Tonverwandtschaft (tone relationship), which has no corresponding article on any other Wikipedia, similar to the problem you raised here. I have also checked the French and Italian Wikipedias, with no better results. And you are welcome for my small contributions to the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you allow me to take part in this exchange, it seems to me that the Common tone article is dealing with two separate, fully distinct topics: first, the use of common tones in voice leading, which indeed is such a simple concept, probably as ancient as voice leading itself; second, the common tone theorem, and more particularly its importance in scales having the "deep scale property", which is a modern way to consider the matter but has little to do with voice leading.
 * Hyacinth recently added a line to the Voice leading article, mentioning the "common tone rule" before the "rule of the shortest way". I removed it because I think that the common tone rule is but a part of the rule of the shortest way, and mentioned as such in the next paragraph – with references to early French and German sources! I was also (and I remain) puzzled by the references given by Hyacinth. The first one, to Music Theory and Mathematics by Douthett e.a., certainly was incomplete, it should probably have mentioned Nora Engebretson; but also, it probably is more about the common tone theorem than about voice leading. The second reference, to Klauser's Septonate, is also troublesome because Klauser does mention common tones, but seems to dismiss this way of explaining voice leading because his own theory, he appears to believe, provides a better guide; this, in addition, seems to me an extremely odd source and an extremely unusual theory.
 * It appears now that the two articles, Common tone and Voice leading, should be considered together and these questions sorted out between the two. I leave it up to you. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 06:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We're all confused. I'm pretty sure that the quote from Engebretson mentioning voice leading clarifies the claims I make based on her work. It's funny when concepts so basic they may not even have a term for it in German requires multiple articles in English. Hyacinth (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hyacinth, I see that you created Common tone (chord) and Common tone (scale). This is fine. Another possibility might have been to make these clearly distinguished sections of a single article, but your solution works all right. As to the reference to Engebretson that I removed from Voice leading, the problem was that you did not mention her, you merely gave the title of the volume and a page number; I did not realize that her paper had a historic dimension. As to the German for "common tone", it is Liegende Ton, for which a research on Google results in many early references. The expression could probably be found in Vogler, Weber, Hauptmann and A. B. Marx that you mention (after Engebretson, apparently) and many others, also earlier ones. I'll check that and come back with some results. I still find that Klauser is not a very good reference, because his theory is so far away from the main stream and had so little success. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Hucbald, for the correct German term. I presume this is a particular usage in the context of Schenkerian theory, since the German Wikipedia seems to use "gemeinsamer Ton" with nearly equal frequency, though mostly in non-Schenkerian contexts. Neither term, however, has its own article there, unlike the (only superficially) related terms Gleichton and Gleichtönig, neither of which have corresponding articles in any other language's Wikipedia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't think of Schenker, Jerome, but indeed liegende Ton is the term he uses in Der freie Satz for "common tone" (also liegenbleibende Ton, in Harmonielehre). Browsing through the treatises in my digital library, I find the term also in Albrecthsberger, Anweisung zur Composition, in Kirnberger, Kunst des reinen Satzes (also Töne die liegen bleiben), and in Richter, Lehrbuch der Harmonie. Hauptmann, Natur der Harmonik writes of bleibende or gemeinschaftliche Ton; A. B. Marx, Kompositionslehre, of Verbindungston or gemeinschaftliche Ton; Riemann, Handbuch, of gemeinsame Ton (also Halteton), Sorge of gemeinschaftliche Ton. Frakturschrift does not really facilitate this kind of research. But these few cases suffice to indicate, I think, that there is in German no standard technical term. All these examples connote ordinary language, as would also be the case, I think, with note commune in French. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for confirming (with copious examples) my assumption that only English-language theorists would think such an obvious idea requires a specially dedicated term, let alone an entire article to explain it!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

2point4 Children edits
I'm currently in the process of finding the original sources for the items you have removed. Please restore these so I can cite the references. Andrew Marshalls comments are on imdb and can be backed up 13ten (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You can easily find the deleted items in the edit history for the article (click here). Restoring them should only be done once the sources have been found. If you are not familiar with the editing procedure, I would be happy to talk you through it. I was frankly very surprised to find that no one had managed to find verifying sources for that material in such a long time, and had begun to suspect some of it might have been fabricated. Thanks for making the effort.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Titles in English
The published title is Twelve Fantasias for Viola da Gamba solo. It is easy enough to understand. Why not use it? (with a bit of IAR) - The composer's published title is A Boy was Born. You know what happened: even a picture from the score showing that version was removed from the article. - What do you think about the title of the Brahms songs? "Zwei Gesänge" - what's a good translation? "für eine Altstimme", same? Problem is that the German "Lied" translates to "song", and the German "Gesang" to the English "Lied", a song on a higher level. Any better word? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no, the published title (of the recent German edition) is Zwölf Fantasien für Viola da Gamba solo. Telemann's original title of course is in French: Fantasies / pour / la / BassedeViole (please observe the line breaks (indicated by virgules) and the lack of spaces in the name of the instrument, transcribed from the title-page facsimile reproduced in the booklet for the CD recording). The publisher's formatting of the English translation does not follow Wikipedia's format (which happen to coincide with the almost universally accepted capitalization rules). If we are going to revisit the "it is printed this way on the cover of the score" argument, we might as well look at the designes on various editions of the Telemann flute fantasias: "Twelve Fantasias for transverse flute without bass" (Bärenreiter edition no. 2971, edited by Günter Haußwald), "12 Fantasias for Flute Without Bass" (IMSLP, edited by Llorenç Lledó), or Telemann's own title page, "Fantasie per il Violino, senza Basso", which he unfortunately failed to give in an English version. Generic titles are of this nature: the whims of publisher's title-page designers are of even less importance than for true titles. The same applies to translations of both generic and true titles from other languages: for the English version, English capitalization rules apply.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't change, and you can move, but I am sure that the publisher thought about it. My thinking: "solo" is not in the original title, it's an added explanation, - better lc then, also to not take "solo" as part of the instrument name, which is capitalized unusually in German, where we have Viola da gamba. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. I have been thinking about that English title, and the capitalization is actually according to German rules of orthography (first word and nouns capitalized, all other words lowercased). The problem with "original titles" I have already outlined above, but generic titles are another matter entirely. There are still many problems (for example, should the number of items in a set stand at the beginning of the title and, if so, is it spelled out or given as a numeral?), but the basic idea is that the genre (Sonata, Symphony, String Quartet, Fantasy, etc.), scoring, and key (if applicable) are treated as parts of the title, while things like opus or catalog numbers are not. Once this has been sorted out, normal capitalization rules are applied. Whether or not the word "solo" or "unaccompanied", or the phrase "without basso continuo" is to be included in the title or not is one of those problems for which there is no solid rule but, if the phrase is taken up, then it is subject to the same capitalization rules as any other part of the title.
 * We have some inconsistencies here amongst the three sets of Telemann's fantasies for which there are currently Wikipedia articles (12 Fantasias for Solo Flute (Telemann), 12 Fantasias for Solo Violin (Telemann), and Twelve Fantasias for Viola da Gamba solo). Given that these are all three generic titles, they really ought to adopt the same format. Please notice that the word "solo" is capitalized in two of the three cases, and also appears before the instrument name in those two titles, and that the parenthetical disambiguation "Telemann" is also inconsistently used. Given that, at present, there are no other Wikipedia articles about sets of twelve fantasies for any instrument at all, this disambiguation seems unnecessary. However, I would not want to jump in and change those titles until the interested editors have had a chance to discuss this, either on the respective talk pages or (probably better) at the Classical Music Project discussion page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It's your premise that the title is generic, - it didn't look generic to my until you made it so. I knew that String Quartet is generic, but didn't think Fantasia was, - can't even explain why. Consistency is nice, but both 12 and twelve will be understood, and I wouldn't care if solo comes before or after the instrument, - it seems just a different kind of accent to me. But probably I should keep my mouth shut on English matters ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha-hah! Perhaps everyone should keep their mouths shut on English. It would spare us all a lot of aggravation. The line between generic and true titles is sometimes hard to define, but the main criterion is that word "genre". If multiple composers (or their publishers or editors) have used a word to describe one or more of their compositions, then it may be regarded as a genre. Note that this need not be a "form", for example, Ricercar, Impromptu. If, on the contrary, there is only one work known by a title (e.g., Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, Çoǧluotobüsişletmesi), it can safely be described as a true title. There are plenty of cases for dispute, including the question of "partial" generic/true titles (e.g., should Ives's piano work be the Concord Sonata, or the Concord Sonata?), and I feel it is futile to hope for a good rule everyone will agree on in such matters. As for the question of numerals or spelled-out numbers, it should make no difference at all, if the traditional rule is followed that the numerals are understood to represent the words for purposes of alphabetization. I am surprised and pleased that the WP category "Fantasias (music)" has managed to get this right, but distressed to find "Carmen Fantasia" somehow alphabetized under W and, even worse, something called "Symphony on a French Mountain Air" inexplicably alphabetized under I, and "Fantasiestücke, Op. 12" under S ;-).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - How about a list of genres in classical music, with a few examples, which an editor can turn to and see: "ahhh, a genre"? Unfortunately, genre (music) isn't it. genre (classical music) perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! That article on music genres did crash onto the rocks, didn't it? I recall a protracted and somewhat heated debate about the difference between "genre" and "form", with particular reference to "symphony". It does not appear to me that this problem was ever satisfactorily resolved. Fortunately, for the purposes of "generic titles", this disagreement scarcely matters. You may be interested to learn, if you do not know this already, that the distinguished musicologist and editor D. Kern Holoman got so fed up with this hairsplitting that, when he wrote the style guide for the journal 19th-century Music (eventually published by the University of California Press as Writing about Music: A Style Sheet) he decided to ignore the distinction and simply italicize all composition titles. He is not alone, but most publishers' house styles still cling to the traditional usage, perhaps because they enjoy aggravating people.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Everyday life in early 19th-century Spain
Purple doors and blowtorches. It got noticed at ... a site I had better not name.

I've made it into a long stub in what I hope is reasonable English, because it wasn't created as a hoax. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it wasn't intended as a hoax, though it was a bit short on sources, and said some extraordinary things (possibly not on purpose), including the purple doors. I'd say it's about time somebody noticed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Purple. Sexual assault. Blowtorches. Yes, a year and a quarter is entirely too long. Did you have any source for Reglas de Policía Urbana? All I found was 1840 statutes in Madrid and Barcelona establishing or regulating the police themselves. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No source as such, but after trying several possible variants of the phrase in Spanish, found a few hits for "Reglas de Policía Urbana", probably the same ones you found. Since the entire article was unreferenced, and the links I found did not confirm the specific claims made in the sentence in question, it did not seem suitable to cite them. As with many of the other edits I made, these were simply sincere attempts to clarify the mangled syntax of the original, no matter how preposterous the claims appeared to be. I guess the blowtorches were a bit of an embellishment, but it did already seem extraordinary to use knives to shave or wash.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Le marteau sans maître‎‎ caps
Why did you restore capitalizatoin to Le marteau sans maître‎‎? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (watching:) perhaps because that is the French title? Compare Le Petit Prince. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * When the article was created, English Wikipedia followed the simpler of the two French standards for capitalization of titles, which is "sentence case"—that is, capitalize the first word and any proper nouns only. In the meantime (I think about two years ago) this was changed to the more complicated style (favoured by the Modern Language Association, amongst others), which is described here. This change was only brought to my attention in early June of this year (to be precise, on 7 June, shortly after I made this mistaken edit on 6 June. The capitalization of the article title should be changed, as well, but since it had previously been given the capital M, this reversion requires the assistance of an Administrator, and I have been too lazy to seek this help.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My usual helper is Graham87. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Graham seems to be on holiday until 25 August, but I'm sure I can find someone if I really try.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am indeed on holiday, but I'm still editing ... I've just done the move. Graham 87 18:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! Thanks, Graham. That is far beyond the call of duty!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment
I am not sure if your interested in this topic but you never know:

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is decidedly outside of my field of interest. Best of luck with the project, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Shawn Mendes
Cornerstonepicker removed acoustic when says "isn't a genre", however Wikipedian1818 added back with "acoustic". "Acoustic music is music that solely or primarily uses instruments that produce sound through acoustic means." 115.164.209.53 (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That is one more issue that is yet to be resolved in the article Music genre. I wish that the editors who understand this subject better than I do would make up their minds and tell us exactly what a music genre is and what it is not.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Metre, again
Hi Jerome, I've had a go at that troublesome opening sentence. I think we concluded on the talkpage that no one source seems to have a definitive solution to a formal definition; so I've tried to be safe in winding together what appear to be the essential elements—in a way I think no source would complain about. It's not a definition I agree with personally—rather, it's a reflection of how scholars generally appear to understand the concept. I didn't mention "entrainment", but that should be included somewhere further down, I believe. Could you take a look?

I don't intend to edit the article further—at least not for some time.

There was Noetica the other day singing your praise ("a true intellectual"). He left WP long ago, but we occasionally talk. :-) Tony   (talk)  12:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It is better, but I am not very comfortable in this context with the words "oscillation" and "onsets", which sound rather pretentious in an introductory sentence, even though they are accurate. Noetica is very kind to remember me, and I am pleased to learn that, at least, I do not present as a "false intellectual" :-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * :-) Can you think of alternative items for "oscillation" and "onsets"? I tried unsuccessfully. (Is it that musicians don't like science?) Tony   (talk)  05:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How about "regular patterns" and "accents"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Like that? Tony   (talk)  10:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes! That is much more "user friendly". I think that will do nicely.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Admission of blacks as well as whites in music conservatories, end of XIXe century
Sir,

In the article Antonín Dvořák, I corrected:
 * The Conservatory had been founded by Jeannette Thurber, a wealthy and philanthropic woman, who made it open to women students as well as men and to blacks as well as whites, which was unusual for the times.
 * into: The Conservatory had been founded by Jeannette Thurber, a wealthy and philanthropic woman, who made it open to women students as well as men and to blacks as well as whites, which was very unusual for the times.

You reverted my correction. Let you know that in fact NO black or coloured person was admitted in the XIXe century in ANY American music conservatory. That's why I put “very unusual” instead of “unusual”, for it was nearer of historical reality. You may like it or not, but as this is the truth and nothing else, methinks that reverting to a redaction farther away of reality is definitely NOT proper in an encyclopædia.

Now what will you do? Carrying on prefering your opinion to historical truth?

--5915961t (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It has nothing at all to do with "historical truth"; it has to do with writing style. As I said in my edit summary, the adverb "very" should be used with caution. The reason is that it makes the writer sound like he/she is trying to convince him/herself that the statement is true, despite misgivings. If you really, really, really think the adverb would be replaced, I suggest you do so, but make sure to repeat it at least three times, in order to make your point very, very, very clear. I promise I will not revert it (though I cannot speak for the many other editors on Wikipedia who might take issue with this style of writing).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Major false edit
Dispatch, the source that you implement about Greensleeves had conformed. You wish to delete official status of it and thank you for the attention. User:KaplanAL (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hampli. Gong flitet niksai. Spliful!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL. Was this impromptu or are you quoting anyone?  Basemetal  22:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC) PS: I am following your style but this is a three way conversation, right?

List of music theorists
I was very disturbed that IronGuard (whose talk page doesn't reveal any knowledge of music) removed all the redlinks from the list. I wrote him about it, but so far no response. (Personally I take the position that The Signpost took some years ago, that it's important to leave redlinks so that people know what has yet to be done.) What do you say? - kosboot (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a difficult problem. On the one hand, you and I both know that there were a lot of important theorists in those redlinks; on the other hand, there were an awful lot of redlinks. As you also are aware, there are two opposing views on Wikipedia about redlinks: one is that they should be used to call attention to articles that need to be written; the other is that they are useless clutter and should not be allowed to accumulate. Generally, I tend toward the latter view, mainly because I have not seen very many redlinks actually turn into articles, over a very long time. This case seems different to me, but I can't quite explain why. If someone were to object that it is because I am prejudiced because I am a music theorist, I am not sure I could refute the claim.
 * There is a third possibility, though. What I have already set out doing is searching other Wikipedias (especially German Wikipedia) to see if there are already articles in another language that can be linked via ILL. So far, not much success, but I have only started. Perhaps you would like to try this as well. This has satisfied more hardline editors on other Wikipedia lists.
 * There is one category of redlink, however, that is probably not worth pursuing (please try to convince me I am wrong): the anonymous authors of this and that medieval treatise for which a separate article cannot reasonably be justified. If anonymous authors are to be retained in the list, then there need to be articles on their notable work (e.g., the Alia musica). There are of course already a few of these (the one on the Musica enchiriadis, for example). Perhaps a discussion needs to be started about this issue on the list Talk page (perhaps you have already done this—I have only just now found your message, and have not yet scanned my Watchlist).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the removal of the redlinks. In general I agree with you about the anonymous authors, although I have seen one article that tries to describe (through conjecture) a particular anonymous author's characteristics based on the treatise (it wasn't Anonymous IV).  I've been busy in all summer and have made only light edits, but now I have more time.  In general I'm against making stub articles, but I would do so in order to have fewer redlinks on this list (if only to prevent names from being removed).  Your idea of consulting other language Wikipedias is a good one - thanks for that.  (Won't be able to work on it until Sunday at least.). - kosboot (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Dead
Hilarious, but will they get the point? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the caption could be changed to read "Recent photograph of the composer Johann Pachelbel"? ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please wait
Please wait a proper amount of time from the last edit of an article before you start editing. You just destroyed my work on Cor Fuhler. I know that external links require a URL. Give me some time to finish and then you can do what you want. –Vmavanti (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My apologies. All I did was to add the needed link. How did this "destroy" your work?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you
Thank you very much! I shall proudly display this in a prominent place on my mantlepiece!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

musikFabrik
What happened to the familiar name musikFabrik. I understand that it was changed in 2016, right? Shoudn't we at least mention that until some time it was different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are trying to say. According to the edit history, User:Deskford changed the article title in August 2016 to reflect the official change of name. Are you saying that the article does not now make clear that the name used to have an idiosyncratic capitalization, or that we need to go through all the various article mentioning them and annotate the two styles of the name?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Guilty as charged! I agree with Gerda though that ideally the article should document when (and why) the name was changed, but finding sourcing to back this up might be difficult. What often seems to happen when an ensemble changes its name is that its publicists try to hide the evidence that it ever had any other name. Something similar happened a few years ago when the Cape Philharmonic Orchestra changed its name to Cape Town Philharmonic Orchestra and all references to the old name were removed from the article. The fact remains that there are still many CDs in circulation credited to "Cape Philharmonic Orchestra", just as there are to "musikFabrik" (and also to "MusikFabrik NRW", an earlier form of the name). Anyone seeing the name on one of these CDs might be puzzled if they look up the ensemble here and don't find mention of the previous form of the name. --Deskford (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * All I'd like to see is in their article that until 2016 it was this, and now is that. I don't suggest to change older articles where they are mentioned, because they are all historically correct and correspond to concert announcements etc. Same thing happened for ensemble amarcord. In both cases, I don't understand why a signature name would be changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I hesitate to ask: why haven't you made this adjustment already yourself? And, as long as Deskford is feeling guilty, why did he fail to leave behind this information when he updated the article last year?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Peter Harlan
Hi Jerome. FYI I've translated the German page on Peter Harlan and added it to the English Wiki. Feel free to hack it about! More seriously, any additional references and citations would be appreciated, I've just reformatted the German ones and they aren't really up to our standard. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for making the effort of translating the article. I will take a look and see if there is anything I can do to improve the referencing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

MOS:DASH
I noticed that you applied MOS:DASH recently to a few lists. I don't know how you did that, but if you did it manually or by search/replace, I wanted to let you know of a tool that I use for that purpose: User:GregU/dashes.js. I've installed it in my environment by adding this line to Special:MyPage/common.js:  (note that link goes to  profile, mine is at User:Michael Bednarek/common.js). I found it does exactly the right thing, changing what needs to be changed and leaving alone what must not be changed. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, thank you! I have been looking for a tool like that for a long time. My heart sinks every time I see a list with something like 152 instances of spaced hyphens. I have been doing this manually, and it is not a lot of fun done that way. I think you may have saved my sanity!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Stravinsky
Hello- on the Stravinsky page, having the page needed template inside the citation code ruins the formatting and makes it show the actual bare code on the page instead of the the intext citation. Basically, there can't be a inside of another. It would have to go outside of the brackets. I hope this makes sense. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  12:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to be either browser-dependent, or determined by editor-preference settings. It displays correctly for me (or at least, it used to—I have recently made some changes to my preferences). In any case, the correct procedure then would be to move the pn template to outside of the first template, no? Otherwise, it looks like the editor believes a page citation is unnecessary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to have a citation without a page number than have a broken in-text citation. In any case, another user re-added the tags properly. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  22:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well,as I said, the citations were not broken in my browser, but if it will affect other readers that way, then they should be fixed to read properly. I tend to clean up after other editors who remove cn or pn tags, assuming they simply forgot to remove the unsourced material when they deleted the stale tag.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Colonel March of Scotland Yard
Hello. I've noticed and appreciate the work you have recently put into this article. However, as a Brit, I'm a little unhappy that you have created a 'Critical Reception' section which - at the moment - contains nothing but the views of Bernard Levin on the early days of commercial television in Britain and only briefly refers to the Colonel March programmes. I knew of Bernard Levin in his heyday, and he was renowned for the savagery of his reviews. I remember watching the two occasions when he was physically attacked on live television (on the BBC) because of his 'unkind' reviews. He was also an intellectual who was rudely dismissive of almost all popular culture, so his views on this programme is hardly a representative view of the critics in this country. Much the same could be said for the paper he was writing for, The Manchester Guardian, a newspaper then with a very small circulation. I realise that finding other reviews of this programme may be difficult but nevertheless I would like to see Levin's view considerably cut back, perhaps just to "the adventures of 'Colonel March of Scotland Yard', the intellectual content of which is the nearest thing to a hole I have ever seen" - everything else is more about early programming on our ITV stations than this programme. Also, he should be named in the article so that it is clear that it is Levin's opinion. (Although not strictly relevant here, Levin's opinion of ITV was clearly not one shared by a large proportion of the UK population, because, in those parts of the country able to receive ITV programmes, audience figures very quickly exceeded those of the BBC and have done so ever since.) Best regards, Blurryman (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do take your point. I am of course familiar with Levin's savagery, which is what makes him such fun to read. However, it is a little much as it stands, and I agree could be cut back as you suggest. Better still would be to find an enthusiastic contemporary review, but I have not succeeded in this so far. As far as I can tell, however, from contemporary reviews (I was not there to experience it first-hand), a considerable proportion of the UK population did share Levin's jaundiced view of Independent Television and, despite viewership figures, a great many of them persisted in that opinion for some time. This may have been a minority, but it clearly was a substantial one (and the majority is not always in the right).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I look forward to seeing what else you can find. Levin's opinions may have been amusing for outsiders but I'm sure they were not so amusing for those who were his targets. On the side issue of commercial television in Britain, I was there (here), of course, and I think the division of views you identify fairly closely followed the class divisions then still much in evidence in Britain, with more than an element of the cultural elitism which had always been evident at the BBC, and which was also not unrelated to the large proportion of US programmes bought in by ITV. Whilst I certainly agree that "the majority is not always in the right", I would contend that in cultural matters there is no "right" or wrong, only likes and dislikes! Blurryman (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Please join us for our Cascadia Wikimedians annual meeting, Saturday, December 23, 1 PM
06:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC) To unsubscribe from future messages from Meetup/Seattle, please remove your name from this list.