User talk:Ravenpuff/Archives/2022/May

Disambiguation link notification for May 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agnes Syme Lister, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Willis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Archiving notice
Hey! During your moving of Talk:Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen, you forgot to update the archive location. All you need to do is adjust the  parameter in the   template to the new page name. Don't worry, I've fixed this for you. Just keep this in mind if you move a page in the future. Thanks! Aidan9382 (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Discographies
Do you plan to move discographies now to "more natural phrasing? Falstaff discography is just one example. How about a discussion before moving one of a series? Compare Jessye Norman discography, Westminster Cathedral Choir discography ... - someone searching will search for the name of the piece or artist or place, and not be eager to type "discography of" first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I realise I should probably have discussed this beforehand (!) – the main complaint I had was with placing "discography" after the catalogue number, which has the unpleasing visual and semantic effect of separating the number from the cantata title. Writing "Discography" at the beginning avoids this issue, and is not without precedent: we have Discography of Bach's Magnificat, where "Bach's Magnificat discography" would look a bit awkward. Looking at Category:Discographies of compositions by J. S. Bach, the only other articles that would benefit from this rewording are the discographies of BWV 1 and BWV 4 (which I could likewise move if not objected to). The potential difficulty with searches will be obviated by redirects. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk · 18:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. At the moment there is a DYK scheduled for the discography of BWV 56, which is now in a queue. I have been alerted by those coordinating the process, which you have disrupted. I have no idea why you decided to do that out of the blue. If you had looked at the recent article history, it would have been obvious to you. Because that DYK is ongoing, I have restored the usual format, moving the article back to its title, which was decided by wp:consensus. Proceeding differently goes against Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Music, cf BWV 1, BWV 4 and Mass in B minor discography ... Please be more careful. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. Would it help to have the BWV No. in brackets? We should avoid one thing: a move, or even a move discussion, while on the Main page. Let's leave it as it is, or move if consensus is there before. I'd go for leaving it as is. - Once we are together: I don't like the pipe to it in the hook, because it reads as if the article was about "the first recording". I also am no friend of a word such as protégé which is not purely positive in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it would not help to have BWV numbers in brackets. That doesn't happen anywhere else. Originally we had Organ sonatas, BWV 525–530, which was moved. The word "protégé" has no negative connotations in this particular context, i.e. for Harrell and McDaniel. Harrell guided the path from Aspen, to New York and then Stuttgart having recognised McDaniel's vocal qualities; McDaniel uses the word "lighthouse moment". Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Learning, thank you. I didn't mean to have brackets in the cantata article, only in the discography title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As regards piping, we could have "... that the first recording of Bach's Kreuzstab cantata was [...]" – this admittedly would preclude a link to the cantata article, but I don't see a straightforward way of keeping both in the hook. —  RAVEN PVFF   · talk · 22:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The cantata and its discography are two separate articles, and the DYK unsurprisingly concerns both; both BIOs can be explored. The DYK template is not hard to read; it indicates that it was promoted, with references double-checked as required. I did not ask for the DYK to be restarted — I was pinged at the DYK nomination template and given 7 days to prepare/respond. The template indicates No further edits should be made to this page, so don't know why further discussion is happening. Mathsci (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)