Jump to content

User talk:Smerus/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Felix Mendelssohn

Got a question about the blurb. What it calls the Leipzig Conservatoire is called the Conservatory of Music in Leipzig by the article linked to in the blurb. It's a little safer at ERRORS to go with whatever name our article gives it, but if there's some page I can point to that calls it the Leipzig Conservatoire, it should be okay. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Dank, thanks for raising this. In standard works on Mendelssohn in English , I see that the Institution is referred to as the 'Leipzig Conservatory' (e.g. Werner [1963], Todd [2003], Grove, and all others I have looked at). I have therefore changed it to this form in the lead and elsewhere , and made appropriate adjustment to University of Music and Theatre Leipzig (which is in itself a very inadequate article that needs rewriting).--Smerus (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree with rewriting, and the minimum is having some historic names in the lead, which would include Conservatorium/Konservatorium (Conservatorium der Musik, from when M. found it, then Königliches Konservatorium der Musik zu Leipzig, among others) and Musikhochschule (Staatliche Hochschule für Musik, again several names in history). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I will include these names in a note to the lead.--Smerus (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Felix Mendelssohn scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Felix Mendelssohn has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 3 February 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 3, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article, will sing 2 of his works today, want to write about them, one today as a little birthday gift, his version of Psalm 100. Can we get the list of his compositions to better shape? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, is there a model you have in mind for the list? --Smerus (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Returned from the singing of two of his works: my model for such lists is Reger works, and the one for Sibelius, but before we go that way (avoiding to list pieces twice, once by number, once by genre), we could first see that instruments are consistently lower case (or consistently not), also title consistency, and my main concern is that many blue links suggest that we have articles on his compositions, but they just take us to the texts. We should write all these articles ;) - Will start with his setting of Psalm 100. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
OK all noted. I am happy to do some of the missing articles; however I am just beginning to resume normal service following the death of my father ע״ה last week so I will take some time to get up to speed.--Smerus (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
My condolences. So sorry to hear that. I just fixed the chorale cantata section, moved Walpurgisnacht out (choral, but not chorale), noticed more, such as links in headers, uneven abbreviations. But do your things first. This year, more people than ever seem to die, today's DYK is for Carlos Feller, and I wrote yesterday's (DYK) article in memory of the one remembered in my season's greetings (not on top, 12 January). It's amazing how much you can miss someone whom you never met. I hope it was true for your father, too: Im Frieden dein, o Herre mein. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
My condolences, too. I haven't an equivalent of your Hebrew text, above, but I can at least quote Leviticus: 'to every thing there is a season' ... A comfort, I have found. Tim riley talk 20:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Lord, have mercy

Perhaps you can help me to an article title for one of his pieces. It was written first in English, then published in German, and is known by short and long incipit and description of occasion, and combinations. I began Lord, have mercy (Mendelssohn).

  • Lord, have mercy [upon us] (To the Evening Service)
  • Herr, sei gnädig [unserm Flehn] (Zum Abensegen)

Different combinations exist, in different capitalisation, only the version in our list of compositions is in none of the sources I saw so far: Lord! Have mercy upon us. - The article will grow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Gerda, I would have titled it "Lord Have Mercy upon Us" which was (I believe) the title of the first English edition, but would give the other versions of the title as redirects. Grove/OMO also has it without the the comma after "Lord". The version in the list should therefore be corrected to this. See also here, which points out that "To the Evening Service" is not part of the title: it is a translation back from "zum Abendsegen" which was added in error to the first German edition; these words should therefore not appear in your infobox. As Ward Jones points out, the subtitle in the English edition was "Responses to the Commandments" (which could go in the infobox if you want). I don't think you need to have "(Mendelssohn)" in the title. It was published in both English and German around 1842 by the way, not first published in 1875. Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, especially for the history I didn't get to yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The infobox has other names a piece is known by, regardless of valid, published etc. I can tell you that at least in German it's known as "Herr, sei gnädig" and "Zum Abendsegen", and you even find printed music in collections saying both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
This - which seems relevant - has "Responses to the Commandments „Lord, have mercy upon us“ („Zum Abendsegen“)". Based on it, I'd title the article Lord, have mercy upon us (Mendelssohn), with redirects, still Mendelssohn because I don't think a reader searching for the phrase means exactly this composition. - Our house style favours sentence case for small works (poems, hymns ...) which seems appropriate. We don't need the allcaps of the 19th century ;) - Interesting that there was no comma or exclamation mark in the first publication. A call is composed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You see Gerda that's exactly one of the reasons I deprecate infoboxes, because you can (in this case) fill it with all sorts of titles, some of which are perhaps not appropriate, and the uninformed reader can have no indication as to which of them has greater authority than others. I agree that a sentence title is to be preferred (with or without the comma), although as there seems to be no other piece titled 'Lord, have mercy on us', certainly none as well known as this, I think the '(Mendelssohn)' is redundant. But it is your article, I will not interfere. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll think about it, thank you. My concern is to tell readers that they arrived at the right article. I can't tell how well it is known under the English name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Portraits

Next question: The top image is now dated 1829 instead of 1839. Looking for alternatives, I saw this, and don't know how to write a proper caption, with the date given as 1833, but the year of painting 1846. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A foolish vandal is going about redating the 1839 portrait as 1829. The picture you mention was painted in 1846.--Smerus (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I read that it was painted in 1846, but what does "Date 1833" mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what is meant by that. I am checking the date of the 1829/39 painting.--Smerus (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • New and expanded partners
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Ravel

As a little birthday gift, I began Trois Chansons (Ravel) (and then failed to mention the day in the nom). The topic proved more interesting than I had thought by the simple title. Could you improve? Hopefully then worthy to be mentioned in his article because of the biographical relevance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a bit. Sadly, the link to the source with the most detailed analysis didn't work. I boldly added two lines to Ravel, hoping he wouldn't mind ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
File:Maurice Ravel 1912.jpg
Ravel in 1912
Thanking all who helped with the article on "an enigmatic figure", with 3 songs on his birthday! I took the Nichols source (Ravel) from his article, adding a link to the page online. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to link chanson, but the article of that name seems not helpful, not even the section Parisian chanson. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
There's now a move discussion, and your input appreciated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Rossini

I think now that Wehwalt, whose input I was holding on for, has commented I am content to go to FAC. No rush, natch, but I leave the casting vote with you. G. Arendt left a few cryptic comments that I am not able to construe or disposed to pursue, but you may or may not wish to. That apart, I hereby authorise you to sign us both up for FAC as and when you think fit. Tim riley talk 20:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Tim riley - Done!--Smerus (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Excellent! See you there. Usual arrangement? I to field Life queries and you the Works ones, with licence to poach the other's shots ad lib? Tim riley talk 12:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
OK by me!--Smerus (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Gioachino now safely delivered to the Pantheon. Congrats and warmest thanks, Smerus. I've greatly enjoyed our collaboration. Tim riley talk 11:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Warmly reciprocated. Let me know if you are interested in a joint venture to dust up Jacques O., which thanks to your existing work shouldn't need too much (or, rather, very little) of a slog to upgrade to FA.--Smerus (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • It's a good few years since I worked on the Offenbach article for GAN, and I think – at least I hope – my standards and technique have improved since then. I think the whole article would need line-by-line reappraisal for FAC. Some of the prose looks a bit slab-like at first glance, and most of the cited sources are quite elderly, and a quick look at Amazon's site suggests that the weightiest newer books are in German. I failed my German O level in 1967 and my command of the language has not noticeably improved since then. I'd be happy to get hold of Selenick's Jacques Offenbach and the Making of Modern Culture in English, and happy-ish to battle my way through Nicolas d'Estienne d'Orves' 2010 study in French, in addition to renewing my acquaintance with Yon, Gammond, Faris et al. I suppose this all adds up to a Yes. Tim riley talk 21:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
      • OK let me see what I can pull together on the music.....I am as usual up to my neck in other things (Partenope is looking good now rehearsals are well under way), but what les enfers..... --Smerus (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Saw Rossini has been, quite rightly, promoted. That's excellent work by the two of you, and you should definitely be proud of your accomplishment. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 18:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Disgraceful goings-on at the Opéra-Bouffes

If you are not too particular about being seen at such things, I have Orphée aux enfers at peer review, and any comments you might feel inclined to make would be welcomed, if you have time and disposition to look in. Tim riley talk 20:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Tim, it's excellent - Alas I am in the run up to HGO's Partenope at Jacksons Lane May 17-26 (hint) so don't have the opportunity to toothcomb it, and in any case am dissuaded from doing so by the conviction that there can be nothing to quibble about. It's too abstruse to mention in the article (though I think it's quite amusing and that you may like to know), that the Cancan is adumbrated in Franz Bittong's 1871 parody "Die Meistersinger, oder, Das Judentum in der Musik", where "Richard von Wahnsing" (i.e. Wagner) gets entangled with among others, "Jakob Meyerbach", "Felix Mandelbaum", and "Jacob Offenbeer", and in which everyone dances with joy to "Offenbeers Cancan", exposing the incompetent Richard - "Schamschaudernd steigt schnell mein Blut in die Schläfe/ Schmach und Schande!/ Es strauchelt mein Schritt auf dem/ Schleichschäumenden , schlurigen, schlecken Geschlüpfer!" --Smerus (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
That will do nicely, thank you, Smerus. Good luck with Partenope. Alas I am allergic to Handel opera and will give this HGO production a miss. Tim riley talk 21:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Tim riley, would that come under this? Or this?--Smerus (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Rossini – TFA today

Greetings! Once the caravan has moved on I'll nip in tomorrow and do the usual post TFA clean-up, if that's OK with you. As usual, stalwart Wikipedians have batted off the vandals, but some remedying of well-intentioned "improvements" will no doubt be required. Tim riley talk 21:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Just in case you have a moment to spare...

Hallo! I noticed that you'd taken an interest in my articles about albums, and especially in the copyright issues of their Critical Reception sections. I've found writing about reviews very problematic, and I'd be very grateful for a word of advice. Initially I presented each review as a long, filleted quote, but one editor said that that was a no-no. Then I tried close paraphrasing, but many people felt that that was even worse. Now, beginning with a review of The Creation in Die Schöpfung & Harmoniemesse (Leonard Bernstein recording), I've tried a third approach: reading the review that I'm dealing with, noting down half a dozen short excerpts, putting the review away and then restating what it said from memory using my own words with those brief quotes inserted as appropriate. The result is still uncomfortably long, but in a review of a recording with so many elements to consider - several soloists, a choir, an orchestra, a conductor - brevity seems to me to risk unfairness and invites accusations of cherry-picking. If my articles aren't deleted I have some 150 or so reviews to deal with altogether, so before I plug on with any more, I thought I might venture to ask a wiser head if I'm now on the right track or if I need to go back to the drawing-board.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for this, and for characterizing me as a 'wiser head', a compliment I can't say that I feel I deserve. Really all comments on this will boil will down to a matter of taste, and, as you know, 'de gustibus....' and all that . For me, any extensive elaboration, in whatever format, of a review of a recording (or book, or film, or opera production or whatever) will always be WP:UNDUE. As I care about the quality of WP, in my view WP:UNDUE is a more cardinal sin than WP:COPYVIO. The subject of the article in this case is about the recording, not about Alec Robertson's view of it, which takes up about 80% of the genuine material of the article. The listing of tracks seems to me pointless - it does no more than iterate material which belongs (and indeed is set out) in the articles on the pieces of music themselves. The section on 'packaging' is a waste of space and tells us nothing about the music or the performance. This fantastic proliferation of trivial detail seems to me I am afraid completely disproportionate. Were I to write an article on this recording it would include just your lead section (in which Die Schöpfung and the Harmoniemesse should be linked to the relevant articles), the 'recording' section, a much compacted selection of the reviews, the accolade, the personnel , and the release history. We're clearly just not in sympathy here, and that's the way it is, alas.--Smerus (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for replying so promptly, and so politely too. I have an uncomfortable feeling that you must think about me rather as a gardener would feel about a well-meaning halfwit who had blundered into one of his exquisite borders and started planting clumps of Japanese knotweed. It's greatly to your credit that you've been as patient with me as you have.Niggle1892 (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I am bound to correct you. I don't regard WP as 'mine' in any way (although I certainly have clear ideas as to what it would look like if it was). I, like you, am one of a community with many different visions of an ideal. So whilst I myself am not enamoured of what you call your 'knotweed', I accept that that is my problem. In the long run, it is the consensus of others which will decide on this and similar issues. Smerus (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
(watching:) I always like exchange of thoughts in such collaborative fashion! I think the garden image is wrong, though. One thing I like here is the diversity of different "gardens" in different styles within one large park, and the feelings about planting some flower that doesn't belong would be different if planted right into the Die Schöpfung article. For a seperate section of the park, such one recording article, I'd not care so much. - The line between a direct quote from a critic and paraphrasing it is a fine one, and I decide on a case by case basis. The more flowery the language, the more I tend to simplify to key ideas. If I have little time, I rather stay with what someone wrote, to not misrepresent it. For a singer, to have at least one review is better than just a list of works and places. Working on Thomas Mohr whom I will hear tomorrow, as Loge, so I was interest what critics wrote about him in that role ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
You do right to correct me, Smerus. Although I think that, after contributing as much to Wikipedia as you have, it would be reasonable if you thought of yourself as at least one of its major shareholders. One postscript occurs to me. The reason that I wrote my articles in the way that I did, packaging info, reviews, track listings and all, was that I was trying to follow WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice, which is offered for people writing about "all kinds of audio recording albums". As far as I know, this is the only guideline available. It seems to me that it might be helpful if some of the many editors who know a thousand times more about classical music than I ever will could together create a new guideline specifically for classical records.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Ms Arendt, I like your analogy of Wikipedia being like a park! To me it seems that there are two main kinds of Wikipedia article - some as scholarly as those in the Britannica, and other, much humbler bits and pieces created by hobbyists purely for other hobbyists. Mine, of course, were wholly of this lowlier kind. They were written solely as an adjunct to the Frederica von Stade biography article. I pictured some von Stade devotee skimming the biography's discography section, spotting some recording that they hadn't previously come across and then jumping over to the article about the album to find out all about it. It didn't occur to me that anyone would come to my album articles through any other route or for any other purpose. I'd noticed that Robert Allen had written an article about Frederica von Stade - Mahler Songs that had been on Wikipedia since 2009, and which had been visited about once a day without anyone attacking it or nominating it for deletion, so I imagined that this kind of article had at least some value for at least some people. As far as reviews are concerned, I think we're in agreement. I seldom buy a record without first reading a review of it in Gramophone, and it seems to me that most of the magazine's reviews do genuinely give at least some impression of what the performance is like and not just say whether or not the critic enjoyed it. (My all-time favourite review was a piece about John Cage's 4'33" which was just six inches of blank column space!) I think that extensive quoting from expert reviews would add to album articles enormously, and I think it's a pity that copyright considerations don't allow it.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Niggle, your point about WP:ALBUMS (a project of which in fact I was previously unaware) is I think of great importance. Although it states that it is "dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of all kinds of audio recording albums" in fact the project is oriented, it seems to me, entirely to popular music albums. What would be appropriate would be perhaps to discuss within that project guidelines which might be more appropriate for classical music albums. If that could be agreed, it would solve the problems raised over the past few days. I leave it to others to do this, as the topic itself is not one in which I have any expertise or great interest.Smerus (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You really couldn't make this up

I'm sorry, but I just can't resist sharing this with you. You remember all those interminable paraphrased reviews that I laboriously deleted in order not to violate copyright? I've just received some messages on my Talk page warning me that if I persist in my destructive behaviour, I risk being convicted of vandalism and blocked from further editing. Three of the reviews that I deleted have already been put back in place. No doubt the remainder will be in due course. I can't think of a more exquisite end for my little project - it has an almost Mozartian elegance. (I'm sure you're right about the WP album guideline, by the way.) Best wishes.Niggle1892 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Niggle1892: Next time, use an edit summary to tell fellow editors what you're doing. This is a collaborative project and unexplained deletion is vandalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, Chris. I can quite see that explaining my edits would have obviated the problem. (I'd assumed that my motive was obvious, but clearly I was wrong.) As to whether unexplained deletion is vandalism, the Wikipedia article about Wikipedia vandalism defines it as a deliberate, malicious attempt to damage Wikipedia, and says that any good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. I sometimes wonder whether Wikipedia folk ever agree with one another about anything! Best wishes.Niggle1892 (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
An experienced countervandal will really examine your edit but your intent is not always immediately understood, which is why edit summaries are needed. I've seen countervandals revert removals of uncited material as destructive, though removing uncited content is always allowed. Often new countervandals will be going for quantity not quality and, after doing a lot of countervandalism, it all starts to look the same especially when editors become embittered by really nasty vandals. With hammer in hand, every problem looks like a nail. Please don't take these innocent mistakes as an affront. Explaining your edits to the reverter will often teach them a lesson about slowing down and considering their reversions and warnings. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I could have saved everyone a lot of bother if I'd only thought to tap out COPYVIO. I wonder how many more mistakes I'll make before I stop creating problems for myself!Niggle1892 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would laugh if i did not weep. I think the answer is as Chris says to explain why the deletion is carried out. If I have a moment I will try to look at a few of the articles myself, but I am head over heels at the moment as I am in charge of 2 simultaneous opera productions in November plus lecturing in Oxford in October. [This is true , but also has the effect of making me look more important than I am]. I have mentioned the possibility of looking at WP:ALBUM at the WP:OPERA talkpage. Best, Smerus (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Good luck with all three. Do they say "break a leg" in opera houses as well as in theatres? After Joyce DiDonato's mishap during her famous Covent Garden Barbiere, probably not!Niggle1892 (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
They seem to prefer 'toi-toi-toi'.--Smerus (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
That takes me back - the last time I heard a 'toi-toi-toi' was from my German grandmother thirty years ago!Niggle1892 (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Shh .... Gounod who

No need to knock on your door, I see. I chuckled at your edit summary (and thank you). Do look in at your leisure at the PR - no rush whatever. Thine, Tim riley talk 15:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Martinů operas

Template:Martinů operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award for Gioachino Rossini

The Quarter Million Award
For your contributions to bring Gioachino Rossini (estimated annual readership: 253,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

List of compositions by Beethoven

I notice you put template messages on the List of compositions by Beethoven page. While I know the prose lead section has a few adjectives in it I hardly think this goes beyond description of the works, and I certainly don't think it constitutes my personal feelings or presents an original argument about the topic. I definitely think that it is better to have an engaging prose beginning that contextualises the information to follow, rather than a perfunctory beginning before dumping the reader into a long list.

For the citations, at the beginning of the list it states in a note that unless otherwise stated, all information comes from the Grove article on Beethoven. I think this covers citing the information without cluttering the page in citations for every individual work.

I'd love to hear back from you if you disagree with me or if you have any ideas about how to improve the page Cheers Hochithecreator (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

with memories of a birthday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and Tim riley and the peer reviewers (thanking myself also) for the article about Gioachino Rossini, which "seeks to give cover to both his life and his works. His operas, and notably Il barbiere di Siviglia (The Barber of Seville), are today amongst the most popular and regularly performed throughout the world."! - I was asked about the background of the infobox wars, so went over the history as far as I know, and just reached the arb case decision. Imagine the arbs would have said then: fine discussion on Siegfried, do it like this, you are obviously able to argue in style and peacefully, - shake hands. Imagine! - "better late than never" you wrote about Rossini. I am happy you and I even created an article together, and almost met in Slovakia! - Going to sing Monteverdi Vespers on 1 September, would you like to come? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to come up with a composer causing allergic reactions, - coming from the Claude Debussy discussion. I dislike how the article on Max Reger doesn't begin with that fine short name, but - by the power of the holy MoS - his lengthy birthname. At some point, even "Max" was smuggled into that, like the nickname of a sports figure. I believe that in these two cases - and there will be similar ones - where the birthname is just something official which is never used, the article should begin with the common name, and the birth name could appear with the place of birth, in the body, - not even lead material. For some reason, Mozart escapes the rulez ;) - The Salzburg Festival uses Wolfgang A. Mozart consistently, - how do you do it in London and Levoča programs? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

David, I wanted to link to Abschied vom Walde, - and can't believe that this somewhat iconic song has no article. Should we do the song, or the whole cycle, Op. 59, Im Grünen, 6 Lieder for mixed voices a cappella (1837/43)? Where do the song titles come from? They have all a title and the first line, how should that be formatted? We have "Abschied vom Wald: O Thaler weit, o Höhen", but I think it should be Abschied vom Wald (O Täler weit, o Höhen), + I doubt Thaler. Thäler could be correct but old-fashioned, while T(h)aler means money, not valleys ;) - de-WP has this: Abschied vom Wald „O Täler weit, o Höhen“ op. 59 Nr. 3 MWV F 20. - Im Grünen? If we add (song cycle) or (Mendelssohn) someone will say it's not needed to be precise, but it looks rather strange without any help to what it could be. . Good translation of "Im Grünen"? "Im Freien" is given as "Outdoors", - no freedom ;). Translation sourced if possible; - do you have sources? I'd have to start from scratch. Like that. It was just marvellously performed by Singer Pur, see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

When I listened to Der Ring in Minden (pictured), I thought of you a lot, pleasant thoughts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Peace, joy, and beautiful music


May you have very Happy Holidays, Smerus ...

and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and beautiful music.



Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

February flowers

February
Alte Liebe
I Will Mention the Loving-kindnesses

Wagner today, so a late Valentine for you: a bird that is normally only heard, acting on stage (well, it was the right balcony, to be precise, for most of the time, until she walked with Siegfried, carrying a little backpack) - the last reminiscence of the impossible made possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda! --Smerus (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Comma usage on Franz Liszt‬'s page

Um, why'd you delete my comma? I put it there for proper grammar! (And I've got pretty damn good grammar for a 13 year old 7th grader.) Queen Shore the SeaWing (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)I is American English.

(P.S. I'm not very upset about this, so don't think I am.) Queen Shore the SeaWing (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)I is American English.

Hi, Queen Shore the SeaWing I deleted it because it was incorrect. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't incorrect! (And IK that different languages have different grammar, but the commas don't change.) Just, don't remove punctuation if it doesn't change any of the wording. (And you only have to call me 'Your Majesty' once.) Queen Shore the SeaWing (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)I is American English.

Sorry, QStSW, you are definitely in the wrong here. The basic underlying sentence is 'He gained renown for his skill'. You wouldn't write that with a comma as 'He gained renown, for his skill'. So you shouldn't introduce a comma in the expanded sentence structure either. As you quite rightly point out, this is the same in English and US usage - see, for example sections 6.18-6.56 in the "Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition" (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 2003), which is the edition I have to hand. You do seem to be upset about this, but don't worry, we all make mistakes. All best regards, Dr. David Conway MA (Cantab), PhD (University College London), Visiting Fellow (Oxford University) 2019-2020 (not that I insist you give any deference to my qualifications), alias --Smerus (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not THAT upset, like I said above, but still. (And, no one can change my mind on MOST things.) BTW I'm not going to look at those articles, person who didn't even use a signature at the end like you're suppost to. (Plus, I'm 13, so keep that in mind when you respond.) Queen Shore the SeaWing (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)I is American English.

This is actually pretty stupid anyway. IDK why I made this section anymore, or had to overreact about a freaking comma. Queen Shore the SeaWing (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)I is American English.

QStSW, it's a known side-effect of editing on WP. We all get caught up like that from time to time. Best,--Smerus (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

uM. Queen Shore the SeaWing (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)I is American English.

Ludwig van Beethoven

I am trying to put this article in order so that it can go to a peer review and eventually go for GA or FA status by the time of LvB's 250th birthday later this year. At the moment I'm just trying to get the bio right - the lead and the life were full or irrelevancies and inaccuracies. (The music section needs a complete rewrite, I hope to get on to that presently.) In the process it seems I have attracted a variety of (I assume well-meaning) editors who from time to time load various irrelevant stuff. Some seem incensed that I have called LvB one of the greatest European composers in the lead. If any one has time to look at the article from time to time so that it's not just me batting these guys off - or, indeed, is interested in helping to bring the article up to peer review quality - do please join in.--Smerus (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at LvB's article until the recent kerfuffle, but now I notice that after a couple of hundred edits by you it has four references to "Solomon" without a year. I suspect "Solomon 1998" is meant, but I didn't want to correct it without asking you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks, now sorted!--Smerus (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Fanny Mendelssohn

Hi Smerus,

I just wanted to thank you for advising me on my edit of the Fanny Mendelssohn article. I am glad you were there to politely point out the error and add even contribute sources. Have a good day! Ben Novotny (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It made me wonder why her article even is FM, and not Fanny Hensel, the name she used for the longest tim eof her life. We have Clara Schumann, not Clara Wieck. We should not name a woman by first name alone, unless as a child, - compare Talk:Josephine Butler#Request for comment on names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I agree about the article name! But I'm not sure I agree about 'first name alone' though; e.g. the article about Felix M. frequently refers to him as 'Felix' (often because ther are other 'Mendelssohns' around in his story, e.g. Abraham and Moses). The problem with Fanny H. is that if we just write 'Mendelssohn' or 'Hensel' there is a real risk of confusion with others of those surnames, or at least a problem of the reader pulling up short in doubt. 'Fanny' is clearer. I have changed her name in the article after her marriage so that it reads 'Fanny' rather than 'Mendelssohn' as Ben Novotny has written - which was I think rather confusing

By the way @Ben Novotny:, I have also made further edits and adjustments - see Talk:Fanny_Mendelssohn#"Gender_norms" for rationale. There is still some thinking to do about that generalization re women and parlors. Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I know it's tricky, haing done a major change for Clara Schumann, who was Clara throughout, and is so in printed bios, but on Wikipedia, sounds wrong. (Did you read the discussion, at least the opening? ... and in it comments such as "too late for this question, this is a FA" as if a FA was perfect, and for ever. I miss John, and am afraid the discussion may have led to his retirement.) What would you think about moving the page to her married name, instead of that of the famous relatives? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven

You asked me to comment on the Life section. I can’t offer much, I’m afraid. It seems to me so far (down to end of the Family problems section) that you haven’t put a foot wrong. Balance, citation, tone, amount of detail all spot on, me judice. I see no obvious omissions or anything to argue with and all I can manage are a few not very earth-shattering thoughts on the prose:

  • the cultivated von Breuning family, where he taught – not sure about the preposition ‘where’ with ‘family’
  • and almost certainly met with Mozart – in BrE surely one meets with a nasty fate or a good reception, but usually just meets people
  • paid directly to him for support of the family – I think I’d make ‘him’ Ludwig or Beethoven for clarity.
  • the composer Johannes Brahms … introduced to Joseph Haydn – if Haydn doesn’t need an explanatory job title (which I don’t think he does) neither does Brahms, meseems.
  • the cellar of the house of his brother Caspar – he was Kaspar earlier on.
  • Maynard Solomon has effectively proved – I think you either prove something or you don’t: I’m not wild about the adverb.

More tomorrow, I hope. I’m enjoying this very much indeed. – Tim riley talk 17:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Many thanks, I await further! I'm thinking of how to deal with the music; as all the major and many minor works already have articles, I am thinking of sticking to broader principles rather than loading this article with details.--Smerus (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that must be right. An overview of the development of his music in each of the relevant categories: orchestral, quartets, sonatas etc, and then perhaps a summary of the changing views of his music over the past two centuries. (My word! That was easy advice to give: a damn' sight harder to put into practice!) Tim riley talk 20:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

More shortly, but have been waylaid by the Philharmonia's relaying of this, which I well recall from its first broadcast. I wasn't there, but did manage to hear Klemperer conduct Beethoven (and Mozart and Brahms) at the RFH the following year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K98zzC2FUtQ Tim riley talk 18:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Second and concluding batch

  • General
  • The info-box is a disaster, and doesn't conform to the specification in the MoS, which says an i-b "summarizes key features of the page's subject". This one (I can scarcely believe I'm writing this) gives dates and places of birth and then, God save us!, asks the poor reader to click out of the article and into a different one altogether. If you go to PR or FAC I'd raise this and seek agreement to blitz this amateurish embarrassment for the sake of our readers.
  • Pause
  • "It is also doubtless a consequence" – this is cited but such an editorial word as "doubtless" ought to be attributed within the text, I think, and not just in the notes.
  • "By now his hearing" – no real danger of misunderstanding, but perhaps better to make "his" "Beethoven's".
  • "had again significantly deteriorated" – this is one of five "significants" in the text, and one does begin to notice the repetition. (For my accumulated wisdom on "significant" see here, if you're interested.)
  • Resurgence
  • "Archduke Rudolf's promotion to Cardinal" – showing my ignorance: this led me to ask, for the first time in my life, whether Beethoven was RC too. I had always vaguely assumed he was a Protestant. It would do no harm at all to mention which he was somewhere in the article, and perhaps a sentence on what religion meant to him.
  • "Neither of these works were to be completed however for a few years" – if you must have a "however" here (the fifth of nine), I'd put a comma at each end of it, as you have done with the one in the next sentence.
  • "Geh! Bauer" ("Bog off, peasant!") – Hmm. "Geh' hin, Knecht … geh, geh!" – is Wotan telling Hunding to bog off? Rather an Anglicism, I feel. Something duller, like "begone", might be more familiar to those from outside these islands.
  • Death
  • "a case of wine from Schotts.[156][146]" – perhaps have the citations in chronological order

Reading the Life section has been an education as well as a pleasure. I am giving FAC and all its works a wide berth at the moment (too many Stadtschreiber from Nürnberg recently), but I will gladly make an exception for this article when the time comes. Happy, too, to do an informal review of the Music section in due course, if wanted. Please keep me posted. – Tim riley talk 08:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim. The infobox is of course awful but removing it at this stage would cause , as you know, a torrent of bumf which I could do without. Something which, I agree, could be best raised at the PR stage. I will copyedit so as to meet your very helpful other points. I will do a bit more reading as to LvB's religious beleifs. I couldn't resist writing 'Bog off!', but I was conscious that it would have to bog off itself at some stage - though I think in fact Wotan might well have had that in mind re Hunding....I am just limbering up to have a go at the Music....--Smerus (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Mendelssohn’s Signature

Smerus, I must say I was surprised to the see the reversion of my addition of a signature to Mendelssohn’s page. I was planning to add png signatures to all of the composer’s pages I could. Can you clarify your reasoning? Aza24 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  • WP:GALLERY is clear - "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." Unless the signature is referred to explicitly in the article in some way, reproduction of the signature does nothing to meet these objectives (and is imo, for what it is worth, unnecessary clutter). I am aware that a few old articles do include signatures and that some misguided folk have sought to include them in infoboxes in some articles. In this specific instance please note that Mendelssohn was approved as a featured article after detailed discussion, specifically without his signature. If you really want to add the signature you sohuld start a discussion on the article talk page, and see if you can get consensus. Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I really appreciate your patient and informative response, to be completely honest, I assumed the reason it didn't have it is because no one had uploaded it, not because there was even disagreement about the usage of signatures. I will abandon my signature uploading intentions, but I do have to ask, does it make sense to start removing signatures from Composer articles with them then, that is, if there was no prior consensus I wouldn't be reverted in doing so? I'd stay away from Bach, Mozart and Chopin's articles, since I'm aware of their insane history on infoboxes and such, but what about for non-featured people like Richard Strauss, Vivaldi or Copland? Also, I know you had a big part in the Wagner article (a very impressive article if I might add) was a consensus reached about that signature, or could that be removed? I hope you understand I have only positive intentions in these questions and don't mean to drudge up any old arguments! Aza24 (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I don't in fact remember what happened about the Wagner article. I can't be bothered to spark up any row by removing it - in general my attitude would be to let sleeping dogs lie and therefore neither add nor remove! Ifnon-featured articles come up for peer review, Fa or GA then there would I expect be discussions at the time.--Smerus (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I never thought much about composers' signatures of theie name. I think we might rather see to every composer's biography containing one example of his writing of music if we have it. Such as Mozart's of the Mass in C minor (where he signed Wolfgangus Amadeus). It might provide more insight in temparament and expression than just the signature. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that an example of music manuscript by a composer is of relevance to an article.--Smerus (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Waiting for Pr, Ga and Fa makes sense for addressing signatures. It looks like a lot of the featured articles have manuscript examples in the music sections but I'll keep in mind when I work on composer articles, to make sure others do as well. Aza24 (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 19:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Music publisher (sheet music) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Music publisher (sheet music) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music publisher (sheet music) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 11:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Latso Pianist

Hi Smerus :) I was wondering if you could help me with improving this article to see if we can get rid of the ban (article has a multiple issues) which was placed few days ago. Please feel free to make an edits, I see you have a long experience with wiki. Thank you and have a nice day! Sausa (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Claudio Monteverdi scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Claudio Monteverdi has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 15 May 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 15, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

May · Mary · Monteverdi

Thank you for your part in doing justice to "a key figure in the evolution of Western classical music at the transition from the Renaissance to the Baroque period"! - I boldly nominated his Vespers for FAC, - comments welcome. I heard it twice last year (Dunedin Consort and Collegium Vocale Gent) and sang it, - memories pictured on my user page this year, - looks unreal now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Some flowers for you, and for all who helped with Monteverdi and probably watch here! I just updated my list of people for whose life I'm thankful enough to improve their articles. - The FAC of Monteverdi's exceptional Vespers is in memory of Brian who passed me his collected sources. Comments welcome, also help with image (and other file) licenses. I wonder if more details of its structure and individual movements should go to the article, or a separate one on structure, such as for Messiah. I am also not sure, given that Monteverdi possibly meant the print as a collection rather than as one work, if "movement" even is the best term, - one version used "number", and for L'Orfeo, "item" was tried, - help welcome, even knowing that it will never be "finished". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

A memorable day, that birthday ;) - thank you for the constructive help with the current FAC, and always! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

today a composer pictured who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Pagewatchers ......

I seem to have many of you, so I am alerting you to HGO's production of Gustav Holst's opera Sāvitri at Lauderdale House in Highgate August 13-22, which I am delighted to say will effect the retrun of live opera to London. If you would like to come, tickets can be obtained here. See you there I hope! - and tell your friends ......--Smerus (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Franz Liszt's treatments of the works of other composers

Smerus, I was wondering if you would agree that the article: Franz Liszt's treatments of the works of other composers, might benefit from a new name. The current name seems unnecessary and surely something like "Transcriptions by Franz Liszt" would suffice? Aza24 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't mean to bother you again, but after working with Gerda Arendt to get List of operas by Claudio Monteverdi to FL the natural step would be to nominate Monteverdi's Operas to be a featured topic. (Since Brianboulton got them all to FA) As you are a main contributor to Monteverdi's article, do you think that is inclusion in the featured topic would make sense? I ask only because a featured topic like The Four Freedoms doesn't have Norman Rockwell's article, but since Monteverdi is already FA, maybe it might as well be included? - Aza24 (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Aza24, I'm not sure what you are asking here. Do you mean to create a page Operas of Monteverdi analogous to The Four Freedoms? Fine by me if you wish to do so.--Smerus (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
To my understanding, the only question is if the composer's article should be part of a Featured topic "Monteverdi operas". I know nothing about Featured topics, but am willing to do what I can to honour Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
'Featured topics' are new to me, too. Isee however that everyting in the 'music' section of Featured Topics so far is popular music, linking stars with their discograhpies, etc. Does anybody actually look at these things? - there seems to me to be little point in spending energy on this sort of stuff if they don't.--Smerus (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed my question was simply if Monteverdi's article itself should be included in the proposed topic. I have seen the amount of popular music topics in the music section, but I still see it as an invitation to add classical topics rather than to not. Either way, to me, featured topics seem to be more of a symbolic thing to recognize a community or individual's work on a single topic, like the astronomy community's work on The Solar System or Pericles of Athens' work on Song dynasty. Brian Boulton's work is equally as impressive, since there is no other major opera composer on Wikipedia who's operatic oeuvre is all FA. Since we all seem to be unsure, I will ask on the questions page to see what people more familiar with the process think. The process itself is nothing like the FAC or FLC one, so not much 'energy' would have to be spent! Aza24 (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Aza24, I am sorry that your addition to Poppea, trying to make it consistent with the other great Monteverdi operas, met so much bad faith. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC) disapproval and misunderstanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Arendt, You need to stop lying to people just because you disagree with something. There was no bad faith in anyone's actions except you, who used the name of a dead Wikipedian to try and force the issue of an IB onto a page. I am utter disgusted with you over that, and now I see you classing everyone else's actions as bad faith, which is utterly despicable. Stop personalising issues. There was disagreement over the inclusion of a fucking box in the corner of an article: there is no need for you to scrape the gutter in your response just because people disagree with the idea. Aza24, there has been no bad faith shown to you by anyone. Yes, some people have disagreed with one or two of the changes, and I think the rationale (and policies and guidelines behind the rationale) have now been explained. - SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Calling someone a liar even with a diff is an incivility. Please provide the diff. My experience with Gerda leads me to think she is not a liar so I would be very interested to see both a diff supporting your claim and if necessary her explanation. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in what you think right now: I am still fuming at Arendt's attempts to use the name of a dead friend to try and win an IB discussion. That's about as low as you can get. However, if you read my comment, I have not called her a liar: I said she was lying above, that's different, and you should be aware of that please. Her last comment above about Aza24's efforts being met with bad faith was a lie: there has been no bad faith, just people disagreeing with some of the changes and explaining to them what the guidelines and processes are. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt please don't use my user page to accuse others of bad faith. SchroCat, although in fact I sympathize with your persepctive of the issues involved, please keep your temper on my page! Littleolive oil, your manner seems to be at odds with your name; if you have differences with other editors, please keep them off my user page - you can write to them directly. Just because people are rioting in the streets doesn't mean you lot can riot in my home. Have some manners. Thank you.Smerus (talk) 19:32, 2 July

Sorry, Smerus. I should have avoided commenting at all, but given events today I reacted as I did; I still shouldn't have done it on your talk page though, for which you have my apologies. - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
apologies accepted, thanks -Smerus (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Smerus. If you have a gross incivility posted on your user page and especially if you don't want that kind of comment questioned I suggest you are in your rights to remove it and should. Otherwise please expect that kind of comment to be questioned. Second, I am not a fan of hyperbole. No one is rioting in the streets here and to suggest that the this comment in any way relates to riots is sensationalist. Now, I will gladly leave your page. I agree that an editor has a right to request discussion be moved and removed. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
A very woke (and humourless) response following a very woke (and humourless) original intervention. Farewell. - Smerus (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, Smerus, that you understood me as accusing, - it was not intended. I used a wrong term (bad faith), sorry about that, corrected yesterday. I misunderstood the featured topic criteria, sorry about that also, - so it looks like the article can stay as Brian left it without being in the way of the featured topic nomination. I met Brian as a man who tried compromise, again and again. Peace on Earth ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Gerda.--Smerus (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Operas by Claudio Monteverdi/archive1 up for review --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I will look. --Smerus (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, and Monteverdi's operas are now a featured topic! ... exactly 10 years after both Brian and I were declared awesome ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Weber

Smerus, I hope all is well with you... hopefully the incidents with L'incoronazione di Poppea are behind us. Anyways, I come to you with a rather open ended question about Weber. After organizing on his List of operas I am writing a lead to outline his operatic career, akin to the one in List of operas by Claudio Monteverdi, only everyone time I sit down to work on it I have trouble explaining the context of his work and understand where his place in German opera is even is. I understand that German opera was overshadowed by Italian opera when he was born, and many earlier German/Austrian composers (Handel, Gluck, most of Mozart etc.) preferred Italian librettos... but was there a tradition from works like Die Zauberflöte and Fidelio that had begun to emerge before Der Freischütz? And then of course Meyerbeer is a contemporary of Weber, which seems to make things more confusing as to how their works intersect, if at all. Admittedly, I'm not sure exactly what I'm asking but the sources I have seem to lack any direct answers. Any insight you could give would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

  • It's great that you are looking at Weber, the whole article needs rewriting and restructuring. As you will see I was attempting this morning at least to tidy it up. Weber is enormously underrated as a composer - one of the important things to do is to place him as a direct ancestor of Wagner's operatic style and language. Meyerbeer and Weber were close friends while students and Weber deprecated the commercialism which he felt Meyerbeer took on in his early Italian operas (anticipating Wagner's criticisms). The ancestry of Freischutz as an opera , although it was intially received as German to its core and became an emblem of nationalism, is more from French opera comique (especially of the Revolutionary period) than German (and the same could be said of Fidelio). See e.g. Ludwig Finscher, "Weber's 'Freischütz': Conceptions and Misconceptions", Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association Vol. 110 (1983 - 1984): Michael Tusa, " Cosmopolitanism and the National Opera: Weber's "Der Freischütz" ", Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 36, No. 3, Opera and Society: Part I (Winter, 2006); and Warrack's biography of Weber.--Smerus (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

COI editing

Hi Smerus. Can I ask you again, please don't keep editing articles where you have a clear conflict of interest. You are a superb editor and much valued here, and the project needs people with your expertise. But under WP:COI, you simply should not be directly editing articles where you have a clear conflict of interest, even when you belive that you can seperate your interests in the subject from what you add. - Bilby (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Bilby, here I have cited what a respectable independent source has written, and have not commented on it. I had not understood that this could be conceived as a COI, but if you find it objectionable please delete and I will not revert. I do not intend to edit this article in the future.--Smerus (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Derek Paravicini

Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

List of historical sites associated with Ludwig van Beethoven

Is it just me or how could... anyone ever find this useful? Aza24 (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Candidate for AfD, I would say.--Smerus (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed... tis done, here. Aza24 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

  • New partnerships
    • Al Manhal
    • Ancestry
    • RILM
  • #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
  • AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

September

September
Dahlias in Walsdorf

I like today's Main page, with the TFA (thank you for your FAC comments) 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) 20:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Among other resuls: 14k+ views on the composer we admire! - I finally got to a start for the Mendelssohn part songs I asked you about, but need more time, every day there is it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

In the end, I didn't write just about one but in general about "to be sung outdoors" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Beethoven / Mähler

I wished you had mentioned you were going to move the article. There are FOUR portraits of Beethoven by Mähler and theoretically Wikipedia could have an article on each of them. - kosboot (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes I just noticed this. In fact although there are said to be four, there seem to be only 2 around today (the other one being the 1814 portrait). So I will add a section on the 1814 portrait. Do let me kow if you find anything about any others.--Smerus (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giacobbe Cervetto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snuff.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Fanny Mendelssohn

JUst to say I've put Fanny Mendelssohn up for peer review as I think it could be not far off GA quality....all comments welcome.--Smerus (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hello again, Smerus. What a peasant surprise! It's a real honour for us to welcome such an experienced musician, Jewish historian, and Eastern European specialist as a member of Women in Red. I hope that after Fanny Mendelssohn, you will be inspired to create or improve articles on other women deserving coverage. If you have not already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules and our Primer for creating women's biographies. In connection with your GA involvement, you might also be interested in wp:Women in Green. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

WiR November 2020

Women in Red | November 2020, Volume 6, Issue 11, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 180, 181


Online events:


Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications

Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Ipigott (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

  1. Numbered list item

Sorabji peer review

Hello Smerus, I hope all is well with you. It's been a few years since we had any close interaction (in part since I took a break from Wikipedia for many years), but I was wondering if you would like to offer feedback at the peer review I have created at Wikipedia:Peer review/Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji/archive1. Tim riley has offered some feedback on the article here, and Gerda has included contributing to the PR in her to-do list. If you would have the time and interest, I would be thankful for your contribution, as I intend to take the article to FAC later this year. Thank you and all best. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Toccata quarta: Hi, thanks for thinking of me for this. I will certainly take a look, although I am presently beached in Slovakia and away from most of my sources. I was surprised on skimming through to see that KS was a vice-president of the Alkan Society (I am a member of the AS committee and edited its bulletins for many years) but I checked issue no 7 (Jan 1979) and indeed there he is! I know incidentally that both Jonathan Powell and Kevin Bowyer are involved at present in making editions of some of his unpublished works for piano and organ respectively - you may need to put in something about modern editions (if we can find citations); and I think something about recordings would also be appropriate. I've looked at Tim Riley's comments and find myself in agreement with them. Give me a few days and I will put up some comments on the PR page. All best,--Smerus (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Smerus, thank you for your interest in contributing to the review! Yes, there are sources to build on in writing about editions and recordings of Sorabji's music. I have put together some such materials and I will draw on those once I have your PR feedback, which I very much look forward to receiving. Best regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Smerus, I have just nominated the Sorabji article at FAC here and I would be grateful for any additional feedback on it that you may like to offer. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

December with Women in Red

Women in Red | December 2020, Volume 6, Issue 12, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 182, 183


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Removing speedy deletion tags

Hello, Smerus,

You're an experienced editor so I won't put a template on your talk page but you should know that, as the page creator, you should not be removing speedy deletion tags from a page you have created. Empty categories that have been tagged sit for 7 days and if they end up not being empty over that period, another editor or admin will remove the tag. CSD C1 deletions aren't actually "speedy" and there is lots of time to add pages to an empty category so that it isn't deleted.

In the future, please do not remove speedy deletion tags (or CfD/AfD/TfD tags) from pages that you have created. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Weber again

Hi Smerus, sorry to bother you again. I'm wondering if you'll take a look at Weber's operas at FLC. Normally I wouldn't go out seeking such input, but it looks like a consensus to promote will arrive somewhat soon and I would feel a lot better if someone familiar with the topic could take a glance at it. It's mainly the lead that would need reviewing I think (although comments on the table would be welcomed), but no pressure if you're too busy to do so. Best - Aza24 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sexy Chopin

Hello Smerus.

You are a scholar, I am not -- so I will not dispute you at the article. But it strikes me that the now-added article section is UNDUE and that the authors cited, e.g. Pira, an adjunct professor at CCNY expert in Catalan music, are not commensurate with the subject. I would say overall that a misguided few editors have imposed their Original Research on the article and that they really have no understanding of who or what Chopin was and how trivial and stupid and irrelevant is all this speculation.

Anyway, I'm not going to revert that addition right now, but I just wanted to touch base with you. I think it's all nonsense for a brief summary encyclopedia article on the subject "Chopin". SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. As I indicated on the talkpage, Piza's opinion is unobjectionable one way or the other, I think. As I tried to indicate, i think that much of the other discussion was not relevant. There is little evidence around, and people are trying to make a woke point by exaggerating some evidence and denying other evidence.--Smerus (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

So why enable their use of WP to "virtue signal" themselves or Poland or whatever? BTW, although Schenker did considerable work on Chopin and elucidates the deeply structural essence of Chopin's music, my understanding is that by the early 20th century, Schenker was marginalized. In the USA he was championed and ultimately mainstreamed only in the 1960s and onward by Schachter and Salzer and their students. And although Rubinstein's huge career makes him to this day associated with Chopin, we have much evidence that the "salon style" performance and dainty playing of the smaller works was never true of the most serious musicians, e.g. evidence of Plante and other earlier 20th century playing. Thanks for your reply. I think the only solution is to put the thing to an RfC with broader WP-wide participation, but I'm not inclined to be further involved. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I have sought only to keep the peace - I often wonder why I bother. I don't think that as it stands the article offers a victory either to virtue-signallers or conservatives. The issue is one that is discussed and pople will turn to WP to get an idea of what the discussion is about, so it is not unreasonable to say something on WP. Left to myself I would have said less but I sought consensus. Discussion of Schenker et al. we can leave for another time maybe - I'm not a great fan of that school of thought. In the meantime, take a look at this which one of our friends has thought appropriate - I don't know whther you should be pleased or insulted that he has left you out. Best,--Smerus (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smerus/Archive_5&oldid=1011833627"