Niggle1892

Frederica von Stade albums

Hi, I appreciate the work you are doing creating articles for Frederica von Stade albums, but please note that they fail the notability criteria for albums at WP:NALBUMS – they need independent sources such as critical reviews from established music magazines (not blogs). Ms. von Stade is extremely famous, of course, but that doesn't mean all her albums are entitled to an article. If all you can find is the liner notes of the album, then that's an indication that they don't pass WP:NALBUM and will be redirected to Ms von Stade's article instead. Richard3120 (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for taking an interest in my scribblings, and for your helpful tips. If I've understood them correctly, WP's album notability criteria include being nominated for, or winning, a major award. Of the 15 albums that I've written about, one has won a Grammy, eight have been nominated for a Grammy and two have won the Grand Prix du Disque. Most have been reviewed in multiple places, e.g. Gramophone, Opera News, Opera, Opera on Record, Penguin Record Guide, and so on and on and on. The approach that I'm taking is to begin with basic discographic info with a view to returning to articles later to cite and/or quote from reviews. As for von Stade's inherent notability, I certainly wouldn't claim that she's up there in the stratosphere with Pavarotti, Domingo and Callas, but I think that she's high enough in the second tier of opera singers for several of her albums to have a claim on WP's servers.

I'm very much a Wikipedia novice, but it seems to me that there's a case for Wikipedia always erring on the side of generosity rather than restriction. Sometimes, for example, I've wondered about some issue raised by an episode of a TV box set and been delighted to find that some superfan has created a wikipage about the show which has answered my question. In the same way, I think that if some von Stade enthusiast reads her wikipage and sees that she recorded an album called Voyage a Paris and wonders exactly what's on it, it must be helpful that clicking on the title will take the reader to a page with a list of the album's contents. I just can't see the harm in making this kind of info available to Wikipedia readers. After all, people who have no interest in such info can and do simply ignore it. Isn't it the glory of Wikipedia that it can tell people things that they'd never find in the Britannica? If Wikipedia was as austere as the Britannica, would there be any point in its existence?Niggle1892 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem – I'm not trying to be officious, or on some crusade to remove your contributions... I redirected one of the albums, then saw that you had created several others and thought it was better to talk to you first.

Some advice about messaging first... you don't need to write a message on both your talk page and on mine as well. It's considered good practice to keep a conversation on the page on which it was originally started (I'm sure you understand why this is, it's difficult to follow a thread if you have to keep flicking back and forth between different talk pages). If you want to notify someone that you have left a message for them on your talk page, or on the talk page of any article, start your message with {{re|Person's user name}} or {{ping|Person's user name}} – this will come up as a message at the top of the page (where the bell is) when they next log in, notifying them that they have a message. The exception to this is that you don't need to add this code if you are writing on the talk page of the person you are notifying... Wikipedia automatically notifies the person that they have a message on their talk page anyway, so it's redundant. So for example you will have received a notification that someone (me) has written on your talk page, without me having to notify you manually, and if you want to reply to this message and let me know that you've replied, start your message with {{re|Richard3120}}. You'll also see I've indented the replies using colons, which makes it easier to see when someone different is writing.

OK, so regarding Frederica von Stade's albums, just having a track listing is not considered enough notability for a Wikipedia album, because you can find these anywhere on the internet (record stores like Amazon and iTunes, and other user-generated wikias like Discogs, for example). So the album article really needs to have some information about it as well, from sources that are considered both reliable and independent of the artist and record company. Ms. von Stade's albums are not my area of expertise at all, but I know enough to know that she is a very famous singer (or was, I believe she's retired now), and therefore it's very likely that her albums have been reviewed in credible sources like Gramophone or The Penguin Record Guide. This is exactly the information that should be added to the articles as soon as possible – they certainly won't be put up for deletion with a couple of trustworthy reviews in them, but without them they are in danger from any editor who comes across them and decides that they aren't notable. Any articles regarding the albums in question (interviews possibly, although you have to be careful to use facts stated by the interviewer and avoid the use of quotes from Ms. von Stade herself – see WP:PRIMARY).

Obviously the sources you have are not on the internet, but that doesn't matter – if they are properly cited so that someone knows exactly where to look for them should they ever come across the source, that is acceptable. If you need help in adding citations, I'll be happy to help. Richard3120 (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: It's extremely kind of you to take so much time explaining both Wikipedia's messaging protocols and what Wikipedians want from album articles. After mulling over what you've said, there are just a few things I'll venture in response.

(1) I take your point that a lot of basic discographic data is already available from sites such as amazon. But this data is often of very poor quality. I've recently been looking at a boxed set of 100+ CDs recorded by the same conductor, for which amazon's track listings just say things like "Movement No. 1: allegro non troppo" without telling me which symphonies these movements come from.

(2) People who collect classical records and people who collect popular records come to Wikipedia seeking very different kinds of information, I think. Someone interested in, say Dark Side of the Moon might want to read about how it was composed, relationships between band members, promotional videos, cover art, remixes, chart positions and a hundred other matters which, in the case of a classical record, simply don't arise. People reading about a classical record are probably mainly interested in whether they would enjoy it more than the 96 alternative recordings of the same work which they could buy instead. So the questions at the forefront of their minds are things like, Is the music played fast or slow? Was it recorded in an arid acoustic like the Barbican's or a warm one like Kingsway Hall's? Did the orchestra use period instruments or modern ones? Was the recording done digitally? Which edition of the score did the conductor follow? Does the CD come with translations of music sung in a foreign language? Does the roster of soloists include that unfortunate old tenor who sounds like a sheep being strangled? What I've been trying to do in my articles is to give this basic, objective information as fully, concisely, clearly and accurately as I can.

(3) Reviews. I think that Wikipedia's wanting reviews as evidence of notability is a mistake. Firstly, reviews are more about the personal tastes of the reviewer than they are about the music (I've seen the same album praised to the skies by one professional critic and damned to hell by another). Secondly, in von Stade's salad days, magazines like Gramophone would review pretty much every new album released by pretty much every major label, so being reviewed in these magazines was no indication that an album was in any way exceptional. Thirdly, the extensive paraphrasing or quoting from professional reviews in Wikipedia album articles is certainly unethical and probably illegal. If Wikipedia quotes, say, 80 words from a 150-word review that its publisher has put behind a paywall, Wikipedia is doing that publisher commercial harm. Who would pay to subscribe to a review database if the gist of its contents was available from Wikipedia for nothing?

(4) At the risk of testing your patience past enduring, I think that Wikipedia's espousal of notability is a fundamental mistake. I grew up watching Star Trek, and I can still remember Captain Kirk and Mr Spock posing questions to a ship's computer that seemed to contain the entirety of human knowledge. This Aristotelian ideal is, I think, what Wikipedia should aspire to. I don't think that it matters if an article is about a topic so obscure that it's only read by one person a week. C. S. Lewis wrote a book called "An Experiment in Criticism" which suggested that any story that even one person really cared about probably had some merit. Perhaps this goes for Wikipedia articles too.

Anyway, thank you again for your kindness, and for putting up with my prattling so generously.Niggle1892 (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, a mixture of work and also looking for the relevant Wikipedia policies so I could reply to you fully.

(1) Of course, a correct track listing is an essential part of an album article... the problem is if it's only a track listing, and nothing else. Simple listings are against Wikipedia policy, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Hence if an album article is going to exist, it needs to be something more than that.

(2) Classical music isn't really my area, but I understand your point that people want entirely different information than fans of pop and rock records do. The kind of questions you raise, however, need to be addressed by reliable, published sources, and not be the opinion of a Wikipedia editor – see WP:OR. This brings us on to...

(3) You are correct, different reviews can produce wildly different opinions about the same record. But the point of the reviews are less to do with the overall score, and more to do with showing that the record is notable because it has been reviewed by several credible sources, even if they are in disagreement with each other. I understand your concern about plagarism, but per MOS:QUOTE and WP:NFCCEG brief extracts of other people's work is acceptable under "fair use" (and let's not forget that some of these magazines are twenty years old or more, so I don't think there is a great demand for these reviews in 2019, and we're not depriving the journalists of large sums of money). I see you have added some quotes from Gramophone, Opera Now, etc. to the articles you have created – they are perfectly acceptable and in fact go a long way to ensure that people will think twice about arguing for the articles' deletion. What you have also found, however, is that pictures of album covers are also covered by the fair use policy, and will be deleted unless the non-free use rationale is completed. I know you have already re-uploaded several images and started to fill in this rationale, but for future reference, you can see a sample at Template:Non-free use rationale album cover which shows how this rationale should be completed.

(4) I guess everyone has their own idea of how Wikipedia should be, and many people do think that Wikipedia should cover absolutely everything, but the encyclopedia does have its set of rules at WP:NOT regarding what should not be included. Obviously this subject doesn't just cover albums, it would extend to the whole encyclopedia, so I can't cover it here... I'm not even an administrator, just an editor like yourself. But if you would like to raise certain issues regarding copyright or what subjects should be included on Wikipedia, there is the Teahouse (WP:TEA) where you can ask questions of experienced editors and administrators, and regarding classical music in particular, there is the talk page of the WikiProject Classical Music at WT:CM, where more knowledgeable editors than me can answer questions on this specific subject.

And it's not a problem, I'm quite happy to reply to any queries you have. I've started tagging your album articles with relevant WikiProjects – that should ensure they come up in the search box when people look for them, which is precisely the reason you created them. Richard3120 (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Thank you for another kind and constructive message (there's no need to apologize for not writing sooner!) As you noticed, I've been trying to follow your advice, and I think that most readers will enjoy my von Stade pages more because of your input.

Issues with some of the album images arose less from my non-free rationales, I suspect, than from confusion over page titles. I started with things like "Frederica von Stade: Song Recital". I was then steered to Wikipedia's guidelines for classical albums, which asks us to follow a schema of "work, (artist recording)" - e.g. "Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould recording)". An editor then objected to this format and changed my titles yet again, resulting in some of my album images becoming orphaned. Ho hum. Incidentally, the Wikipedia title protocol seems entirely sensible to me. I'm very puzzled that any editor would want to title an album article simply "Song Recital". Such ambiguity causes no problems for someone jumping to the page from my von Stade biography article, but must surely be less than ideal otherwise.

I would never have imagined that so many people would want to get involved in my von Stade pages - I expected that they'd only be read once in a blue moon! Anyway, thank you again for your help, and best wishes for your future toiling in the vineyards of more modern genres.Niggle1892 (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2019

Ellipsis

Regarding the edit summary of your edit at Le nozze di Figaro (Georg Solti recording): the guideline at MOS:ELLIPSIS suggests that square brackets should only be used when needed to clarify that they are not part of the quotation; otherwise, they are not to be used. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: Mea culpa! You're absolutely right, and I've just gone through sixteen album articles deleting every naughty [...] by way of penance. I must confess that I still prefer bracketing ellipses, but when in Rome...! And thank you for taking an interest in the Solti Nozze page, and for contributing to it so constructively. By the way, I had a curious experience while preparing an article about Solti's recording of La damnation de Faust. Taking down my antiquated CDs of the recording to have a look at its booklet, I discovered that two squares of foam rubber which Decca had inserted into the jewel case to protect the discs had instead ruined them by disintegrating into a mess of super-sticky brown powder. Cue much anxious checking on other old box sets, and finding many more foam inserts beginning to go the same way. Apparently this is quite a well known issue, but I'd never heard of it until now.Niggle1892 (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good work on your article Chérubin (Pinchas Steinberg recording).  Lefcentreright (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Roly Drower

The article Roly Drower has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:N

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ∯WBG^converse 15:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for addressing the copy via concerns in your articles. Good work! I hope you will continue to create album articles in future. I also wanted to let you know that there is nothing preventing you from participating in the AFD discussion pages on the articles you created. I suggest reading through others comments in the AFDs and any relevant policies (such as WP:NALBUM) to understand what sort of language people use before commenting in case you choose to participate. Hope to see you around at WP:WikiProject Opera.4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello, I'm Path slopu. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Dardanus (Raymond Leppard recording) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. PATH SLOPU 16:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Werther (Colin Davis recording). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. PATH SLOPU 16:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Frederica von Stade chante Monteverdi & Cavalli (recording), you may be blocked from editing. PATH SLOPU 16:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

hi Path slopu, i don't believe Niggle1892 is being deliberately disruptive, they have recently had a large number of articles that they created going to deletion, see here, some editors contributing to the afds have commented that the articles include copyrighted information so, probably to be on the safe side, Niggle has removed just about all the text relating to album reviews that they had previously added, probably not absolutely necessary, but they have stated that they will reinstate some of it later. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Coolabahapple is correct in everything that he says. My hope is to restore the reviews that I deleted in a different form, restating the gist of them in my own words and adding brief quotations as seems appropriate. (I'm afraid that this will be a job that'll take several months, as presenting reviews in this way isn't easy - stick too close to the original text and you're plagiarizing it, stray too far from the original and you're misrepresenting it, abbreviate it too much and you're cherry-picking.) I think that this approach is ethical - as a former journalist myself, I wouldn't mind if my own work were treated in this way - and I think that it's probably in accordance with copyright law, although it seems that this area is such a legal minefield that even the most expert attorneys disagree about what's OK and what isn't.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi greetings, thank you for your explanation. I only tried to revert the edits seemed unconstructive. But you claims it is constructive. So please feel free to revert my edits, if you feel so. Also please give edit summaries with appropriate wikilinks when doing this type of edits for avoiding later controversies. Best.--PATH SLOPU 13:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

AFD etiquette

Hi Niggle1892. Just letting you know that it's frowned upon to vote more than once in an AFD conversation. If you have additional evidence to add as to why something should be kept, "comment" is the proper term to use once you have already voted. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that at the one AFD. I noticed another one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mignon (Antonio de Almeida recording). You may want to double check any other AFDs you have participated in. When you double vote it often makes people less likely to support you out of annoyance/resentment.4meter4 (talk) 13:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi greetings, I'd like to give you a suggestion. It seems that you are removing the messages from the talk you have read. It is better to archive the talk page rather than removing the threads. Best.--PATH SLOPU 14:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It may be better to archive talk pages, and I and many others do so, but it is entirely voluntary. The link User:Path slopu intended to give is probably H:ARC. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This pages may helpful--User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo, User:ClueBot III.-PATH SLOPU 15:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Don Giovanni (Herbert von Karajan January 1985 recording)

What about of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.170.126.199 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@62.170.126.199: Hello, and thank you for your suggestion. I'd love to write more articles about classical albums, but for the time being I'm concentrating on trying to improve the 51 articles that I've already created, which is a job that's going to keep me fully occupied for a long, long time. I think it would be wonderful if Wikipedia had as many articles about classical albums as about non-classical recordings: maybe we'll get there eventually.Niggle1892 (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Niggle1892

Can you do Don Giovanni (Herbert von Karajan January 1985 recording)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.32.27.135 (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@176.32.27.135: Hello! And thank you very much for your message. It makes me very, very happy that anyone actually wants me to write another article. Perhaps I will one day, but at the moment I'm writing a book in collaboration with a friend, and that is too time-consuming and challenging a task to allow me to write very much for the encyclopaedia as well. I still like to contribute a little to Wikipedia every day, but only in the form of minor improvements to random articles—just little tweaks that only take a minute or two to execute. But thank you again for your suggestion—you have absolutely made my day! Niggle1892 (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I’m waiting for Don Giovanni (Herbert von Karajan January 1985 recording). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.236.17.153 (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@109.236.17.153: Thank you very much for the suggestion, but I feel that I owe it to my friend to finish the book that I am creating with her before I initiate any more articles for Wikipedia. Best wishes! Niggle1892 (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

So, I’m still waiting for Don Giovanni (Herbert von Karajan January 1985 recording) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.77.112.64 (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@37.77.112.64: Thank you again for reaching out to me—your requests are very flattering! But there are several reasons why it would be difficult for me to write the article that you would like me to put together. Firstly, much though I admire von Karajan, I don't have that particular recording in my own collection, so I couldn't produce a track listing. Secondly, I don't currently have a subscription to the online edition of Gramophone, so I don't have access to its review archive. Thirdly, I'm still very busy working on the book that I mentioned to you before. I'm sorry that I can't be more helpful. Niggle1892 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry, you can order that on amazon.com [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.77.112.64 (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@37.77.112.64: Thank you once more! I'm sorry to be so negative, but I feel that I really must finish the book that I'm working on before I create any new articles for Wikipedia, especially as I'm writing it in collaboration with a dear friend. Niggle1892 (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I just waiting for Don Giovanni (Herbert von Karajan January 1985 recording). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.32.24.12 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@176.32.24.12: ...And thank you yet again! But I really don't feel that I am the right person to create the article that you would like to read. If it isn't impertinent of me, may I suggest that you try to write the article yourself? If you do, I'll have a look at what you come up with and try to sandpaper away any rough edges that come from English not being your first language. Best wishes!! Niggle1892 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello! So what about of Don Giovanni (Herbert von Karajan January 1985 recording)? 176.32.20.177 (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. I'm still working on the book that I told you about earlier, which I expect will keep me busy for at least another two or three years. It's the most complicated, ambitious and demanding project that I've ever undertaken, and bringing it to completion is going to need every resource that I have, so creating any more Wikipedia articles is not going to be possible for me until I get to publication day. I'm very, very sorry that I can't be more helpful. My very best wishes. Niggle1892 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Niggle1892

Thank you for creating On the Town (Michael Tilson Thomas recording).

User:Doomsdayer520, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for this new article. In most cases the title of the article should include "(Michael Tilson Thomas album)" but the conventions might be different for classical recordings.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Doomsdayer520:Hi, Doomsdayer520, and thank you for your interest in the article about Mr Tilson Thomas's On the Town. I used "recording" instead of "album" because I was following WP: WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines §10.1, which suggests "Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould recording)" as a model title. Speaking personally, I'd be equally happy with either word.Niggle1892 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured as much, but the Classical guidelines are not among my areas of expertise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe "album" should be used as the disambiguator in this case as "On the Town" is not a classical composition as "Goldberg Variations" is. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Great job with Glyndebourne Festival Opera: a Gala Evening! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 15:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@SshibumXZ: Hi, SshibumXZ! Thank you very much for your tasty-looking message. It's kind thoughts like yours that make writing for Wikipedia worthwhile. Best wishes.Niggle1892 (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Niggle1892

Thank you for creating New Year's Eve Concert 1992: Richard Strauss Gala.

User:Cwmhiraeth, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

A comprehensive and well-written article.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Cwmhiraeth}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth:Hi, Cwmhiraeth! Thank you very much for your kind message. I'm still only a beginner at writing for Wikipedia, so it's comforting to be told that my apprentice contributions have at least some value. Best wishes.Niggle1892 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a reference

Hello Niggle1892, we haven't spoken for a while... I'm sorry you had issues back in September with an editor nominating your articles for deletion – I wasn't deliberately ignoring you at the time, I was on holiday and not logging in to Wikipedia, and so I didn't see all the kerfuffle until I got back home. But as you saw, the deletion nominations were shot down pretty quickly, as I thought they would be... as I said before, once an article has two or three good quality sources in it, very few editors will vote to recommend deletion, although they may suggest improvements.

Looking at New Year's Eve Concert 1992: Richard Strauss Gala, one thing I wanted to make you aware of is that the first five references are to other Wikipedia articles, and this is not allowed – see WP:CIRCULAR. You will need to replace these with other reliable sources that back up the statements in the text. But your articles are generally well written, so please carry on... I see that you have won the approval of at least one experienced and well-respected editor above! Richard3120 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120:Hi, Richard3120 - it was nice to hear from you again. Thank you for the helpful tip about not citing Wikipedia as a source, and for your kind words about my Wikipedian scribblings in general. I almost quit the encyclopaedia in despair after almost everything that I'd contributed to it was nominated for deletion in one fell swoop, but it seems that there are at least a few people who value articles about classical recordings, so I'll continue experimenting in this area for a little while longer. It has certainly been an adventure with many unexpected twists and turns: when I began, I never dreamt that one of my efforts would achieve a thousand pageviews in a single day, or that a schoolboy in South Africa would send me a message of thanks for an article about a CD of a French comic opera so obscure that even most fans of the genre have probably never heard of it. Anyway, thank you again, and my very best wishes to you in your Wikipedianizing and the rest of your life in what is either the last year of one decade or the first of another (citations needed).Niggle1892 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Frederica von Stade

Sorry, but this will not do. 200k on a singer, including every single detail recounted in lively prose--we are here for biographies, not for book-length documents. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A conversation with Gerda

@Gerda Arendt: As you see, I've taken at least some of your good advice! But as for doing any further work on Frederica von Stade in userspace, draftspace or anywhere else, never say never, but I can't imagine returning to the article any time soon. I've already spent so much time on it that I've fallen months behind in every other part of my life: I have a foot-high stack of correspondence to attend to, dozens of magazines to read, a shelf of Blu-rays still in their cellophane, dozens of films in my television's hard drive waiting for me to watch them. (My von Stade addiction is as nothing compared to my love of fantasy and science fiction books, films and television shows, which is why I borrowed my username from Leaf by Niggle by J. R. R. Tolkien (b. 1892)!) If I do ever attempt any more Flicka-ology, it'll probably be safely beyond the reach of Softlavender's and Drmies's chainsaws in a discography-cum-biography e-book for Amazon's Kindle. (With lots of pictures! And original research! And primary sources! And English that doesn't read like the label of a sauce bottle! And many other things that on Wikipedia are verboten.) I can already imagine Frederica von Stade: a life in music's first review, bitterly complaining that the shameless author has simply lifted much of his awful book from FvS's excellent Wikipedia bio.Niggle1892 (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for beginning this, continuing from her talk. I didn't mean invest more, just move it to user or draft, where Google may find it and give as an option to those who want more than the basics. You also could try Frederica von Stade extended biography or whatever fancy name. Did you know that there is Messiah (Handel), for those in a rush, but also He was despised? - I just took care of another singer, Gabriella Tucci, confessing that I knew nothing of her before she died yesterday, but wanting her article decent now that people look. In case you want to help with that, watch Deaths in 2020, where every day, some names come up, and every day, some articles are missing, tagged or otherwise not doing justice to these notable people in sad limelight for a few days, many opera singers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I've done as you suggested and copied my last revision of FvS into my userspace, though I almost wish I hadn't – now I'm tempted to add my planned section on "Voice and art" after promising myself that I'd never touch the article again! Maybe after I've finished working my way through that heap of letters (which will take a long, long time, as one of them is my annual tax form – eek!).

I'm ever so touched by your gentle invitation to join you in your own work here, but – at the risk of sounding paranoid – I genuinely wonder whether my adding to other articles mightn't do more harm than good. I really do seem to bring trouble wherever I go. Last year, after Softlavender had nominated almost all my FvS discographic articles for deletion, I was silly enough to point out to her that someone else had created an article about one of FvS's Mahler LPs many years ago without anyone objecting, whereupon she of course nominated that one for deletion too. She then trawled through my contribution history and found a page that I'd created about a poet called Roly Drower, and sought a nomination for deletion for that article also from her old pal Drmies. That in turn led to Drmies's having a look at FvS, and deleting much of its section on her personal life. When I told him that the section that he'd removed was shorter than its equivalent in the GA Patrick Moore, he then – you no doubt begin to get the picture – went and tore great chunks out of that article too. So it seems to me that the more you care about an article, the more you should want me to keep a million miles away from it. Gute nacht!Niggle1892 (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

For a good night, let's not look back but forward. How do you like Tucci. It has been described as short, - so if you could add a bit - one review, one conductor (not these horrible list of famous names) - you could help. It's the small thing that make the difference. I added the Verdi Requiem - listen to her Agnus Dei. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Archiving your own version

Wikipedia has a guideline that says we should not copy and paste an article and host it our own user space indefinitely. See WP:COPYARTICLE.

If you have an article in your sandbox it's assumed you are working on it with the intention of introducing the material to mainspace in some form. Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Thank you for the heads up. The offending article, formerly just resting, is now an ex-article and has joined the choir invisible.Niggle1892 (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Everything stays archived in the article history unless something horribly offending or revealing causes an administrator to perform a WP:Revision deletion. Which is really rare.

Any favorite slice of the past can be revisited. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Binksternet, more Riesling, please ;) - How would an interested reader even know it's there, and find it, if only in the history? - I am quite willing to host the (excellent) article in my user space, if "own user space" is a problem, unless we find a better way - as suggested right above. It was Brian, btw, who made me write the more detailed articles such as Messiah Part I. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: If only that "excellent" was deserved! It's very kind of you to even consider hosting the pre-Drmies FvS in your own user space, but I'm not sure that that would be wise. I don't really understand all the details of WP:COPYARTICLE, but it seems to me that the spirit of the protocol is precisely to try to stop googlers from finding their way to any version of an article other than its current one. I would hate it if you got caught up in a controversy through trying to be helpful to me.

My feeling about the article now is that I'm content to accept the status quo. Ms von Stade's keenest fans will no doubt be curious enough to visit the article's talk page too, and will so find their way to the pre-Drmies version of the text easily enough. Maybe for other readers of the article, Drmies's version is actually better. I can quite see that my regret at the loss of the material that he cut could be simply the result of foolish vanity. It'll be fascinating to look back on the article in a year or two and see if anyone has tried to undo any of his changes.

Anyway, that's more than enough of my ramblings for now! Over the last few weeks I've spent far more time on Wikipedia than is sensible (or perhaps even sane), and it's certainly high time that I took a long, long sabbatical from it. (When a journalist once asked Ms von Stade what she most hates, she said "computers", and there have been quite a few moments when I've wondered whether she mightn't have a point!) But I couldn't unplug myself from Wikipedia without once more expressing my thanks for your kindness, and without wishing you every happiness. Tschüss! (PS It's not quite as delicious as a good Riesling, but I hope that pre-Drmies's "Ref. 280". will amuse you at least a little!)Niggle1892 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It amused me, thank you. Take your break if it's good for you, but I'll miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"Berlioz and Debussy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Berlioz and Debussy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 18#Berlioz and Debussy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aza24 (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of People's Choir of Oakland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article People's Choir of Oakland 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/People's Choir of Oakland 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.

Star Mississippi 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Joyce DiDonato (cropped).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Joyce DiDonato (cropped).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Maria Ewing

Thanks for adding recordings for the singer but please add a reference, - this article is linked from the Main page, where every bit needs to be sourced ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Dear Gerda, Thank you for your message. As far as I know, there's no reliable secondary source on which to base a list of Maria Ewing's recordings, so I've violated Wikipedia's protocols by constructing my videography and discography as a piece of original research: that is, I've had a look at the images of her album covers published by amazon and discogs, both of which are, I think, sources that Wikipedia deprecates. If any Wikipedian of a deletionist tendency deems this grounds for removing my additions, I shan't complain, although a glance at, for example, Placido Domingo discography suggests that the encyclopaedia has viewed at least some classical discographies fairly leniently! Best wishes for a very happy new year. Niggle1892 (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That's all fine by me, just a friendly warning to not be disappointed. When I head for an article to go to the Main page, the first thing is moving the discography somewhere else, see Jessye Norman. Happy new year to you, and I'm glad you are still around! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm very glad that you're still around too, dear Gerda—you're the nicest person that I've met on Wikipedia, as well as the most expert! Don't worry—I won't be the least bit disappointed if all my changes to Maria Ewing are reverted. As for the question of singers' discographies in general, I've never really understood what's gained by detaching them from the artists' biographies. I can imagine a casual reader skimming Jessye Norman not noticing the link to her discography at all, and it doesn't seem especially tidy to direct readers to a list of mostly non-operatic records with a link included in a list of her operatic roles. Oh well. I just hope that my scribblings are more accurate that the discography in the reliable secondary source that is the official biography of Samuel Ramey, which attributes Show Boat to George Gershwin!! Viele liebe Grüße. Niggle1892 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Find a Grave

You recently reverted an edit I made on Ian Holm claiming the source was not reliable. I disagree and would like you to reconsider your edit. There is even an entry for the source I quoted right here on Wikipedia, Find a Grave. If there has been a discussion related to findagrave.com which caused it to be declared unreliable, could you provide the link to that discussion? I can't find it. Thank you.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 14:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Myk Streja, Niggle1892 didn't revert your edit, I did. You can find an explanation and links to several discussions at WP:RSP. Note also that the existence of a Wikipedia article for a source speaks to its notability rather than reliability; there is also an article for Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean you should cite it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Myk Streja: Hi, Myk! As Nikkimaria said, you were mistaken in believing that I reverted your edit, but I thought that I might perhaps drop you a line to second what he said. Rightly or wrongly, it's an axiom of Wikipedia that material self-published by amateur content creators without the supposed benefit of professional editorial oversight isn't generally reliable enough to be drawn upon in a Wikipedia article. Best wishes. Niggle1892 (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Niggle1892 and Nikkimaria: Okay, I see where I went wrong. Thanks for the link, it's bookmarked now (honestly, I was sure I already had it somewhere). Well, I'm guessing maybe I'll try diving into the obits to see if I can find something that corroborates Find A Grave. It's a touch job, but somebody's gotta do it.  — Myk Streja ^(beep) 15:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Faust (André Cluytens 1958 recording)

Can you do a Gounod's Faust recording of 1958? 176.32.17.209 (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your message. For the time being, I'm still engrossed in writing the book that I mentioned to you before, so I limit my Wikipedia work to a few trivial edits a day with which to get my mental gears moving! Please forgive me for not responding to your kind words more positively. With best wishes, Niggle1892 (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Faust_(Andr%C3%A9_Cluytens_1958_recording) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.32.17.209 (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Seiji Ozawa

On 12 February 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Seiji Ozawa, 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. Spencer^T•C 05:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)