User talk:Aza24/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

WP:GTC/FTC

Hi, Aza24. I was poking through the Good Topic retention pages to chime in on anything outstanding and noticed you mentioning that you're finding yourself stretched thin there. I had previously been a delegate there about mumble years ago and so should be roughly familiar with the gnome work of the process—if you want to close any candidates for promotion, removal, or supplementation, I would have no problem doing the labour of updating the processes themselves, I wouldn't want to weigh in on the decisions themselves obviously but the addition of new topics or the removal of defunct ones is fine with me. Give me a shout if you'd be happy to have a hand that way. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 13:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Grapple X, what an awfully kind message, thank you! I'm glad to say that we know have a bot working, which will give a huge relief on the annoyingly-long promotion process. FGTRC on the other hand still has a backlog, so I may well call upon your generous offer to help with getting some of those demoted in the coming days. Best – Aza24 (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries at all; if you're stuck for the work just drop me a talk message whenever you close an FGTRC candidate and I can crack on with it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 09:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Frederick the Librettist

Aza24. In further researching the operas of Frederick the Great (in part, piqued by your points), I came across this YouTube of Graun's Montezuma. This seems like it would be a great addition to illustrate Frederick's music, his commitment to the arts, and his use of arts for intellectual and political ends, as described in Forment (2012). The licensing seems legitimate, as I believe that section is generated by YouTube. But Wikipedia policy on using video is unclear. I do not want to add a link that was not there that puts our attempt at Featured Article status at risk over a video link. What are your thoughts: do you think I can safely add it or should I not? I recognize that you may not have the final say on the issue, but you seem quite seasoned with such things, so I'll trust your judgement. Thank you! Wtfiv (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

As I await your thoughts on YouTube links for musical samples, I did a bit more websearching. The YouTube appears to come from Goritzki's version (circa 1992) through Capriccio/Naxos, which is 2hr. 16 min. The YouTube is 1 and a half hours. So, the Youtube version is heavily edited. I think this too could impact its usefulness even if it seems reasonable to use, but it could still serve as an auditory sampler of opera in Frederick II's Berlin. Wtfiv (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies Wtfiv, I've found myself rather busy the past few days. I would take a look in the description of the video; there you'll find under the "Music in this video" section links to the "official" Youtube recordings. Here for instance, and here is a playlist of the work made by the channel in question. These would likely be preferable links, as the one you've given seems a re-upload of said recordings. This being said, it would violate no policies that I am aware of to include such links in the article. You can either put it in the external links section (with Template:YouTube) or perhaps as an "External audio" sidebar, as I did at Ellis Gibbons#Works. I will be sure to look back at your FAC as soon as I find time, and do let me know if you have any further questions about this. Best — Aza24 (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. I really appreciate it. It's good news, as it allows readers to hear an interpretation of Frederick's work. I'll get started on it tomorrow. Thanks also for the "External Audio" sidebar help! This sounds like a good way to go. Wtfiv (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I tested out the sidebar. It is nice to know it exists, but I think your suggestion to go with a simple YouTube template in external links was most functional. Thank you again for your guidance and help. Wtfiv (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for American Institute of Musicology

On 19 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article American Institute of Musicology, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the American Institute of Musicology has published over 650 volumes of early music since 1946? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/American Institute of Musicology. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, American Institute of Musicology), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Edward Gibbons

The article Edward Gibbons you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Edward Gibbons for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

September songs

Congratulations! - Omas gegen Rechts - enjoy strong women! I thought of Yoninah on the first day of Rosh Hashanah --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I had never heard of Omas gegen Rechts... thanks for sharing Aza24 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

One of my choir "sisters" wore the button. Believe it or not: three rehearsals this week! Rich Main page today: first TFA by promising author, pictured DYK by my friend LouisAlain who is discouraged by an AN discussion, and one of the Recent deaths. Enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

today: the day of bold red and black, for Dante who died 700 years ago, and Peter Fleischmann who died recently, leaving us films full of vision. Dante: just heard Inferno, imagined by a woman, the main character both speaking and singing with an inner 4-part voice! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

today: moar music, Beethoven, and my brother was in the orchestra, 10 July! - What do you think about the Stockhausen? RC supplied the formula in sound, DYK? I found more sources, - tell me what to include now for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely looking better. Apologies, I've been very busy this week but am planning on looking at it very soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

next chapter of July story - also busy, no rush --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Today: a woman in red, two who died under "in memoriam" and LouisAlain missed - my first editnotice read: "Every editor is a human being" which is quoted from a comment by Geometry guy in a 2012 discussion on WP:AN. In Freundschaft - I wonder if I should go ahead and add more towards FAC, or first get GA level stable? What would be needed for that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding Carlisle Floyd! Would you know where to find a ref for all these production details? - He'd deserve to go to Recent deaths, but I will happily sing Rossini instead of more digging. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I must thank you, I didn't even notice that he had died until I saw your edits at his article. I will try to look for those refs, and more for the awards. Given that his oeuvre is not massive (quantity wise, that is), I will attempt to assemble a nicer works list for the article. Also, as a lover of all things German, you might be happy to know I've decided to trudge away at rewriting Gutenberg's article (in my sandbox), hopefully with a GA or FA in the future! Best – Aza24 (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That's excellent! - Concert was exceptional, one to three articles for soloist ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Hi Aza24, I hope you're well. I was just wondering if you'd be able to do a source review on 2013 FA Cup Final which I've currently got running at FAC? I think (hope!) it should be quite straight forward! No problem if not, I always appreciate your detailed approach, but I also understand the world is full of other priorities! Cheers, The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Have just marked my spot and should get to it soon. Happy to help! Best – Aza24 (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Xosroviduxt

Hello, Aza24,

Your CSD tagging of this page is confusing. It reads like what you want to do is to move a page to this Draft space title but I don't know why you would want that done. Can you explain a little bit more what you want accomplished? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Eseentially there was an article, Khosrovidukht, that I was moving to Xosroviduxt (which was a redirect at that time) so I moved the redirect into the draft space for the move (The Round Robin move thing). As I understand it, I'm supposed to then delete bring the draft to CSD? Best – Aza24 (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, there are multiple redirects, please name the page you want to delete and the CSD criteria you want to delete it under and I'll sort out what we can do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems to have been deleted now. No worries. Best – Aza24 (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

RED nominated for FA

Hello Aza24! I'm reaching out as you commented on 1989's review. Red (Taylor Swift album) is now up for FA and in need of image, source, and general review. If you have the time and are willing, I would love to get your feedback on this article. Best, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this! I will try and leave a review of some kind in the coming days. Aza24 (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Chinua Achebe

Hello, Aza24.

In reference to Chief Achebe's title being bolded, I would like to know whether there is a hard and fast Wikipedia rule pertaining to it not being done. If there is, would you be so kind as to point me in its direction?

If not, then may I ask why you don't want it done? That is kind of the way most of his country's aristocratic titles are rendered, and I think that I've even seen it done like this with some from elsewhere before.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

O.ominirabluejack, please see MOS:BOLD as I linked in an earlier edit summary. As honorifics are not listed as a reason to bold there, it would not be appropriate. Bold face is really only used in the lead, when introducing the subject's name. If it makes you feel better, these sources do not bold it either, for example: [1] [2]

In general, if you see your edit having been removed multiple times, it is probably better to ask why, rather than just reinstating it. I acknowledge that you have indeed done so, but this having been the 4th time is not ideal. Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Aza24,

Noted. Thank you for the advice.

In reference to the bold face, I meant that it's been done a lot on Wikipedia. We don't bold face titles here in Nigeria.

Pertaining to the Wiki guideline you sent, I concede that bold face is not supported. Italicization is, though. Would you be open to doing that instead?

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly, O.ominirabluejack, I'm not sure what is urging you to highlight the word at all. Italicization and bolding seem like they would be more confusing than helpful for our readers (that is, the readers would not understand why they are being used). Perhaps quotation marks—either double or single: 'Ugonabo' or "Ugonabo"—would better achieve the result you are looking for? Aza24 (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Aza24, that works. If it's all the same to you, I'll put the double quotations in now. Thanks for the help.

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 02:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Carlisle Floyd

On 5 October 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Carlisle Floyd, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

October songs

Thank you soo much! I noticed that The Passion of Jonathan Wade was written in 2018 by a brandnew user. I added it to the navbox, and linked it in the works where one would expect it. Could you improve it a bit, at least to get rid of the tags? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded new pics (click on songs), including "our" concert (after exactly two years without) and a cow sunset --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look at The Passion. Thanks for nominating Floyd for ITN btw—you always take initiative with these kinds of things and it is much appreciated! Aza24 (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Susannah is also not much better, as I just noticed ... - Yes, working on WP:QAI/Recent deaths --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: #1700, and I uploaded more images, mostly blue and green, for hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Today, mostly black&white, and standing upright as Psalm 15 says --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Your Psalm work, as always, is outstanding. Aza24 (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, - most done by others for the psalms, but slowly bringing them to standard. - I could use help for Guillaume Franc, - so conflicting info from not notable at all to creator of beautiful melodies we still sing today. Today, I have two recent deaths on my plate (Wikipedia recent deaths), a poet and a composer, and the new Thomaskantor. I still believe that LouisAlain should not be blocked and therefore I have to take his translation without giving credit, but I found nobody so far to look into the block except Martin who was dismissed as a troll. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

today: see yourself, read about a hymn praying to not be on earth in vain, about a comics artist whose characters have character (another collaboration of the "perennial gang", broken by one of us banned), and in memory of the last prima donna assoluta, Edita Gruberová. I had to go to two grave sites last week, one who died now, one who died 10 years ago, so standing upright and in black seems appropriate. More colours - but subdued - can be had on hikes, - updated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the Haiting discography thanks! Could you perhaps make that a real discography? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I am hesitant to pick up anything else at the moment. I really need to finish Barbad and Guido of Arezzo soon (I've been procrastinating on them!). Your FAC, however, I will be sure to leave some comments on. Aza24 (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Today: a scandal, and more fall colours, including a short sermon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Today: memories in friendship, especially a GA you kindly reviewed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of Islam--IBRAHIM AL-MAWSILl

"IBRAHIM AL-MAWSILl, ABU ISHAK, one of the greatest musicians and composers of the early Abbasid period, b. 125/742 in Kufa, d. 188/804 in Baghdad. His father Mahan (a name which Ibrahim changed into Maymun) and his mother Dosher hailed from Arradjan in Pars, and had come with their patrons to al-'Irak. When he lost his father, his mother took him to her brothers, in whose care he was brought up, but he ran away because his relatives would not permit him to study music. He went first to Mosul—hence his nisba Mawsili, though other explanations are also given—and then to Rayy, where he learned the Persian style of singing; an envoy of the caliph al-Mansur was so pleased by his singing that he gave him money which enabled him to finish his training under Djuwana-wayh, a Magian at Ubulla. Soon Ibrahim attracted the attention either of Muhammad b. Sulayman b. 'Ali or of his brother 'Ali; shortly afterwards he was called to the court of the caliph al-Mahdi, a great patron of music. Here he met the musicians Fulayh b. Abi 'l-'Awra' al-Makki and Siyat and profited from the latter's instruction (A ghani, vi, 152); the caliph's sons Musa (afterwards, as caliph, al-Hadi) and Harun (afterwards al-Rashid) asked him to join their banquets; but when al-Mahdi heard of these bouts he imprisoned Ibrahim. Ibrahim consoled himself by setting to music a poem which Abu 'l-'Atahiya had composed not long before under similar circumstances. Yet Ibrahim remained all his life addicted to wine. When al-Hadi became caliph in 169/785 he summoned Ibrahim and was very generous to him. It is said that he received, besides his monthly remuneration of 10,000 dirhams, large gifts (A ghani, v, 161, 3). In addition he had an income from landed property (ibid., v, 193) and from music lessons. Amongst his pupils were his favourite Sulaym b. Sallam, Mukharik, furthermore 'Allawayhi and 'Amr b. Bana, who both later went over to Ibrahim b. al-Mahdi; Barsawma, the flutist, and Zalzal, the lute-player, who had both been discovered by Ibrahim, and al-Mu'alla (b. Ayyub) b. Tarif, who was not a professional artist but who, like his brother Layth, held responsible posts in the administration (see Tabari, Index). He was the first musician to train white slave-girls in the art of singing, who fetched much higher prices than black or yellow girls (A ghani, v, 164 f.). He reached the summit of his career in the reign of Harun al-Rashid, who formed a real affection for this gifted artist; he had to wait upon the caliph daily, but was later permitted to stay at home on Saturdays (Aghdni? v, 33). He had also to accompany him on his journeys. It was upon Harun's orders that Ibrahim, together with his colleagues Ibn Djami' and Fulayh b. Abi l-'Awra', made a selection of 100 songs (al-aswat al-mi'a al-mukhtara), which form the framework of the Kitab al-A ghani of Abu 'l-Faradj al-Isfahani[q.v.]. This collaboration of Ibrahim and Ibn Djami' is noteworthy, because they held different opinions about the principles of their art. Ibn Djami' tried to introduce some changes into the art of singing, the rhythms, and the modulations, whilst Ibrahim clung to the old Hidjazi style which he declared to be classical. These differences were the beginning of the war between the classicists, led by Ishak b. Ibrahim al-Mawsili [q.v.], and the modernists led by Ibrahim b. al-Mahdi [q.v.], a war that was to end only in the days of al-Mutawakkil with the triumph of the classicists. Ibrahim died in 188/804 at the age of 63 years of a disease of the stomach. Posterity remembered him as one of the greatest singers, whose melodies were so entrancing that they were ascribed to the inspiration of the devil himself."--Ibrahim al-Mawsili, J.W. Fück, "The Encyclopaedia of Islam", ed.B.Lewis, V. L. Menage, CH. Pellat, and J. Schacht, Vol. III:H-IRAM, (Brill, 1986), page 996.

Hope this helps.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, this is much appreciated, but is the wrong musician I believe. This seems to be Ibrahim al-Mawsili's entry, when I'm looking for that of his son, Ishaq al-Mawsili. That being said, I will tackle Ibrahim's article at some point so this one is still good to have :) Aza24 (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh damn. Sorry about that. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

No worries! Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

BWV 227 FAC getting urgent

November songs

Do you think you could take a look at the FAC for Jesu, meine Freude, BWV 227? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder, left an initial comment. Aza24 (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

  Another reviewer asked for an experienced copy-editor. Could that by you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I think we got closer, please check just the lead, perhaps? Today, on a friend's concert day, 3 DYK, Brahms depicted + sadly Aga Mikolaj (listen!). May the roads that we travel make us meet again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanksgiving music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  I love it! Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  today even more: the DYK translated by the banned friend, and a satirical opera --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  The memory of SlimVirgin is pictured again, in the context about my dangerous thoughts about arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

List of compositions by Jean Sibelius

Hi, Aza! I am (admittedly) a bit busy of late (having to search for a new academic positing, which takes up much of my time), but—and based on our joint success with Discography of Sibelius symphony cycles—I was curious to know whether you would be interested in helping me to move the titular article of this posting to FL. I left off in 2017, I think, with a table that was more or less complete, save for Sibelius's extensive solo piano and choral works (the minor, deep cuts of his extensive catalogue). I recall trying to uses a table template that was a square peg in a round hole, but I tried my best. I guess, what I'm saying is that I would need a formidable table expert on the team. Any interest? Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Ooo–I am always interested in collaborations, especially with lists like that. I would be happy to work on it with you Silence of Järvenpää. What catalogue/publication have you been using for the composition information? Grove generally have very complete lists on this sort of thing. Aza24 (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful! For starters, we should probably discuss patches/fixes to the table template... I know one reviewer on the talk page thought two catalogue columns were unnecessary, so that should probably be condensed into one. Here are the sources:

• Barnett, Andrew (2007). Sibelius. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Goss, Glenda Dawn (1996). The Sibelius Companion. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Please feel free to poke around on the page and share your notes. At present, it's a bit rough. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Been delaying on this, but still interested. When late November rolls around I'll have a lot more time to look at this. Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Me, too! Once we hit next week, I'd be happy to work on it; I'll be on for about a month or so as I work on Kullervo in my sandbox. I think the place to start is making a table that works better; I am a novice at those tables and was trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. I have the sources in my personal library. And we can probably have just one column for catalogue, just make it sortable by Op. and by JS (this was suggested by one user on the talk page who didn't much like my two column solution... of course, that means writing Op. or JS for every row...). Seasons greetings! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ishaq al-Mawsili, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arabica.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

List of Chinese monarchs

Hello there, I was just wondering around and I noticed your sanbdox about Chinese monarchs. The current live list is a bit messy and could definetly improved. Would you mind some suggestion? Tintero21 (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey Tintero21, thanks for your edits on the List of emperors of the Han dynasty page! I would certainly appreciate any suggestions you may have on my sandbox. The List of Roman emperors article was recently rewritten, and I really like the formatting it used (particularly the Succession and Life details section), since it actually includes more content. There are just so many names for Chinese emperors I'm find it hard to fit everything into the table. Aza24 (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that. I'm actually one of the users that contributed to that new list, it was quite a ride. I assume you want to rewrite the whole article, right? That would be a colossal task to do alone, specially if you want to source everything and that. Tintero21 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Tintero21, the whole article is the plan, yeah, and you're welcome to assist. You'll see on the sandbox talk page I left a list of some users I may reach out to when the list becomes closer to finish. I'm not super worried about the sourcing, as I feel I have a decent hand on the literature needed. Though some of the legitimacy conflicts worry me; for instance quite a few modern and ancient sources call Empress Lü the 3rd Han dynasty ruler (Britannica thus calls Wendi the 4th emperor, while our article calls him the fifth), but the WP list article excludes her entirely. I also opted to start with Qin Shi Haung, as I can't imagine starting with anyone else. Aza24 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

One of the main problems with the list, I believe, is that it's just overwhelmed with content... Are the Era names really that necessary? They may have been useful in the past (2000 years ago), but nowadays most scholars will simply put the Gregorian date. Many of the "main" dynasties have their own lists with additional info anyway. Those "Era names" and "Years" entries take a lot of space.

About Empress Lü, I don’t think there would be a problem with including her since she was de facto ruler and some sources do acknowledge this. Emperor Wen was “officially” the fifth emperor, but… well, I don’t think we should worry about numbering emperors, it’s just pointless and really not that important. Also, you want to start with Qin Shin Huang? That means you prefer to create an entirely new list for the Chinese “kings”? Tintero21 (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There is definitely too much information on it; the "Other sovereignties traditionally not counted among the Sixteen Kingdoms" section and "Empire of China (中華帝國) (1915–1916 AD)" should be completely removed for example. I was unsure about era names. I think I might include them in the reign column under hidden headings, like what I did with the "contents" headings here. I think the list has to start with Qin Shi Huang, as the Xia and earlier are essentially mythical figures. The Shang and Zhou also feel like bad starting points, as I don't think anyone would consider Tang of Shang or King Wen of Zhou to be the first Chinese monarch. I wouldn't mind creating new kings lists, though the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors and Xia ones would probably just be better put in their respective dynasty articles (the Shang and Zhou would still probably need their own articles though). Aza24 (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Why should the "Empire of China" be removed? It's not under the "Imperial Era", but Yuan Shikai still used the imperial title. Anyway, I like your idea for Era names, I hadn't thought of that. Would you prefer to continue this on the sandbox talk page? Tintero21 (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

By all means! I am doing some work on Han Wendi right now so I'll be online if you want to leave any further thoughts you have at the moment on the sandbox talk page. Given that Yuan Shikai's "rule was universally accepted as inauthentic" his inclusion feels superfluous. Aza24 (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Apology regarding inclusion of Morley

Hello there

As the title suggests I did not know that Morley wasn't an actual baroque composer. I have seen him being brought up as an early Baroque composer (which might have been poor research to begin with) and took note of his inclusion on the 'list of Baroque composers' article and with that, I had assumed that he was an early Baroque composer. Naturally, I don't want to make this error again and I hope you understand where I'm coming from.

71.59.205.114 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi 71.59.205.114, thanks for the apology and no worries! It seems like an honest mistake. I see where your confusion is coming from; the Baroque era is usually dated to 1600–1750. It seems that the list you are working from (list of Baroque composers) contains some WP:Original research on this matter. That is, calling composers from "Early Baroque era composers (born 1550–99)" is simply incorrect, and the "Transition from Renaissance to Baroque (born 1500–49)" is even more misleading. You'll see that neither of these characterizations include citations, probably because such a claim is unverifiable! Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Khosrovidukht

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Khosrovidukht you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wretchskull -- Wretchskull (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: I assume you're probably very busy, but just in case you didn't receive the ping, I have reviewed Khosrovidukht at Talk:Khosrovidukht/GA1. Wretchskull (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you WS! I will take a look at it now. My pings were indeed stacking up so I may have missed it earlier Aza24 (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks John! I love it—though the shadowing seems harsh, it is certainly made up for by the composition! Aza24 (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Cristoforo Majorana

Hi there Aza24, if you're not too busy, I wondered if you could you read through this stub article and see what needs doing, and if the cleanup tags I added recently are suitable or not please? Cheers, -- 23:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:38FC:A300:AC4B:1F36:1B46:ECA3 (talk)

Hi IP. I don't know that I have time to pick up a new project, unfortunately, but I see the clean up tags have now been removed. I would say keeping them off is the right call; issues on organization and lack of content plague most Wikipedia article already (since there are so many of them!) so adding specific tags on such matters is generally unnecessary. Aza24 (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Khosrovidukht

The article Khosrovidukht you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Khosrovidukht for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wretchskull -- Wretchskull (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks again Wretch—your review, particularly your evaluation of referencing, was most thorough. Aza24 (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

A very happy holiday season, whatever it may be for you and yours.

I wish you an enjoyable and safe season, and health, happiness, and success in the year ahead. Have a fantastic time! Vaticidalprophet 03:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

How lovely! Thank you Vaticidalprophet, and same to you of course! Aza24 (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Aza24! Your work on Chinua Achebe has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria, happy to help! Aza24 (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

2nd FAR on heavy metal music

I started the 2nd FA review on heavy metal music. You have been involved on the article, so I'm notifying you. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Commented there. Aza24 (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review for List of accolades received by The Shape of Water

Hi there,

If or when you have the time, can you do a source review forList of accolades received by The Shape of Water for featured list promotion? I would appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81talk 09:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for missing this, but I'm happy to see you made it through FLC promotion. Aza24 (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sahakdukht

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sahakdukht you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wretchskull -- Wretchskull (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Holidays

	Nollaig shona duit
	To Aza, wising you and yours the very best for the holiday season and new year. Ceoil (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, much appreciated Ceoil, and same to you! Aza24 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sahakdukht

The article Sahakdukht you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sahakdukht for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wretchskull -- Wretchskull (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

December songs

Today: sharing symphonic music - happy listening! - I asked the arb cands if they'd listen, which is an art. - Listen to what de:Jerome Kohl wrote about Zeitmaße, premiered by Pierre Boulez, and thank you for fixes there! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

vacation greetings from Munich, rich in culture, culinary events and meeting dear people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

today, an Italian opera, my second ever, as the TFA written by two dear people, and a park where I went with dear people, as pictured DYK --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

on Beethoven's birthday - I remember work on your monuments for him! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

today memories of singing Monteverdi, Handel, Rossini - a triple nod to Brian - and a Bach sing-along to come tonight, stay tuned - thank you for the new decoration here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If you like Advent music, check this out. If you like Christmas music and wishes, watch my user talk until 27 December ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I enjoy both, thank you! Aza24 (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

updated even richer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

December songs

... and now the last, Herrscher des Himmels, erhöre das Lallen, BWV 248 III, shown on the Main page, and here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Barbad

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Barbad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Al Ameer son -- Al Ameer son (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

NASA Astronaut Group 2

What happened here? [3] Wikipedia:Featured topics/NASA Astronaut Group 2 isn't listed as one of the featured topics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm inquiring with the bot operator; in the future though, please don't create the page yourself! (It might mess up the bot's process). Aza24 (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't realise I was doing that. I created the template for another purpose. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

For some reason Jim Lovell is only listed as a good article instead of a featured one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I've just updated it! Best – Aza24 (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Hawkeye7:, can you add {{db-author}} to Wikipedia:Featured topics/NASA Astronaut Group 2? There's a new one at Wikipedia:Featured topics/Next Nine that we're using (we'll move the name to the correct one). Aza24 (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Your GA nomination of Barbad

The article Barbad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Barbad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Al Ameer son -- Al Ameer son (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cataldo Amodei

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cataldo Amodei you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wretchskull -- Wretchskull (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Josquin des Prez Featured article review

I have nominated Josquin des Prez for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, I'll comment there Aza24 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Your help desk question

Did you find the answer to this question, which I just saw? I wouldn't know how to answer but just wanted to make sure.

It looks like a question WP:VPT could answer.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for following up!! I'm actually not sure if I need the answer anymore, but I'll reach out there if I do. Aza24 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review for List of accolades received by Dunkirk

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could do a source review for List of accolades received by Dunkirk in regards to its pending featured list promotion? I would appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81talk 10:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your note Birdienest81, I will attempt to! Aza24 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

About the summary style in SpaceX Starship

As you saw in this article, I have flagged it for not compliant to the Wikipedia:Summary style. I just make the "Raptor engine" section follow through what I believe the style, and I'm worried that the section is actually not in the summary style! Do you think that the section is compliant now, and what do you think that the section can improve on? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane, thanks for your explanation in the edit summary. To my eyes, the section looks thorough and concise (which is always the goal). If you're still unsure about that, or the article as a whole, I would recommend you reach out to Wehwalt (Wehwalt has brotten most of the Apollo articles to FA) or Hawkeye7, who know much more about similar topics than I. Aza24 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion! I will contact them once I'm comfortable that I have perfected every aspect of the article. There's still work to be done! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cataldo Amodei

The article Cataldo Amodei you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cataldo Amodei for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wretchskull -- Wretchskull (talk) 10:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Leo 2022

Just to say that I've been I've been reunited with my copy of Zoellner and can now crack on with the spreadsheet! I'll aim to get chapters 1–8 down; are you still happy to work backwards from the end? Cheers, Ham II (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ham II, why do you insist on spelling Zollner with an "oe"... is there something I don't know about? :) Happy to work backwards, yes... its always good to have your copy of Zollner on hand! Aza24 (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It's slightly more convenient than looking for the o-umlaut character to add to Zöllner (see Diaeresis (diacritic) § Printing conventions in German) but possibly it is a bit of an annoying tic for the reader! I'm now considering adding the spreadsheet lines for the first chapter or two to QuickStatements, rather than doing that for the whole spreadsheet at the end as I'd previously planned, so that we can start to see some results on Wikidata and on User:Ham II/Leonardo... Ham II (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a good idea! I should have plenty of time tomorrow to add some to the sheet. Aza24 (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit to Albigensian Crusade

Thank you for your edit to the Albigensian Crusade article. I have a couple of questions. Firstly, while you say that there were many troubadors in the Occitan region, were there an appreciable number outside of it? If you have a reliable source that says that the troubadors were not a common sight outside of the regions of the Albigensian Crusade, that would help explain their decline better and should be added. Secondly, what is meant by "the fifth generation of troubadours?" It's not clear from the article what exactly that is meant to signify. Please clarify that or remove it. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Display name 99, apologies for my terribly late response, I'm not sure how I missed your message other than my irl life making Wikipedia more sporadic lately for me. The people who might be considered troubadours outside of southern France are generally grouped into different and distinct traditions (trouvère and minnesang for example). Though there were a couple troubadors in Italy and England, the heart of the tradition was always in the Occitan region, since the tradition itself is usually defined by the use of Occitan poetry. The fifth generation simply refers to the last generation of troubadours, as scholars groups them into five divisions. I tried to clarify further, maybe including "the fifth and last generation" would work better? I am hesitant to use the word "profession" since many of the practitioners were knights and such "by profession" Aza24 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that, while the content you added is interesting and probably deserving of a place in the article, the final part of your test, as written, was grammatically incorrect and unclear. One wouldn't say "substantially less practitioners," for example, but "substantially fewer," and nobody reading that article should be expected to know that scholars group the troubadors into five generations. Isn't it enough to simply say that the practice died out and not bother delving into how many generations there were? That seems outside the scope of this article. You are welcome to change "profession" to "practice," "art form," or any other term that you think would function better. Display name 99 (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Display name 99, indeed my earlier attempt seems to have not been ideal and it appears to have been somewhat misleading. I have an idea for how to make it perhaps more thorough but hopefully still concise. I will go about this shortly and please let me know what you think. Aza24 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Epiphany

January songs

in friendship

Happy new year, in friendship! - Epiphany seems like a good day to say so, after a Bavarian peasants' mass (sorry, on the train home, no recent pics of that - just keep watching), and two DYK, even with a pic I took. I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

today's music in memory of JK --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 began happily with vacation. I uploaded images but stopped at 22 January - click on songs. 30 January means 10 years of Precious. It's also the birthday of a friend, - I'm so happy I mentioned his DYK on his 90th birthday when he was still alive. I have a great singer on DYK whom I heard, Elena Guseva, and wait for a Recent death appearance of Georg Christoph Biller whom I saw in action. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

10 years, congrats! What did you hear Elena Guseva sing?—she seems fabulous. Aza24 (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

see my talk - she entered on bicycle ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

How fun!! Aza24 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

yes, and now she is even pictured, Biller is pictured better (but still not on the Main page), and one more day of my pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review FAC Regine Velasquez

Hello Aza24, Happy New Year and hope you are doing well and safe. Apologies for the random request, not quite sure how busy you are these days, but thought it'd be worth a try to ask. I was wondering if you would have time and availability to spare to do a source review for my FAC? I would totally understand if you may be busy with other projects or IRL. Thanks and I hope you are having a great week so far! Pseud 14 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pseud 14, I'm doing well thanks! I will plan to do so. Best – Aza24 (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your response and much appreciate it! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pseud 14, just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this, but just gotten busy irl. I should definitely be able to get to it this weekend. Best – Aza24 (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, I totally understand and appreciate you checking back-in. Feel free to put a placeholder as well if you'd like :) Pseud 14 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Aza24, me again :) Sorry to bother you and apologies for the ask, I know you're pretty busy these days with FAR/FARC and your own projects as well. Wanted to ask if you might have a chance to do the source review some time in the coming days? Reason I'm asking is, I wanted to hopefully be able to meet the TFA nomination window when it opens in time for her birthday in April, since it now has accumulated some support (with the hope/goal that it passes). Thanks and I hope you have a great start to your week! Pseud 14 (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhhhh! I completely forgot Pseud 14, thank you for your kind reminder. I shall look right now. Aza24 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Hi Aza24, thanks so much for providing a source review on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Regine Velasquez/archive3. Do you know when you might be able to finish it? (t · c) buidhe 18:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I should have time later this week to finish it. Thanks for checking in, and sorry for my late response. Congrats on the Armenian Genocide promotion! Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

New message from Northamerica1000

Hello, Aza24. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 05:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Inviolata

Only chanced upon this after reading about it on a parish flyer which described it as one of the greatest masterpieces of the early Renaissance. Just felt like it deserved its own article. Unfortunately, a lot of the stuff I've managed to find on it is Greek to me. There's what appears to be a fascinating discussion about the composer playing a joke (?) on the singers here, but I cannot for my life understand it, much less make it "encyclopedic". If it may interest you to add to the article, please do so, I've done what little I can! With sincere thanks, Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Kingoflettuce, your addition is most welcome, and you have offered that spectacular piece a more than suitable beginnings of an article! Scholarship on Josquin is vast, and sometimes musicologists go too far to interpret his work (it gets unhealthy! Some scholars even desperately try to convince that Leonardo painted him in the Portrait of a Musician). I will see what I can add, though I am currently reading up on Josquin's biography to hopefully save the star at FAR, so I'm afraid that must take priority for me. If you don't know it already, you might enjoy one of Josquin's funniest pieces, El Grillo which is also missing an article ;) Aza24 (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What a happy coincidence! My knowledge of music is severely limited, so I dare not try to put up any "technical" content. Kudos to editors like you for doing the real heavy lifting! In the meantime, I have gone ahead and offered El Grillo a humble beginnings of an article... Thanks! Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

How lovely, and bravo on El Grillo! Aza24 (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

List of presidents of the United States

Re Special:Diff/1063294295: Do you intend to take List of presidents of the United States to FL? If so, let me say that I an very willing to help! Let me know what you intend to do. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I had been discussing it with Sdkb in passing and briefly in the past with Coemgenus, who said I could use his sandbox design if needed. Looking at the talk page, it looks like it is one of those articles that a select few editors relentless hound over, which discouraged me. I saw your referencing improvements though and am considering it further, especially once the RFCs have all closed. The possible improvements I see are:

1. The lead should be shorter and more concise, there's just no way it needs to be longer than three paragraphs
2. Almost every note needs a reference
3. We can find a better reference than thoughtco.com
4. The talk page says that the portraits should be the same as the president's respective article, though I am not sure why the Grant, Polk and Tyler
5. The Ford portrait is a little silly, in that it is the only one with the large of a body shot and can probably be cropped
6. I don't know how to solve it (or if it needs to be) but the linking to presidency articles by the numbers is an impossible to guess pipe link in that no reader will expect it to link there (and most will probably not see the link exists)

If you or Sdkb have other preliminary observations, I suggest you guys list them. Then we can maybe evaluate which ones we will need to go through the talk page and which ones we can do ourselves. At the moment, I assume items 1, 4 and 6 will need some level of consensus when considering how brutal the page watchers are. Aza24 (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Great! I too wish to take it to FL status. But, the biggest issues I see is that we'll need citations for each separate president. Few old FLs like List of chancellors of Germany don't have citations, but am not-at-all confident that it'll pass today without it. That was the main reason why I added sources in the lead, and wanted to do the same, but there was bit of opposition to the change. This has citations, but there are better ones available as well. As said before, I am very willing to help and add sources, but we'll need consensus on the talk page first. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think sourcing for notes and such will be uncontroversial, but yeah we will definitely need consensus for adding them to each row, which would certainly be ideal. I don't like the sidebar at all, and I think there should be a four person collage like so many similar lists (probably with Washington, Lincoln, FDR and the current president), but I don't know if consensus for that is even possible, no matter how practical it is. Aza24 (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. I too think that the sidebar should be removes, or at the very least, shifted. But there will be editors supporting "status-quo", and I don't know if it would be implemented. Nonetheless, we should try asking on the talk page, once these RfCs are closed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The RfCs seem to have been closed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Great! I think I may need a few weeks before I can get to this, unfortunately. I just have too many other commitments at the moment Aza24 (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	For being an invaluable Wikipedian and a source of knowledge for any queries on processes. I know source reviews are also daunting tasks and you have provided your time in doing these in some of my work. For that, I and many of us in this community are truly appreciative Pseud 14 (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Pseud 14!—this is lovely. I'm sorry my last SR took so long, trying to be thorough while also busy IRL is not a good combo :) Aza24 (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries at all and no apologies needed as I know things are busy for you IRL. Never sacrifice thoroughness for speed :) Hope you have a wonderful rest of your week! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Images

Hi! I've hit a rut on Kullervo and so I thought I would look into images, to perhaps regain my inspiration. I have, however, always been terrible at uploading images in a way that doesn't violate rules, and as such, I was curious if: (a) you would be willing to help me out, provided you have time and do image work; or (b) if not, whether you have someone you could recommend to me. Thanks! PS: Nice work on the music critics project!! Warmly, Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Silence of Järvenpää, I'm happy to help upload images, but I'm not really sure what kind of images you're considering? Buidhe and Nikkimaria know much about copyright related queries, while people at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop can help a lot with editing. Aza24 (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Aza! The following are images that, if they clear copyright, I was hoping we could add:

• Program from 1892 premiere
• Picture of Emmy Achté that is close-ish to the premiere date
• Picture of Abraham Ojanperä that is close-ish to the premiere date
• Picture of Sibelius that is close-ish to the premiere date
• Picture of Karl Flodin that is close-ish to the premiere date
• Picture of Larin Paraske that is close-ish to the premiere date

Any thoughts? Thanks! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think all of the image are fine because they were created before 1927. I'm not sure about the program, but I imagine it would fall under the same criteria.

Now that I'm looking again, the photographs all have a CC BY 4.0 marking on that site, meaning they are certainly usable per the third table row here. Aza24 (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aza! Wonderful! If you're unwilling to upload each, then could you perhaps teach me how? And, for the program, this says it's public domain. Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry for my delayed response Silence of Järvenpää. I see you've managed to upload them, and your progress in your user-space looks fantastic. My schedule has been haphazard lately, and I'm juggling a lot of projects (both WP and IRL), but I wanted to assure you that I do still have the Sibelius comp list on my mind. Do let me know if I can be of any further help for Kullervo or elsewhere. Aza24 (talk) 07:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aza! Thanks for your message; there's nothing to apologize for, as your suggestions about CC by 4.0 and the Graphics Lab were extremely helpful! Thanks, also, for your offer of further assistance. Here's my new ask: In the past, Profbounds did a wonderful job assisting me with Sibelius articles by making audio files of musical motifs (e.g., The Oceanides and User:Silence of Järvenpää/Tapiola and User:Silence of Järvenpää/Pohjolasdaughter). But they are now inactive. Do you know of any other editor who could assist me with this matter for Kullervo? If so, I would help them get the score and point out the passages and instruments that I would like to emphasize. Thanks! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmmm I'm not sure on if we have any active experts with the score templates stuff, though possibly Mathsci could help. The trend now adays is using engraved scores w/o audio (see the examples from recent articles such as Sei pezzi per pianoforte and Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven)). The user who specializes in these is intforce. If you'd still prefer the score notation template w/ audio and Mathsci can't help, I'd think asking at the CM project page would be the way to go. Aza24 (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Aza! You're a sources guru, so which is preferable in you mind?

• Gray, Cecil (1934) [1931]. Sibelius (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University Press. OCLC 373927.
• Tawaststjerna, Erik (2008a) [1965/1967; trans. 1976]. Sibelius: Volume I, 1865–1905. (Robert Layton, English translation). London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 9780571247721.

OR

• Gray, Cecil (1931). Sibelius. London: Oxford University Press. OCLC 373927.
• Tawaststjerna, Erik (1976). Sibelius: Volume I, 1865–1905. (Robert Layton, English translation). London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 9780571247721.

Thanks! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're talking strictly formatting (instead of choosing between editions) I'd say too much info is always better than too little, so would go with the first set. If you want, there is a parameter for translators (translator-last= etc.). Aza24 (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review for the 58th Academy Awards

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could do a source review for the 58th Academy Awards regarding its featured list candidacy. I would appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81talk 12:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, happy to help. Expect one soon. Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Brian Ferneyhough head shot.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Brian Ferneyhough head shot.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thanks for this notice. Your rationale is definitely correct, it didn't occur to me that there was a difference with limited-use non-free images of living vs dead people. Best – Aza24 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Vibraphone for GA

Hello, I recently nominated the Vibraphone article for Good Article status. You've been good at me accountable in the past and did the wonderful examination of Thrakkx's work on the Carillon article, so I was wondering if you would potentially do the honor of reviewing the page. Cheers! Why? I Ask (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? I Ask, I am thrilled to see you pursue a GA here! It seems someone has picked it up between your message and my reading of it. However, if you are interested in extra comments for PR, a future FAC or otherwise, I would be happy to take a close look. Best – Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: Alright, since the reviewer failed to take an in-depth look at the article and quick failed it, could you take a look at it and tell me what areas need improvement? Why? I Ask (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? I Ask, sorry to hear that. I think the first step is making sure every line has an inline citation, even things which might be considered "obvious"—the current standards for GA don't have much leniency on that. Here are some other ideas to get the article going:

• History section seems generally a little too condense. I suspect much more could be said about the history of the instrument since the mid-20th century to the present. In addition, including some info about other notable players (besides Hampton) is worth considering
• Some sources feel under used, Blades 1992 and the Grove (Oxford Music Online) article for instance
• I feel like there is a section missing about the general sound and character of the instrument. Perhaps glance at the clarinet article for some ideas about this

Some smaller comments:

• The Manufacturers section seems a little too high, not sure it is important enough to be that early
• Perhaps the builders in the infobox should include some of the ones in List of vibraphone manufacturers not there already?
• Some of the picture placement is a little messy, I might take a crack at this myself in a second

This should hopefully help get you started, let me know what you think of this. Aza24 (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do work on the images; I'm not that good on the more technical side of Wikipedia (working with nonstandard templates, pictures, etc.). Although some of the media was uploaded by yours truly, so at least I know how to press the upload button! And funnily, the Grove entry was written by Blades too. Thank you! Why? I Ask (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: Okay, every paragraph or potentially contentious statement has reliable inline citations, and I edited the prose to be a bit more clear and readable. Do you know what else may immediately preclude this article from GA status? I feel like the sound aspect is suitably covered within the "Bars" subsection, but the "History" section can always be expanded. However, looking at the other GA musical instrument pages (specifically, Clarinet and Wurlitzer electronic piano) not many really do a terribly deep dive into the musician aspect of history which would be the only thing really missing (the instrument's development and its usage in classical repertoire are well charted, in my opinion). As for the reviewer's comments, most have been addressed, but I don't really think much can be expounded about certain specialty techniques. The usage of mallets grips in particular (e.g., Burton, fulcrum, Steven-Musser, traditional cross, and six mallet) need their own overview article eventually, so I don't want to write a whole lengthy section about the use of six mallet technique just in the Vibraphone article.

I also don't mean to be particularly controversial, but some of the GA musical instrument articles may need to be reassessed (see Clarinet#Use of multiple clarinets and the Gandingan and Agung pages which have many grammatical and MOS errors). Would you concur? If so, I may start a discussion. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Why? I Ask, I would say that's a very reasonable assessment, in fact, there are few GA instruments I know of which are in decent quality. Pipe organ is probably the best and there are some good ones on electronic keyboards. I would agree, the Clarinet one is in poor shape and probably deserves a GAR. Though the other two you list would not immediately pass if they were nominated to GAN, I don't know that their issues are bad enough to warrant a formal reassessment, but I certainly wouldn't oppose it. Aza24 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

On the Vibraphone article, your sourcing additions have definitely constituted huge improvements. I agree that the history section would not need a mention of every prominent player. That being said, it is a bit odd that it doesn't go very close to the present, and mentioning players might be a way to do that. Since you removed the uncited rep list (which was a good move imo), it might be worth considering a section on repertoire (presumably split into classical and jazz sections), or alternatively adding more repertoire information in the history section, which would be another way to help with that section's comprehensiveness. Aza24 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Better? I'm hesitant to make this section bigger, because they typically just become unencyclopedic messes of editors' favourite pieces rather than actual works important to the instrument's development. For the "History" section, I think a brief mention and overview of how Milt Jackson, Gary Burton, Red Norvo, and potentially Bobby Hutcherson played the instrument is really all the section needs. Thoughts? Why? I Ask (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely better Why? I Ask, and your plan for the history section seems sound. Right now it seems you have two examples for both the two hand grip and four hand grip—on my laptop screen that pushes all of the images below the section they're referring to, and is generally a bit overwhelming. I would suggest limiting it to just one image for two hand and one for four hand—perhaps remove the video and the Locke grip? Aza24 (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Delegation

I asked Sturmvogel if he was able to do FTC work since I havent seen him close a nomination in maybe a year. Thinking about replacing him and look for a new delegate. What do you think? GamerPro64 23:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

GamerPro64, thanks for bringing this up. I agree completely that a new delegate is needed; Sturm has had a few chances now and seem to be largely uninterested in the project. We might consider Bryanrutherford0, who is active at the project and has contributed topics in the past. Aza24 (talk) 06:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll ask them about a position. If they're interested I'll swap the two users out. GamerPro64 14:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

February songs

February songs

frozen

Today is a feast day for which - as you will know - Bach wrote several cantatas including Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125, which was on DYK 10 years ago and TFA 4 years ago. I'm less happy that Georg Christoph Biller had to wait days for a Main page appearance under recent deaths, and then stayed not even for a full day. It would have been so meaningful today, with the man in the cantata saying he can depart in joy and peace. - The February pic was taken in memory last year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I like my talk today (even explaining how it works), and managed to picture two more vacation days --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I must say, the frozen creek image is certainly one of the most fantastic pictures of yours I've seen! Aza24 (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel the same --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Today, I decorated my talk with a Bach cantata. I heard it last year when missing RexxS began, and "not letting go" was a theme. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

my joy - more on my talk - George Crumb needs more sources could you help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I really want to, as I admire his music, but don't know if I have time right now. In a few days I will though. Thanks for your initial cleanups. Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I did what I could: add refs, reword Black Angels a bit, nominate for RD, give the compositions iboxes. If you have a free minute or two, please check. If you have more time: I wonder why Star-Child isn't mentioned in the bio, other than in the list of works, nor his graphic notation. - Even the German FAZ has an obit, but it's subscription and only supports what we have already, so I didn't bother. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

22 02 2022: music for you, today the German Main page has de:In Freundschaft, and you know the long story behind it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Lovely! Aza24 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Jerome's day today - precious 10 years - stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you see the stats for Lysenko? Keep going, it's now that people want to know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I took this pic in 2009. It was on the German MP yesterday, with this song from 1885. - A composition is mentioned on Psalm 91, Dmitry Bortniansky: Choruses in Old Church Slavonic, Zhyvyi v pomoshshi Vyshnjago, - would that deserve an article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

March songs

Yes? - Listening to the charity concert mentioned here. I created the articles of the composer and the soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Now, you can also listen on YouTube, and more music, the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices call "Freiheit!" (freedom, instead of "Freude", joy). Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Day, more music and today's sunset --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a piece from the OREYA playlist that deserves an article in English? Lysenko Psalm 139? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Not sure there would be enough sources, though I just ordered a big survey on Lysenko's music on amazon (got a great deal!) so I will check there. Just expanded his bio and lead today, and hopefully more later. Aza24 (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

understand - on Bach's birthday: the places where I sang his Dona nobis pacem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

the Prayer on the Main page, finally + new flowers, and btw: the TFA is a young writer's first --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with Bach's works and his No. 1 especially today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Sunday flowers and sounds, don't miss the extraordinary marriage of the beginnings of the theme of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, and Prayer for Ukraine - here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I only know Vladmir Jurowski, and had no idea he was descended from something of a musical dynasty! Aza24 (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I also knew only that one, tthanks for bringing the continuation of the dynasty to his lead. I didn't know Serhiy Kot. Written with pleasure: an exquisite voice that I heard on 11 March (there's a yt with her in the same role in 2020, Vienna, but of questionable origin) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review request

Hello again. Apologies for yet another random message. I was wondering if you could do a source review for my current FAC? I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I wanted to ask because you have helped me with a source review in the past, but again, no pressure (at this FAC is still very new). Either way, hope you are doing well, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

No apologies needed–I will attempt to do so! Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you! I appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello again. I just wanted to thank you again for the source review for the above FAC. Although I ultimately ended up withdrawing the nomination, it did lead to me doing further research and learning more about the song in question. I just wanted to make sure that I tell you that I did appreciate your review and I hope that my withdrawal request did not come across as rude. Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47, no, not rude at all, though I did think it might have been unnecessary. That being said, I trust your judgement and your decision feels generally sound. Let me know if (when!) you nominate it again. Aza24 (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. In retrospect, it was likely unnecessary to withdraw it, but I was uncertain at the time about tracking down sources to clearly distinguish its status as a single or a promotional single. I found this could be difficult since the distinction between the two is murky and is often contested on Wikipedia. However, I was able to find an official press release from the record label that names it as a single and since a majority of the coverage refers to this as a single, I feel safe classifying it as such. I will likely re-nominate it again sometime next week. Sorry for the late response, but I just wanted to let you know. Aoba47 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy April 1

Don't open this!
What the?! Happy April Fool's Day! Thanks for your contributions to improve the dissemination of free knowledge to humanity! North America1000 16:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Check it!

Hahaha—Thank you Northamerica1000! Aza24 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Victoria

Hi, and I have to admit you've piqued my curiosity: is this qualification actually necessary? Sparafucil (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sparafucil, I'm fairly certain I wrote the preexisting line as well, when I must have thought the qualification wasn't necessary. Reading it just now, I felt like the previous phrasing didn't make sense; that is, his contemporaries also have "sacred and polyphonic vocal music, set to Latin texts," but the difference is, that's essentially only what Victoria had. Does that make sense? If not I'll think about other options... (or just restore what was there before). Aza24 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I had hoped you'd made some new discovery ;-) but I'll trust you to come up with another phrasing. All the best, Sparafucil (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Checking in with warm greetings!

Hi, Aza24! Just thought I would send you a quick hello... was Wiki-surfing the other day and, happening upon your user page, I finally got a chance you read your two-paragraph introduction. I have to tell you, I loved it! Made me both shake my head in dismay, shake my head in agreement, and feel a modicum of solidarity. (I often find WP baffling... so many stubs and start-class articles left for dead, and as you say so many longer articles built on awful sources, weblinks rather than academic books and journals... the path of least resistance, I suppose [I won't name the article that most frustrates and disappoints me!].) Anyway, do you still have any interest in doing the Sibelius list of compositions FLC together? (I was thinking first week of June. No worries if not!) Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Silence of Järvenpää, the first week of June would be wonderful. I'm glad you enjoyed my userpage, I always wonder if it makes sense :) Hmmm, I'm afraid I can't quite guess which article is your nemesis... You've made me very curious now!! Aza24 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aza24! Wonderful! We'll plan on June, then. Looking forward to my *first* official collaboration, especially because I think there's much I can learn from you. :) _{(The article I was referring to rhymes with Sean Jibelius; it's actually pretty good, and I know talented/nice/mentoring editors worked hard on it... and, back in the day, even kindly asked me to pitch in... but I didn't because I was so new to WP and lacked the confidence. What bugs me is the sources utilized, the images, and the lede [i.e., the three things I tend to care most about in any article]. I'd love to help, but I just feel overwhelmed by the sourcing... this is one of the many reasons why I admire you for tackling the music article head on! I, instead, cope by just writing about my guy's compositions, where I have freer reign, since everything is stub or start-class.)} Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Dead links that have archived sources

Hi there,

If a dead link has its page archive, can it still be used in any featured content. For example, some of the information obtained from Box Office Mojo is no longer available in it current site. The only website that features this information is an archived version of the page.

--Birdienest81talk 07:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Birdienest81, if the archive is saved, but not the original website, yes it can still be used! In this case, just be sure to mark the "url-status=" paramater as 'dead', rather than 'live', which I believe is what my comments at the FLC were referring to. Aza24 (talk)

Aza24 I addressed your comments regarding the 58th Academy Awards for its featured list candidacy.

--Birdienest81talk 08:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Schenker

Hi there! I appreciate your comment on the Schenker talk page, but as I mentioned to Kosboot - I've given up. There aren't enough interested parties on that page to balance the passionate intensity of Hucbald and anonymous, and I'm guessing it's too niche a topic for RfC to be of much use. My new plan is to wait until their generation ages out of the field entirely - Schenker is FAR less popular among younger theorists. Would you like to do a GA review on "cyclotron" for me? (just kidding) Cheers! PianoDan (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

PianoDan, thanks for your note. I find myself rather neutral on this dispute specifically, though other issues of bias in classical music I find more pressing. It seems clear that there is a genuine dispute on the issue, and a more split opinion than the page currently provides. All it would really take is one line that mentions others who agree with Ewell and a more appropriate section name, but I don't know how possible to include that would be. Your revised approach would probably work... if you're willing to wait that long :) – Aza24 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

SR request

Hi, I don’t believe we’ve met, but I’ve recently seen that you occasionally do solid source reviews on FACs. With that in mind, I currently have an FAC that is in need of one and wanted to ask if you’d be kind enough to conduct a source review. No worries if you don’t have the time or inclination. FrB.TG (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi FrB.TG, nice to meet you! Thank you for your note, I will attempt to do so tomorrow. Best – Aza24 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for missing this, I see the very capable Aoba has taken care of it. Hope all is well – Best, Aza24 (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

A new book to order

I saw your addition of this item and my first thoughts were: 1) wow, that looks awesome, and -- 2) that's going to be depressing. (Is it?) I think I'll order it, because -- happiness is a depressing book about my field! ha ha. :) Antandrus (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I've only read chapters 1, 5, 6 and 10, but thoroughly enjoyed it so far (it's available in its an entirety on google books, courtesy of the admirable Open Book Publishers, though I always prefer handheld copies!). The variety of contributors and topics covered is rather impressive, and it doesn't seem too pessimistic, but gives a fuller, more nuanced view of the issues it discusses. I wish there were more publications of this nature, the only one I know of is Julian Johnson's Who Needs Classical Music?, which I am yet to read. Aza24 (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh good. I just ordered it a few minutes ago (like you, preferring the hard copy; I look at enough screens).

Another topic entirely: I saw the thread above this one and realized I didn't have Heinrich Schenker on my watchlist, and -- yeesh. I've known about his "attitudes" since I read Der freie Satz in grad school. Schenkerism was already going out of style fast in the 90s, and it seemed more fashionable to bash it than build on it. Eugene Narmour wrote an interesting book, Beyond Schenkerism (oh look, we have an embryonic article on Implication-Realization) and his book includes a chapter on Schenkerism as intellectual history. It's a bit polemical, but you can really see how Schenker's theories emerge out of a 19th-century understanding of the world. Every time I encounter a Schenkerian analysis now I feel like I'm encountering a relic from the age of colonialism. But yeow, that big talk page thread is off-putting. (Austrian born in the 1870s had pre-modern racial attitudes? say it ain't so...) Antandrus (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I will have to check out the Narmour book, though I wonder if a new mode of analysis entirely will arise in the next 20 years, I mean Sonata theory is rather revolutionary, and so recent! We've barely had anytime to analyze music of the 20th-century (let alone last 50 years) and I'm convinced there has to be more to life than Allen Forte's set theory (*yawn*). In any case, I don't expect a resurgence of Schenker in the immediate future, especially with these 'new' interpretations. The talk page seems to be two very opposite opinions struggle to admit that a middle ground even exists. But who can blame them? The heart of the debate is relatively new, and somewhat scattered through academia. Maybe in a few years we'll get a better view of the whole situation. Aza24 (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

As one of the "opposite opinions" I do apologize for my negative contributions to the tone of that pile-o-words. :) I spend a lot of time talking to theorists, so while the plural of anecdote is not "data", I can say that they are uniformly frustrated with the tone of that page. (And also have no idea who the heck Barry Wiener is.) I'd like to drag it more to the center, but it's a great illustration of how easy it is for a few truly dedicated editors to "claim" a page as their own. PianoDan (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

PianoDan, it is indeed frustrating, and I admire your resolve. No need to apologize, these kind of things too often bring out a less than courteous tone of voice, as I found myself exhibiting on Talk:List of music theorists :). If it makes you feel better, I did not think the Schenker article would ever include the section it currently does, so am pleasantly surprised that such a relevant topic is at least present on the page, in one form or another. Aza24 (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review request

Could I trouble you for a source review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NERVA/archive2? Apart from a hard-to-find (but really good) book by James Dewar, most of the sources are accessible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I will try!–probably tomorrow. Best – Aza24 (talk) 06:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Henry Winkler suggestions completed

Hi Aza24, I have completed all of the suggestions that you made for the final round of the Henry Winkler review. Is there anything else you would like for me to do? Thank you! -Classicfilms (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I also just completed a copy edit of the full article. -Classicfilms (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for all of this Classicfilms, I'm passing now, congrats! Aza24 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you as well for taking this on, I really appreciate it. Thank you for all of your help. Cheers, -Classicfilms (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

April

April songs

amazing! - two people on DYK, both connected to Oper Frankfurt, and don't miss yesterday's video of Pink Floyd given to me! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Lovely to see! Aza24 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page history/2022 April 13: the TFA is hard to overlook, but there are also peace prayers, a soprano and a theatre manager, - if you don't find them try here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

rich in music and memories --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Handel!!!! Aza24 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

with organ and a trumpet, and leaving everybody happy - missing GFHandel, always especially on 23 April --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

another Ukraine day today: Maks Levin DYK, expanding Kyiv Symphony Orchestra (have tickets), and creating Anthony Robin Schneider, the bass who could be heard opening the singing in Beethoven's Ninth twice on 10 March 2022, live in Frankfurt, Germany, and recorded in Auckland, New Zealand, singing "Freiheit!" (freedom) instead of "Freude" (joy), in a tradition started after the Fall of the Wall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea they were touring. Hopefully they'll come to America, but I doubt it :( Aza24 (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I think they'd love to, - one interview talks about a possible residence after the tour (with the families travelling along anyway). Tough. My friend was supposed to be composer in residence at the university of music in Kyiv, and asked me in March if he should go. He had decided against it before I answered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ay yes I read about the American residency program in the NY Times. I wish I was in a situation to host someone—my close friend has much family from Ukraine, all have safely left the country, thankfully. Aza24 (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Source review for List of Robin Williams performances

Hi there,

I was wondering if you could do a source review for List of Robin Williams performances for its featured list promotion. I would greatly appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81talk 10:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

My apologies, I was taking a look at it now but it appears to have been done already. My best to you. Aza24 (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

List of works by Leonardo da Vinci‬

Why are you reverting changes across the board without explanation? If it is about the assessments "universally/widely etc. accepted", then please correct. But not additions with sources, please. Thank you and best regards! PS: "Salvadore Mundi" is disputed, you can check e.g. Frank Zöllner by google and news, but I do not insist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitglied5 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I gave an explanation "Please do not change cited information"—YOU literally said nothing. The dispute over Salvator Mundi is whether Leonardo did most or only a small amount of the painting. There are only eight major works attributed to Leonardo universally, Lady with an Ermine and the Isabelle portrait have been too controversial in the past to be called "universally accepted". This is all explained in the lead. Sigh. You really should not waste people's time like this. Aza24 (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)