User talk:Aza24/Archive 5

Dear Aza24,

excuse me - the text might need more explanaition: Lisa del Giocondo was the wife of a merchant, that means only part of the bourgeoisie (middle class). Isabella d'Este was the margravine of Mantua, that means she was a sovereign, blue-blooded by birth and member of the highest hierarchy. Today the nobility is abolished and there is democracy instead of claim to power by birth. But the text is about the Renaissance. There existed informal rules for these social ranks in portraits. These included landscape in the background, armrest and especially larger formats for sovereigns. I will try to add some explanaitons but the theory will be longer.

Best greetings

Mitglied5

PS: Your confusion could result from today's class struggle bourgeoisie versus proletariat. But today, there is no rank by birth, no peonage etc. It is about the hierarchical society in the Renaissance. Portraits were not free art but representations of persons and their status, when these persons were absent. And Leonardo was also not an independent (romantic) artist but a craftsman for a very small elite group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitglied5 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Mitglied5 I think the amount emphasis given to the Isabella d'Este theory is a little WP:UNDUE in the article, but this may also be because there simply isn't enough about Lisa del Giocondo. I do appreciate your resistance to fringe theories, and focus on just these two. I think using footnotes might help clarify, but I don't know that the landscape observation is that meaningful—surely it's rather obvious that the background would depict something different if the subject was different? Aza24 (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Aza24,

I agree in both points. There simply isn't enough about Lisa del Giocondo (no optics, no art patronage, no letters - just middle class and her vaguely documented portrait). I have reduced the text for the Isabella d'Este Theory and added footnotes and a graphic, because for Isabella optics seem to be the pivot.

Greetings again

Mitglied5 Mitglied5 (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you for taking the trouble to satisfyingly reword that tricky passage. Much appreciated! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

And thanks for your work there as well CurryTime7-24! This FAR is opening my eyes up about how concerning some of the article is—the lead as a whole seems to be a mess, hardly summing up his life and not naming a single specific piece (besides the first symphony, that is)! Aza24 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The Vital Articles project spends more time fighting over meaningless importance rankings than making any meaningful content contributions. I couldn't agree more to this. In 10 years of its history, it has not improved a single vital article as a group (see history). That's horrific. Thank you for inspiring me to change that with science, and kudos to your work in general topics, such as history of music. Your work is certainly appreciated by readers. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind message CactiStaccingCrane. It is indeed disappointing, but I know quite a few users who feel the same way as us, and are constantly doing incredible things. The WP:TCC is going on right now, and even outside that articles like Opera in Ukraine, Torture and Joan of Arc have been brought to incredible heights just these past few months. Your changes at science seem like welcome improvements, I would suggest you see if including information from the Science and technology of the Han dynasty article there is possible—seems the antiquity section is rather skewed at the moment. Aza24 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement, I will try my best though I would focus on eating an elephant one bite at a time before moving to the next :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Aza, if you have trouble seeing images at the default size you can increase the size of all images by going into Preferences > Appearance > and raising "Thumbnail size". (It's not intuitive unfortunately...) (t · c) buidhe 23:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

But it has nothing to do with me Buidhe, I checked four other screens and its barely possible to discern out any detail of the image other than the person in the frontmost-left. Since we cannot expect lay-users to adjust their settings, I urge you to consider this practicality, rather than whatever the weirdness the MOS says Aza24 (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments from other editors do not belong on a user page and it is heavily frowned upon. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right, sorry, I thought you were reverting a comment on a user talk page. Amitchell is a good editor, I'm sure it was an honest mistake–I moved his comment to the talk page. Aza24 (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think so also, but I made sure to make a comment about the talk page in my edit summary. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, I thought you were telling Amitchell to take a content dispute to an article talk page rather than a user talk. Aza24 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 

On 20 April 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Harrison Birtwistle, 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. Stephen 04:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

dance and singing, peace doves and icecream (in the latest memory pics) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Love to see it! – Aza24 (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

updated with a more prominent link to how to listen to the concert: Freiheit! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Dove sono (Where are those happy moments ...?) - concert with Kyiv orchestra and Aleksey Semenenko (quite a story!) tonight --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

... and now you can listen: Kyiv Symphony Orchestra, Luigi Gaggero & Diana Tishchenko (violin) / Kulturpalast Dresden (25 April 2022 on YouTube (that's 25 April in Dresden, a different violinist, but the same program) - ours pictured here --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

May songs

I have the quirky DYK today, which is rare, and I don't quite know why music for peace was deemed quirky. - I took and picked the blue-and-yellow pic last year for May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Nicely done with Wallrath :) Aza24 (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

today performances in Ukraine - for Ukraine - for peace, at the bottom an imaginary set of eight DYK (Wallrath again because I don't get quirky often) - and more May pics--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

today more pics, and should this woman have an article? - or only her sons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Bravo on creating it! Reminds me of Khosrovidukht, whose name translates to 'daughter of Khosrov', they didn't even bother to write her actual name down! Aza24 (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

... which reminds me of de:Unita Blackwell (on the German Main page, translated) who got just initials for a name --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Urgh—we really take things like names for granted. I'm glad she went on to make such a difference. Aza24 (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

agree - today Melody (not by me), and more pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

a strong woman --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick note (ba dum tsh) to say that your recent edit to Leonardo Da Vinci where you rightly corrected someone's ref as a note created an error as the note template differed from the rest of the notes on the page and there was no corresponding note list for that template. I've fixed it now, but just wanted to let you know for future. Thanks! SamWilson989 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks SamWilson989! I could have sworn I switched the notes to match Portrait of a Musician and La Scapigliata when I rewrote the birth and background section, but it appears I never did. Aza24 (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia, Ham II, Jenhawk777, Antandrus, and Silence of Järvenpää: too lazy to ping more people and don't even know who else would care. The Vitruvian Man article looked like this and did not use a single source from a Leonardo expert, save Heydenreich, and had FIVE banners on top, along with tags from virtually every sentence. Users kept tagging and complaining about it, so given my plethora of Leonardo publications, and general experience with the artist, I rewrote the article did so yesterday, resulting in this article, which is fully sourced and uses only reliable scholarship. Yet I have been met with nothing but reverts and ingratitude. I had both this exchange and then an admin revert me, saying "don't fuck with the long-established referencing system in use in the page". I mean, what are you taking about—there was no "established system"?? And I did not change the reference formatting, I deleted almost every single reference to begin with, because only two of them were even close to reliable?? After reverting back, they follow it up with a rude message right above the speaks to me as if I were a child and new to Wikipedia.

This is probably the most discouraging series of events I've ever witness on Wikipedia. Multiple users go out of their way to mercilessly tag an article, and someone comes along and fixes everything and this is the result??? I am so close to quitting completely, as this 'case-study' has completely ruined my perception of content-creation on WP. Aza24 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I was out all day, just run my watchlist and see this header. Please don't. Wikipedia is a project ruled by the editors, and the best when meeting an article with an editor or more defending their ref system or writing is to go away. I'm serious. Infoboxes, citevar - always the same: a waste of time to argue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: I care, and I can relate to Wikipedia often pettily enforcing relatively benign rules, but to see it to the point of reverting a rewrite of an article simply because it uses different (in my opinion, superior) citing styles is absolutely beyond me. I've seen endless injustices here, but this is just ridiculous. I'm genuinely trying to cherrypick the slightest thing to argue in favor of the reverts but I can probably only come up with one thing: Perhaps try settling the fires in the talk page? I know it can be exhausting, but tbh I don't think there is a good, logical, non-guideline-tagbombing argument against your excellent rewrite over altering the status quo of something trivial. It was reverted from good academic sourcing back to its abyssmal shape over that? This is the perfect example for Ignore All Rules: ignoring (especially, trivial) rules if it hampers the improvement of an article, which citevar clearly does here. As Gerda said, people will argue about anything endlessly, so a compromise allowing for both your rewrite and the original citing style might be the solution if editors want to gatekeep the status quo. It's hard to really have any leeway on vital articles. I don't want to create tension with anyone so I'll try to just cool things down as much as I can. I don't want to see more valuable editors quit. Hang in there and don't lose hope! Wretchskull (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no specialist knowledge on the topic -- I'm just your typical over-educated generalist who knows enough to know he should leave it alone - but I do need to reassure you that many of us admire your work greatly. Funny thing about this editing environment, as it can be so gratifying to improve an article, bringing in scholarly sources, tightening the prose, and you get used to that feeling -- and then, walking across the field one day, you step on a land mine, -- and it hurts. I wish people would make more of an effort to be considerate of their fellow editors, the ones who have toughed it out, and done so much good work; I see I wrote about it once. "Assume Good Faith" can extend also to accepting that a new editor just might be able to improve an article you have worked on yourself for years. Anyway -- lots to write about this. (I don't do much writing any more, having lost the taste for paraphrasing the words and ideas of others; I want to write my own words and thoughts these days.) But I personally appreciate your work, Aza. Take a deep breath of peace. Antandrus (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Dearheart, Aza24, if you quit, it just rewards their behavior. It leaves them the field to do as they please, to intimidate who they please, and revert according to their own opinions and OR and not give a rip about the encyclopedia's quality or dependability. I learned this the hard way. I'm ashamed to say, I did go away for a year and a half and left others to deal with the editor that had run me off. They did eventually, banning him for life, but I have felt guilty ever since that I let someone else fight my battles for me. The terrific kindness of Gerda Arendt and the unfailing good humor of Gråbergs Gråa Sång helped get me past that, and so many helpful, considerate editors like my prickly and beloved friend Avilich and the diligent, hard working, kind hearted ActivelyDisinterested have gone the extra mile and helped me repeatedly, so that I am now able to fight those battles myself. The good ones here outnumber the other kind, truly, and the work only gets more important, so don't follow my bad example and let them get away with it!

I love every comment here! These are some of the best examples of the good editors, but I think Wretchskull's advice to go to the talk page is the only possible answer. If nothing else, it gives you a record to take to arbitration. Here is an example of a discussion I had just recently using WP's recommended approach that actually works most of the time.[1]

Here on WP, I write in an area that is constantly filled with conflict, so I frequently post proposed changes to the talk page before putting them in the article - not being BOLD, I know – but being as considerate as possible in order to prevent the shock of sudden massive change. I ping everyone who has ever commented on the article, tell them my intent, give them a sample, ask for input - with sources - and more often than not, get ignored completely. In your case, that would be the desired outcome! Even with all of this, there are some out there that still wind me up! The only answer at that point is just walk away from that article for awhile. Move on. Do something easier for a bit. Post a joke on my talk page. I might need it. Whatever you do, don't give up. The encyclopedia needs you. And people leaving makes Gerda sad, and that is something one must never do.   Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Aza, I have my pings set to only receive them via email, so I don't get them in real time, and am only now seeing this message. Which Is Quite Alarming. I want to take some time to look in to the whole thing; some folks need to be held accountable for this behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Now have looked at all the history, but am iPad editing from iPhone hotspot; will weigh in as soon as I am home in about an hour. TLDR: Wretchskull covers it, this is pretty much As Bad As It Gets, but what to do next. Back with some thoughts in an hour. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Aza, I hope you're feeling more encouraged by the time you read this. I'm sad to say that I've had much much much worse done to me, have the scars to prove it (along with a bogus block log), and such difficulty unfortunately goes with the territory on Wikipedia, so we must must must keep sight of tangible goals. A fellow FAR worker emailed this comment to me just this week:

Venality, stupidity and greed are always with us. But our individual acts always leave behind a touch of beauty and sufficient artifacts to allow others to find something deeper for themselves.

I'll never try to talk someone out of quitting, or taking a break when they are discouraged, because sometimes quietly slipping away for a while provides the opportunity to come back with a changed perspective so that you can enjoy content creation again, even if your efforts feel underappreciated. For me ... the ugly side of Wikipedia has left me with several approaches. One, only work on what brings me joy. Two, only work with people who bring me joy. Three, those few people, and those few articles, are enough for me; unwatch the rest, and be very careful of who you work with. We are known by the company we keep, and we know who the good ones are. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I've been laboring over why this dispute in particular was so frustrating to me, especially when I've had to endure month-long discussions with now banned users. I suppose it was simply the utter surprise of the whole matter, which instantly added legitimization to any and every negative feeling I've ever had towards the project. I've taken a deep breath today, as Antandrus suggested, and am feeling better about the whole thing. My main encouragement, though, is certainly the collective thoughts from you all, which are much appreciated. I will probably take the advice above and step away from the article for a bit, perhaps participating briefly at the article's talk page and the thread below. Aza24 (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

(after sleep:) That's a good approach. I am sorry that I had no time to look closely at the history when I wrote my short comment, also late at night, after a long day. Sandy, your summary and history is perfect, but I understand that when someone hurt you, you may not be in the mood to talk to the someone. Article talk is less personal, so that is my recommendation for the next such case (which hopefully will not come). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I've just seen this thread. I wholly concur with SandyGeorgia, above, that if you feel the need of a break, take that break. I've done such a thing twice, possibly three times, over the years, for similar reasons. I know – I'm pretty sure every contributor to this thread knows – how frustrating and demoralising the more negative and mean-minded editors can be, but I should like to say in plain words here and now that you are one of the best editors I have run across for a very long time, and to Hell with the people who are giving you grief. – Tim riley talk 09:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Aza! I see that a lot has happened during my take-a-day-off-from-WP day. I have just now gotten caught up on the whole incident, including the section below. I am glad to see that, as a first matter, things have gotten more or less resolved amicably—although I am sure the shock and sting linger, and that the lost time rankles. I just wanted to add that I have really appreciated your hard work here and mentorship; I often poke around your edits hoping to learn from and to feel inspired by your outstandingly high-quality work. The things you've done at Josquin, Orlando Gibbons, all the music criticism, the User:Aza24/List of Chinese monarchs, etc. are really important to the encyclopedia, and we need more content-creators and content-improvers like you. Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 13:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, Tim and SoJ. I think I will try to put this behind me for now, looking forward as much as possible. Aza24 (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for my tardiness; it takes me a while to give a considered response and I see the hurlyburly is now done. The new version of Vitruvian Man is an immeasurable improvement; no-one whips these Leonardo articles into shape like you do! I'd like to give it my attention before long but it would be gnomishly tidying up around the edges rather than the Herculean amounts of heavy lifting (cleaning the Augean stables in this case) which you do so well, and which Leonardo topics always call for. I shan't dwell on the appalling way you've been treated as you've quite rightly put it behind you. (I will say that I would have made the same citation style changes as you, as there was no precedent to follow for multiple book references.) You've made such a difference to a vital subject area in just a few years; we can't afford to lose you. Ham II (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ham! My work on Leonardo articles is greatly in debt to your council and fixes. There is still much information which the "Creation" section is missing, but I will be taking a breather from that article for a bit, I think. Aza24 (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at some alarming posts surrounding editing at Vitruvian Man about a drawing by Leonardo da Vinci.

Among their top edited articles, Aza24 has a da Vinci Featured article, Portrait of a Musician, one-fifth of the authorship of GA Leonardo da Vinci, and several other featured lists and articles, as well as contributions towards FA saves at URFA and FAR. That is, Aza24 is a competent editor, in good standing and with a clean block log, and knowledgeable of the topic.

Here is the history of Aza24's recent engagement at Vitruvian Man:

• 21:22, Aug 28: before Aza24 edited, the article is a complete wreck, and the talk page is an indecipherable mess. In addition to multiple maintenance tags and non-reliable sources, there is an inconsistent citation style, incomplete and broken citations, variations in how publishers are presented, and a mixture of citation and cite templates. It is not difficult to see there is little worth saving.
• 08:42, Aug 29: Aza24 rewrites the entire article in one edit to high-quality reliable sources with a consistent citation style. This total rewrite involves switching to sfn (short footnotes) from ref tags.
• Aza24 and other editors go back and forth a bit, normal editing, after the rewrite:
  1. 19:31: David Eppstein makes a wording change and uses the new citation style.
  2. 19:35: David Eppstein restores a bit more of the previous text, but still does not object to the citation style.
  3. 20:16: Aza24 tweaks, retaining most of David Eppstein's edit.
  4. 20:22: David Eppstein reverts the 20:16 edit, labels the content "ungrammatical", and there is still no objection to the citation style, nor is there any discussion on article talk.
  5. 20:37: Aza24 attempts to clarify the content difference with David Eppstein by adding an explanatory footnote, without changing the article content.
• 20:52, Aug 29: Justlettersandnumbers reverts to the shipwreck version of 21:22, August 28, 2022, maintenance tags, unreliable sources and all, with the edit summary

  WP:CITEVAR: don't fuck with the long-established referencing system in use in the page

• 20:55: Aza24 reverts the revert.
• 21:03: Justlettersandnumbers leaves a message on Aza's talk, saying

  Please revert your mistaken revert at Vitruvian Man. WP:CITEVAR is absolutely specific – you may not introduce a different referencing system without prior discussion. And no, I'm not joking, not even slightly. This is disruptive behaviour which I strongly advise you to cease forthwith.

• 21:56: David Eppstein makes a null edit, endorsing the citation style.

Meanwhile:

• A disappointing user talk exchange occurs.

First, I see three experienced editors discussing via edit summary rather than using article talk; not at all surprising for this situation, when one considers the typical back-and-forth editing that goes on day in and day out at FAR, as we all assume we're all "on the same team". But at the point that David Eppstein started outright reverting, rather than tweaking towards perfection, an article talk page discussion would have been good. (Lesson learned?) When the user talk page discussion did happen (initiated by Aza24), alas and alack, we see that social graces are not a requirement for Wikipedia editing. ("Wonderful cleanup of a dismal article, nice work" anyone?) But an argument can be made that, up to that point, it was business as usual on Wikipedia (no good deed goes unpunished).

But the next part is among the most demoralizing, demotivating, unnecessary, hairbrained incidents I've observed in a very long time on Wikipedia. For someone with admin standing to revert to an obviously inferior version of the article on every count, with profanity in the edit summary, after normal editing had occurred in which no one objected to the rewrite, and then come to the talk page of an experienced editor who had just rewritten the article to basically GA level, and accuse them of disruption as if they were a random Wikipedia troll along with threats, is as ugly as it gets on Wikipedia, summed up well by Wretchskull. In the talk post, Justlettersandnumbers gives the appearance that they are addressing a malicious vandal and gives the appearance that changing an article from an unsalvageable mess to a consistent citation style via a complete rewrite is the equivalent of a policy-level breach of the highest order – as if Aza24 had introduced an egregious BLP violation, rather than maybe breaching a content guideline.

These kinds of issues are just what make editors quit; now we have Aza24 wanting to quit. I'd like to think we all have bad days, and that Justlettersandnumbers was having a very bad day. The first step in dispute resolution is to talk directly with the editor one is in disagreement with. Justlettersandnumbers hasn't edited since their unfortunate posts, but if there was ever a time where a straight-up, no-holds-barred apology was in order, this is it. I sincerely hope that happens, so we can all live as happily ever after as is possible in here. I see talk about using this as evidence for an arbcase. Wrong. Although the behavior was unbecoming, Justlettersandnumbers was not acting in an admin capacity, this is not an intractible dispute the community cannot solve, and as far as I know, there is not a pattern. Perhaps when admins do spend their days battling trolls and vandals, they lose sight of how to treat good-faith editors. I hope this is an unfortunate one-off, because I will be as demoralized as Aza is should we lose Aza, whose work is needed and appreciated at FAR – along with seeing XOR'easter also contemplating giving up. Justlettersand numbers, over to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Sandy sums this all up rather clearly. Justlettersandnumbers, I would note that it would be misleading to argue that I changed the citation style of the article. The article did not previously use any book sources, and thus there was no 'established style' for book sources, which were the vast majority of my additions, numbering more than 50 additional citations. Aza24 (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It can probably be argued either way, but in the future, if you ask before you rewrite, and "they" say no, there are other articles that will benefit from your talents and for which you will feel some satisfaction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I tend to follow Aza's "do first, ask later only if anyone objects" WP:BOLD style. Objections to someone making a serious attempt to clean up an article are rare. If Justlettersandnumbers had politely articulated a clear reason why the old inconsistent citation formatting with tons of cleanup banners was better, that would be one thing, and we could then start a discussion. But the bitey way that Justlettersandnumbers did it was too far. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, David Eppstein, SandyGeorgia, agreed, I was wrong there – my apologies to Aza. It was late at night and I obviously wasn't thinking at all clearly. That said, if you want to change the referencing system in a page, it really costs nothing leave a note on the talk-page to ask if there's going to be any objection. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Justlettersandnumbers, that is much appreciated. I will certainly be more cautious in the future with large changes that involve citation formatting. Best – Aza24 (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

What it costs is your attention. If you find an article in need of cleanup and clean it up, it is cleaned up. If you find an article in need of cleanup but want to be cautious, leave a note, wait a week for nobody to answer the note, and then do it, then a week later you have to remember that you wanted to clean up the article. And even if you remember, by then your time and energy will have likely moved on to something else. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That certainly happens, but you can circumvent this issue by expanding such a rewrite in a sandbox or a subuserpage and leaving a note on the article's talk page. When some time has elapsed, just copy-paste the content and perhaps put "expanded - see talk" to the edit summary - no one will revert that. ;) Editors should still be cautious and actually see what a contributor is adding instead of blindly reverting back to its start-class shape. I just really hope this was an isolated incident of brain fog. Wretchskull (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

All true - I personally loath sfn & can't use it, but if an editor like Aza24 wants to clean up a mess & convert to it, I'm likely to support a request to switch. And I have this watchlisted (indeed I was responsible for getting David Eppstein asked to take a look). Equally, I often revert without qualms conversions to sfn for the sake of it, or with the excuse that one or two citations are in another style. Anyway, I hope Aza will stick with us; his work is much appreciated! Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That's why assume good faith is extremely important. The damage has been done; trust has been forever eroded. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Wretchskull You are obviously brilliant since this is what I also recommended and generally do...   It does make a difference! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Sorry! Forgot to ping you originally! I don't guess it matters cuz everyone else here is clearly brilliant! Gråbergs Gråa Sång posted this article to my talkpage today. It's about Wikipedia, and it's from the Washington Post. It's really interesting. [2] Hope you're having a great day! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing! Twas a very interesting read... Aza24 (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 ⋅𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔⋅ 02:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello there,

I was wondering if you could do a source review for List of accolades received by If Beale Street Could Talk regarding its featured list candidacy. I would appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81talk 19:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy to! Aza24 (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey Aza24! I believe we last met when Meghan Trainor was a candidate at FAC. My current nomination is one of her most known songs and it is only pending a source review before promotion. I wanted to ask if you might be able to do one, since you are experienced at this. Thanks a lot.--NØ 21:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for note MaranoFan, I'll attempt to do so! Aza24 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Aoba has taken care of this one. I do plan another nomination very soon and may approach you for that one, if that is okay with you. Have a great week!--NØ 08:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Just wanted to say the other nomination I mentioned above is active now, if you would like to do the source review. Many thanks!--NØ 19:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy too! Aza24 (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I really appreciate this! When do you think you will be able to get to it?--NØ 04:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have addressed the source review comments so far. Look forward for anything else that may be necessary (apologies if I'm bothering you a bit too much on your talk page, though)!--NØ 18:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries at all—looking now. Aza24 (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

June songs

Thanks for thanks, - Strauss birthday is the first thing in my memories, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Lovely flowers! Came across an interesting Gould recording of Strauss's piano sonata, which I didn't even know existed. Aza24 (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! My song collection is especially rich, look, and the hall where I first heard DFD, Pierre Boulez and Murray Perahia. Do you find the baby deer in the meadow (last row)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

today: a song about getting through the night, after plenty of music over the weekend --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Aza24

Thank you for creating Zachary Woolfe.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start. I marked it as reviewed. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

North8000 (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!! Aza24 (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

 

On 3 July 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Richard Taruskin, 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 08:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Aza24 (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Aza24! I am reaching out as you reviewed Paint It Black when it was at FAC. I have nominated Mick Jagger for FAC and was wondering if you would have the time and be able to post a review there? If so, it is located here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mick Jagger/archive1. If not, I totally understand. The Rolling Stones now has an open peer review in prep for an FAC run as well and if you had time for that as well, it is here; no pressure though, if you can just do one (or none), that's fine. I greatly appreciated your help with Paint It Black  . TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, wow, that is most ambitious of you! I would be happy to look, though is ErnestKrause planning to do a SR already? Aza24 (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! My overall goals are far more ambitious, if I dare say...one day I'd like to get all the members (Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Charlie (RIP), and possibly Brian and Bill) through GA and FAC (maybe most of the albums, too hehe). Currently Mick is the closest, followed by the Stones main article, and then potentially Keith Richards. It is definitely going to be a grind, but is something that I can pick away at. I thank you for agreeing to do a review and look forward to your comments on any one you choose. ErnestKrause has supported the nomination of Jagger and though a "source review" was mentioned, I believe there was a miscommunication and that one isn't currently planned; I would greatly appreciate it if you were able to do one. ErnestKrause is unable to assist with reviewing the PR for the Stones main article. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Aza24:! I see that you have done some work on the legacy of Rach. Unfortunately, and I'm certain you've already noticed this, it is probably the most complicated of any composer. I've read all of his biographies in English, including countless journals, and even a PhD thesis comparing his legacy in most musical dictionaries; in spite of all this, I still feel that I cannot duly give it justice, at least yet. As part of my research for rewriting Rach 2 (I've began focusing on pageviews), I'd say the life section is in relatively good shape apart from being visually bloated, probably due to the lack of images. Do you have plans on continuing the collaboration? I'll try to return to the article ASAP now that med school isn't as merciless. Wretchskull (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Wretchskull! I am a bit distracted by the painful slogging away that has become the Josquin des Prez article, whose own legacy confusions rival that of Rach! I do very much want to return to the main Rachmaninoff article collab, and would be happy to continue the reputation section. I agree that this topic is enormously complex; the approach I adopted in User:Aza24/Sandbox4 was one of a very much general lens, but hopefully not so much that it over simplifies the complexities at hand. Let me know your thoughts on this—also, I'm curious, do you have a favorite Rach 2 recording? Aza24 (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: Ah no worries! It already looks like you're trying to juggle a dozen tasks and here I come to give you another one; take your time! I must say that your legacy section is excellent, and you managed to get most of the major viewpoints included in a complicated subject..... in three days!? Bravo!!! I might tweak it from time to time if you don't mind. I'm currently on a small hiatus from my major projects to improve a painfully underdeveloped article. As for my favorite rach 2 recording? ...that is very difficult, but I would have to jump onto the bandwagon and say Richter/Wislocki. Ashkenazy/Previn is brilliant, and Rubinstein/Reiner is almost like rach's recording with better audio, but Richter's dolce moments are just heavenly. By the way, I'm curious too. Considering you're obviously interested in the suject, who's your favorite Renaissance composer? Wretchskull (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Wretchskull sorry for my late reply. I appreciate your compliments, though could you point me to that PhD thesis you mention?—it sounds very useful. Good to see Debussy's quartet getting appreciation, I absolutely adore the second movement. My favorite Renaissance composer... hmm, probably a later figure like Byrd, Monteverdi or Gibbons... in reality though, I am so obsessed with Mahler that I almost answered your question with him! Aza24 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: Of course: [3]. I know Academia.edu is a little iffy, but the thesis itself is excellent. I've been really into Renaissance composers who experimented with chromatic harmony, like Gesualdo and de Rore. I feel like I've neglected early music; do you recommend any similar composer from that era? Also, I'm glad you share the same enthusiasm for Mahler that I have! Wretchskull (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the thesis Wretchskull, I trust your discretion! On Gesualdo and de Rore, yes those two are fantastic!—Really, no one after approached their chromaticism until maybe Liszt/Wagner. There is indeed some precedent to it; some of Machaut actually is really strange in its unusual harmonic choices, and the ars subtilior has a few people like this as well, particularly Solage and his Fumeux fume. Though Machaut's style is just genuinely odd, I suspect others like Solage wrote such pieces as one-time eccentricities, rather than an expression of their musical style. Aza24 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you've saw various improvements I've made to the project – fancy progress bars, goals and all of that. But I do think about how to transform the Vital project from basically useless to one that's productive. What do you think is the best way to do so, and how should we implement it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I have been keep an eye and am in much agreement with your changes CactiStaccingCrane! Usually what the 'veteran' Wikipedians say about the VA project is that everyone there spends too much time ranking articles than actually improving them (a sentiment which my userpage echoes). However, while I believe that is true, I think the people that do the rankings are there for that in the first place, and getting them to start improving articles would probably be more difficult than recruiting outside help. The Wikipedia:The Core Contest (and to a lesser extent the Wikipedia:Million Award) is the closest and most consistently effective thing I've seen done to improve 'vital articles', so I do think the connection between the TCC and VA project should be solidified further. As of now, the TCC still uses VA lists 1, 2, & 3 for judging and most of the selection process, which is a something, at least.

I think your drive idea is great, I may took a look at Euclid. There are active users out there more than capable of improving such content, it's just a matter of motivation and confidence. With the latter in particular, a lot of our best editors seem to suffer from a sort of Dunning–Kruger effect, where they are qualified to handle huge topics (when general knowledge is often all that's needed) but too used to handling smaller ones so assume that they are not capable.

After the drive, I think creating smaller teams led by specialist editors is a possible tactic. Aiming for B-class and good articles would be the ideal approach imo. Say you took Space station, and asked Wehwalt to look at the History, Hawkeye7 to look at the architecture, and Balon Greyjoy to look at the Operations, then you could have a really solid team and get other VA Project people to fill in the sections like Legacy and Finance where background knowledge isn't as necessary as just basic research.

Another idea, which is completely unexplored afaik, would be to have the VA project work with other WikiProjects. This would only work, of course, with the few very active ones which exist, particularly WP:MILHIST, WP:TROP, WP:VG, and maybe even WP:CM, and WP:DINO. But again, the key here I think would be assigning different people different sections.

Of the top of my head, users I know who've worked on large subjects often are Buidhe, Wtfiv, Wehwalt, Chiswick Chap, Tim Riley, Midnightblueowl, Amitchell125, Little Jerry, Vami IV, Johnbod, God the Mild and Femke. But they all have their own specialities and probably pending projects, so approach with caution, if at all. I know this is a lot, but do lmk what you think of all of this. Best – Aza24 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that these suggestions are really solid. Personally, I'm a bit less optimistic about it working in practice though, as the hardest thing here is to convince these senior editors to tackle Vital Articles, which isn't really their cup of tea. They could just shrug off and say that it's our job to fix the VAs, WP:SODOIT kind of thing. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane That's why coming to those people with a plan & specific requests could be a lot more effective. Instead of "Hey, I saw that you writing about military history, could you bring the war article to GA?", something like "Hey, given your experience writing around military history, I was wondering if you'd be interested in working on the Ethics section of the war article, a few other users are going to do some other sections and we're aiming for GA." Aza24 (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I normally don't re-revert reverted edits, but I explained why I did so this time in the edit summary. You're free to do a partial revert if you still object, but you can expect another AWB'er to come along and do it again unless you use {{not a typo}}. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I dream of horses, Indeed... and I'm not normally wrong when reverting edits, (Ha!) but alas. Bold of you to abide by grammar on Wikipedia, I will probably not be the last to try and stop you :) Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24 Grammar is important, but there are more important things when creating/expanding articles, like sourcing content. That's why we need WikiGnomes to focus on the little things.   Thank you for being understanding. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi there,

Could you do a source review for the 52nd Academy Awards regarding its featured list promotion? I would appreciate the feedback.

-- Birdienest81talk 08:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems that Z1720 has beat me to the chase after your message Birdienest81, though I will keep an eye out for your next list at FLC. Aza24 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

July songs

today: violin solo and you can listen Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

yesterday I attended a unique concert - the 18th Thomaskantor after Bach conducting - and with some good luck caught him happy afterwards! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you for the navbox but an English plural to a German word always causes some frowning ;) - The German plural is Kantoren, cantors is fine but Kantors? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Largely agreed, but I was following Category:Thomaskantors. I suggest bringing this up at CFD for the category and then we can adjust the navbox. Aza24 (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, eventually, check my talk for unfinished projects, deletions ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I did a little research on the usage of the term, and as far as I can see both are used but Thomaskantors is more common—if you do put it on your list, I would says its relatively low priority. Aza24 (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the search, - low priority. I heard Voces8, pictured! - I have a FAC open, in case you want to help again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

today: birthday music for a friend, after hiking in the Swiss Alps and a funeral with flowers on a bench and a Rilke poem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a Rilke poem for every occasion.... Aza24 (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If you know that, can you please help with the FAR of Duino Elegies? - the task is to check refs and transform to sfn - those transformed are checked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to decline your offer; I'm just working on too many Wikipedia things take up any other projects right now :( Aza24 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Understand, and while the article is much better now, keeping it as FA was hopeless from the start, given the prejudice of the principal editor, the "hoaxer". Different request: could you finish the source review for the cantata FAC, - I believe it's stable now, and the coordinator asking questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, would you be able to source review (currently needs an image one as well) my new FAC? I apologize if me asking for a third SR this year comes off as a bit too much though and it would be understandable if you do not have the time. I kind of recalled your statement at the "Dear Future Husband" FAC about having spotchecked me before and my integrity so that might help as this is a lengthier article.--NØ 03:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I've put it on my to-do list and will certainly attempt to get to it this weekend! I always appreciate your caution with approaching me for these things, but it is misplaced—I assure you! I am happy to help. It is certainly on the longer side, but at FLC I have reviewed a few lists with 300+ refs :) Aza24 (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Highly appreciated! Let me know if there's anything I can do for you one of these days.--NØ 05:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hope this message finds you well. I've left replies to all the source review comments at the FAC page. Cheers!--NØ 11:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

MaranoFan just wanted to clarify that I wasn't ignoring you, but on a brief (now finished) vacation for a few days so was trying to avoid WP—I forgot to leave one of those terribly dramatic "On Vacation" banners at the top of my talk page with the white text and black background. :) Aza24 (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

No problem at all. I should probably apologize about how impatient I get about these things, lol. It is absolutely okay to have a four-day gap between responses so you did absolutely nothing wrong or out of the ordinary. And in other good news, the nomination passed today!--NØ 19:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Congrats! Still waiting on your Pop music FA. ;) Aza24 (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If you somehow find time to source-review a similarly large music article, I also have one for you. Like Marano, I would very much appreciate it, but I totally understand if you don’t want to review another large article so soon. FrB.TG (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, she was so good in the House of Gucci!— and for a song that famous I suppose I have no choice! I recall a rather odd comment from the stubborn but engaging Roger Scruton unfavorably comparing that song to a piece by Bach (or perhaps Mozart?)—which is rather missing the point, I think! I'll see what I can do FrB.TG. Aza24 (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aza! To be clear, I'm not checking in with you because I care about our Sibelius project (although, perhaps let me know if you don't think you want to or will be able to continue);† rather, I just wanted to see how you're doing this summer, especially in that you've been at a new position. Things are good with me, although I will start school again in late August. I've been working (side-tracked?) on a The Maiden in the Tower expansion, and I'm learning a lot about this lovely, charming Sibelius 'deep cut.'

† One idea I had, tbh, is that I could do the complete list upgrade (including the parts we allocated to you... especially the songs, since so many were either orchestrated or also converted into pieces for choir) and you could do the FL nominations/review/edits when time (a process I don't enjoy). Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

My dear Silence of Järvenpää, I of course want to continue with the list; obviously my attentiveness has been lacking—I do find it hard to find motivation for all of the rather tedious data insertion. I'm also continuously worried about finishing Josquin des Prez, a process of rewriting which I have been engaging with for around a year now, as I the FAR people are growing increasingly impatient. Your offer is most generous—perhaps we see what happens this week, and if I don't get around to adding much, we consider it further? In the past, I would have just set time aside and forced myself to work on whatever project was pending. Recently, though, I've found that doing that makes WP much less enjoyable, so I'm at the whim of working somewhat spontaneously, at risk of burning out.

I am doing well! My job is wrapping up a will resume around September. I've been vaguely following your The Maiden in the Tower progress, an admirable task! Aza24 (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aza! And here I was worried that my idea on the LoC would come off as rude! Thanks for being understanding. (Aside: You're right that it just feels like data entry... that's why I read about the compositions and listen to them as I add them to the list... makes it far more interesting for me. But, you've never expressed an interest in Sibelius's music, and so given that you are a devoted Rachmaninoffian and Mahlerite, I can imagine this LoC is pure drudgery!!) I also appreciate your compliments on The Maiden in the Tower work I've been doing... not sure why I started doing it, but when the inspiration strikes, I suppose it's best to follow! I'm also proud of myself for, finally, doing an expansion in the mainspace, rather than tucked away in my userspace (e.g., Kullervo... oh my, will I ever finish it or is it just another one of my WP projects to die a slow, slow death?). haha. ~ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aza! Just wanted to say that I have begun reading (so far just the lede) the JdP article into which you have poured yourself (so much care and erudition), and I must commend you on an excellent job. It is so clearly written and of such wonderful quality, especially in how deeply it appears to have been researched and balanced between sources. I do wish I could write as well as this in my WP projects! Anyway, thanks for your hard work. ~ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I was very worried about the music section, but it is coming together nicely now. I experimented with 3–4 versions of the lead, because I really wanted to get it right, so I'm glad you appreciate it! As far as Sibelius, would you hate me if I told you I know Finlandia quite well?—I know it's the 'everyone knows'!

Your sentiment re Kullervo is quite relatable—I have numerous sandbox projects hiding in the dust. But I have returned to many of them later, and none of them I expect to be forgotten forever. I'm sure after some other burst of inspiration you will see Kullervo through! Aza24 (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aza24! Seems like you could use a ray of sunshine, so how about this anecdote (might it be an antidote, too, for the Wiki-blues? haha): Just discovered, deep in the Swedish-language 1896 bowels of Nya Pressen [fi], that on the night (7 November) that Sibelius's The Maiden in the Tower, premiered, the concert began with the march from Wagner's Tannhäuser. How ironic, given Sibelius's 1894 renunciation of Wagner's method! Anyway, this jogged my memory, and I recalled that you—gasp!—like Wagner, which as a loyal Sibelian I have studiously avoided! Haha... anyway, now I am listening to Tannhäuser and have learned to see your I've-only-heard-Sibelius's-Finlandia blasphemy in a new, more charitable light. If you can excuse me for not knowing my Wagner, then I can excuse you for not knowing your Sibelius (although, given Wagner's relative historical importance vis-a-vis Sibelius, mine is the greater sin). But do me a favor and find the time to listen to En saga (just 18 glorious minutes) sometime this week! Very warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

How lovely and interesting, thank you Silence of Järvenpää! I will certainly take a listen to En saga soon and report back my impressions. I must say that I have trouble thinking of Wagner as a single person—his style varies so wildly from Tannhäuser to Tristan that it rivals even Beethoven and Stravinsky in the 'early vs late' stylistic development. Ironically, this inconsistence seems to be the best way to characterize Wagner as a person—that is, there's always so much debate as to his intentions and views, the only thing I've seen scholars fully agree on is that he was obnoxiously inconsistent! I suppose I forgot to mention my intimate familiarity with Sibelius's violin concerto, perhaps the only thing in his oeuvre more 'main-stream' than Finlandia :) Aza24 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, dear Aza24! Whoa... who knew that Wagner wrote 3-hour operas! (Can you sense my eyes rolling? A composer who makes Mahler's symphonies seem short by comparison must be a bit loquacious, no? :P ) Anyway, I just finished Act II of Tannhäuser, so only about one hour to go! Ha! Anyway, I very much enjoyed the overture (how cliché of me), as well as this bit near the end of Act II, 1:51:25 to 2:00:10... divine harmonies and just gorgeous vocal writing! (I've listened to it four times, so that partly accounts for my delayed introduction with Act III.) Your description of Wager was really interesting (and balanced!); thanks for it. Is there another opera by Wagner you recommend to me? Tristan? Parsifal? I want to avoid the Ring Cycle for now. Thanks, ~ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC) (PS: I was quite surprised to see that the WP articles for Wagner's operas are not, as a unit, GA or FA! I kind of feel silly for spending time on an inconsequential Sibelius opera when these mega-important items remain un(der)-done... but then again, I'm no Wagnerite.)

Silence of Järvenpää, I'm glad you've enjoyed Tannhäuser! I listened to En saga, and found it surprisingly diverse in content, though with no shortage of tremolos or scales. I also had a pleasant listen to Sibelius's 7th, which I should think I'll return to hear again soon. As far as Wagner, hmm, the overtures to Parsifal and Die Meistersinger are wonderful, though I'm not particularly fond of the rest of those two operas. I think most agree (other than the Tristan crowd) that Die Walkure is Wagner at his best, but if you're avoiding the Ring for now, I am a big fan of the first act for Tristan.

Indeed his operas do not generally have Wikipedia articles are great quality. Brian actually worked a lot on the first two Ring operas, which are essentially in GA shape, but simply not nominated. Parsifal is a GA, but his middle-period operas are mostly C class, and indeed Tristan and the Ring's second half are far from ideal. I would say that it might take more than a normal Wagnerite to attempt them, as their scholarly literature is rather overwhelmingly vast. Aza24 (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aza24! Yes, I indeed completed Tannhäuser, and liked Act II the best (am I wrong that Act III is a bit meh)? I have long been curious about Tristan, given the obsession with the famous chord, so I think I'll give that a listen sometime tonight once I get my work out of the way. (I should probably also listen sometime to Parsifal, which was Sibelius's favorite Wagner.) I'm curious to know: how is it that you became a Wagnerite? And, for that matter, a Mahlerite, too? I always find the story of one's discovery of a subsequently-beloved composer so interesting. Also, a confession: when I listen to opera, I don't read the libretto or watch a live performance for the visuals and scenery as I go along... so, I suppose I take it just on its terms as a musical document. Wagner would be aghast, as I've disunited the art forms! Haha... I wonder if this is the reason, thus far, that I have struggled with this genre of classical music? ~ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC) PS: Your profile update inspired me to do a spring summer cleaning, as well. I'm really happy with it now! :)

Hmm, Silence of Järvenpää, for Mahler I'm fairly certain it was his 6th, which i've been told is a rather extreme way to be introduced—the 1st, 4th and 5th are a lot more accessible. I recall reading about orchestras and the 6th was the example some author used for how big they can get (though in this respect I'm surprised that they didn't mention the 8th instead)! For Wagner I'm not exactly sure, but it was probably the Tristan prelude, and I think the general ambition of the Ring lured me to him. I suppose it has also been on my mind: how did you get into Sibelius? Was it love at first sight?

I noticed your userpage update, which I find much more cohesive in design than mine! I also (as you'll probably see) found your guest book, wondering what the curious image was near the bottom :) Aza24 (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aza24! So glad that you found the secret concert (shhhhh)! First row, too! Haha, I felt like being creative, but whenever I do so I quickly reach the limits of my rudimentary understanding of wikicode. I tend to hammer square pegs into round holes, especially because I cannibalize code that's far too complex for my brain (I got the idea for a guestbook-as-secret-room from FormalDude, and took a peek at his code). (Aside: I can't figure out why one cannot click on the name of the concert attendees... has something to do with using the div thing, but I have no idea what it even means; also, is there a way to make the background color of text transparent?)

The story of how I came to Sibelius is a bit silly: it was 2013, and I was on a Grieg kick. I was still quite a classical music novice, a Tchaikovsky and Chopin fanboy. I remember when I first heard Sibelius in 2008, and I hated it: "Meh... what is this crap?" [Man, I wish I could recall which piece(s) it was (they were)!] But anyway, five years later Grieg was my gateway drug into Nordic culture, and I had an iTunes gift card; they had a Sibelius orchestral digital album (Osmo Vänskä and the Lahti Symphony Orchestra; still one of my favorite interpreters, but ironically not for Kullervo!) on the cheap, and I took a chance. And this time, I was blown away! I joke that in 2008 "I wasn't ready for Sibelius". Certainly didn't ever think his music would become my main hobby! Once I liked the music, I wanted the biography and the deep cuts. I tend to do depth of an interest at the expense of breath of many interests, and the bad side effect is that there is so much classical music I haven't heard. (Aside: It amazes me how much you and the other WP Classical project members seem to know!) The funniest thing to me, though, is that I don't even listen to Tchaikovsky and Chopin anymore. The stories of your Mahler and Wagner affinities are fun... I'll add Mahler 6 (I did 4 and 5 last month) to my list now, after Tristan. Thanks! ~ Silence of Järvenpää 02:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried substituting an annotated image, let me know what you think. I think you're right that it has to do with the div, I played around with it and tried some things but couldn't get it to work. I used the <span style="color:white; background-color:#FFD700; font-size:65px">Test<span> instead of the font template, but to no avail. Usually these div issues happen when there is an error in the code, but I don't know what the issue was. If you leave the background color parameter blank it will be a transparent background automatically, if that's what you mean?

That is a lovely story—Grieg is perhaps the most under appreciated of the major composers; his Wikipedia article, for instance, is in abysmal state. Of course this is not the case in Norway, where every building, street, brand and child is named after him! :) Aza24 (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Aza! This helped quite a bit, indeed. Oh, by transparency I guess I meant what WP would call opacity? I wanted the picture to show through the yellow bg color... but it's a minor want, and I see you've been hit with a number of new requests. You're just far too helpful and generous, I suppose! :)

Yeah, Grieg is lovely... an actual Nordic composer who used folk themes (unlike Sibelius, who is often misidentified as having done so). The word that comes to mind when I think of Grieg's music is, quite simply, "fun"! Aside: Isn't it interesting that Norway has Grieg, Finland has Sibelius, Denmark has Nielsen (do you like his music? I love the first four of his 6 symphonies!), but poor Sweden has... no one quite so famous. Wilhelm Stenhammar? Hugo Alfvén? Lars-Erik Larsson? Dag Wirén? (outstanding four symphonies, fyi!) Just not on the same level. I would try to make a case for Kurt Atterberg but I'd come off sounding silly.

Also your Verdi comment made me laugh, but if you succeeded, then I'd have to change my username! Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 13:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC) (PS: There's a new treasure map on the secret page... haha).

Silence of Järvenpää! My apologies for the late response, I was on a (rather brief) vacation the past couple of days. I have to catch up with a few pings, including yours below, which I will certainly do so promptly.

That piano trio is an interesting choice... I have it on my airpods as I type. I'm not a huge fan of Nielsen, though admittedly not very familiar with his music. For Danish composers, I know Nørgård and Abrahamsen much better, though probably still not well enough :) I wonder if the better known Swedish composer is Carl Michael Bellman, though his music seems to occupy a hazy place between so-called art and popular music traditions. Although my thinking of Bellman may simply be skewed influence from Chiswick Chap, a WP user who I've seen improve more Bellman-related topics than I knew existed. Aza24 (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Ha! One can never know if interesting is being used positively as a compliment or negatively as an insult underhanded compliment. Anyway, it's not Sibelius's best work (too repetitive in the first movement)... but it is a lost gem of a deepcut from a man not known for his chamber output, and at any rate, I discovered it while we were working on the LoC project. I think the second movement is glorious! The Koorpo Trio wasn't known of until the early 1980s when the Sibelius family donated Sibelius's papers to the University of Helsinki! Wow!

Glad to hear you got a well-deserved vacation! Hope you had a lovely time: either full of activity or full of rest, depending on your style.

Hmmm... I only like some Nielsen. Never have enjoyed his concerti, but I like Symphonies 1 to 4 (especially 3). I've never heard of Bellman! And of course, he's early. So, that explains it. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 00:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aza! I hope you've been well. We're like peas in a pod: you can't seem to do that blasted music section for JdesP and I can't seem to do that blasted music section for MitT! Well, I am going to take a serious crack at the latter tonight, which (if successful) will mark the conclusion of my expansion work. Therefore, I was going to soon file a GAN and, seeing that you used to do a few (but not since 2020, it seems) and being that I admire your work and think we have similar thoughts about how articles should flow, I was wondering if you'd like to do me the honor of being the reviewer. No worries if not, but I thought you might at some point be planing to give it a read anyway. Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 00:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

SOJ, I would be happy to do a GA review. I have actually been meaning to get more into GA reviews recently, so your timing is most fitting – Aza24 (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aza! Oh, wonderful! How fortuitous; I really do appreciate it. Seems like, based on your contributions history, you are active currently. Shall I go ahead an nominate it now, so that you can go into the GAN backlog and snatch it up before another editor? PS: I also just made your task 10,000 bytes easier! When I completed the expansion at midday, I still had a lingering feeling that the article was too long, and this was confirmed when I poked around the other GA and FA operas, which tend to be between 55,000 to 65,000 bytes. Why do I care? I guess TR in his comments during The Oceanides FAN left an indelible mark (he said it was too long for that piece, or something like that! haha... and yet one of his most amazing expansions was Orpheus in the Underworld, which is 84,300!). And so now I always worry when I do expansions! Anyway, I took The Maiden down from 74,600 bytes to 64,600 bytes! Whoa! And it wasn't as painful as I thought. My apologies if this has introduced new typos, but hopefully I'll get to those before you get to your review.) Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 00:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Aza! I am going to submit the nomination now. Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 16:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Glad to help out! I must admit, your bytes comment thoroughly confused me, as I usually refer to articles by word count in the readable prose size, which the max recommended length is 10,000 (see Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues), less than half of which The Maiden currently is. I think Tim sometimes has his own opinions on these matters, though I know there is a diversity of takes on article length. Aza24 (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Aza24 ~ Wait... how do you see the word count?! :) ~ Silence of Järvenpää 17:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia:Prosesize, which is tremendously helpful. Aza24 (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Haha... you have so much to teach me! I just click edit and write in the Wiki-code HTML thing. Also, listening for the FIRST time to a Josquin work Missa Sine Nomine. The completed article looks great (glad you enlarged his portrait to be the same size as the navigation box below... I like clean lines... haha). I'm trying to understand something, though. Why if Josquin was already a FA did you have to labor so greatly on it? Feels like you deserve that gold star for your obvious expansion, no? ~ Silence of Järvenpää 17:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are a few composer FAs hiding around that are not really anywhere near that status. Josquin was among those, actually probably the worst, because his article was nominated in the time when anyone would nominate any article for FA, so the nominator didn't actually write any of it, and the user who did (Antandrus, who has been most generous with his council) wrote it before the first modern biography of Josquin even came out. Thus the entire biography had become more or less surpassed by more recent scholarship, and the inline sourcing was already weak to begin with, since the actual author Antandrus had never intended it to be FA.

The other poor composer FAs are Leo Ornstein and Dmitri Shostakovich, the latter which is on its way to being delisted. The articles for Messiaen and Takemitsu are probably not FA worthy either, but are less obvious in this respect. I fixed up Witold Lutosławski last year for similar reasons to Josquin, though the work required there was considerably less (though its probably still only GA standard). I continue to think that Tchaikovsky's article will need a big rewrite at some point, but I don't dare mention this to anyone :) Aza24 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

This is really interesting (as was reading the FARC on Shostakovich)... I hadn't realized that the WP FAC process had changed that dramatically over the years. You can probably tell that I haven't spent much time on the administrative end of WP, as I find writing content exhausting enough. I have a question: Why do you think the content about composers (both bio articles and composition articles) tends to be so... hmmm... unfinished? I just see so many stubs and start-class articles in this area of WP (and the sources cited are just so low quality... the low-hanging easily-Googled fruits), and I wonder why. So many people care about the music these individuals wrote! But, then again, I'm not sure I have really done much to advance Sibelius. After all, I have avoided the bio, which I would need to start from scratch on for an FAC push, and I tend to write about these lesser-known, less-important compositions (The Maiden in the Tower, The Oceanides, The Wood Nymph) rather than the key needs: Finlandia, the Violin Concerto, and of course the first two symphonies at least. Of course, for me, the most fun articles to work on are those that take a lot of research to piece together the lost narrative (at least to the English-speaking world). Like a detective. You can find a ton on any of the key compositions I mentioned above. But, e.g., The Maiden in the Tower? Good luck! So maybe I'm of two minds here. Who am I doing this editing for? Myself or for our readers? Haha... sorry to unburden myself and to get too deep! Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Incomplete composer articles... well for pre-Baroque music I suppose it is an obvious disinterest from most editors, and those who do know about it were for many years so focused on quantity over quality, given the topic-area's underdevelopment! You might find User:Aza24/Vital composers (it is a bit roughly curated, but does the job) somewhat interesting, which reveals a clear pattern of intent in which article quality follows somewhat predictable patterns. Romantic composers, of course, take the cake in FAs/GAs; the somewhat unusual exceptions with Paganini, Schumann, Liszt and Grieg have no real explanation, except for the same reason we have a Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji FA, someone just happened to do/not-do it. Of course, the terribly mediocre articles on Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn, have constantly lingered over everyone's heads, but I suppose for fair enough reasons of overwhelm. It is rather ironic that, besides Britten, all of the Post-War and Contemporary FAs in that vital list are those which I already pointed out as poor! I suppose recentism often results in haphazard scholarship, which has not had appropriate time to grow, and thus is some what messy and unappealing in transferring to a Wikipedia article.

Your other question relates to a frequently discussed topic across Wikipedia—that of spending time on interesting topics or time on so-called 'vital' topics. The usual rationale of "work on whatever articles you enjoy working on regardless of anything else" is repeated enough, but not entirely satisfying. The sentiment once came back in such a heated debate that The Rambling Man changed his userpage to what it is now. I felt a strange guilt after I researched heavily for F. Andrieu and Grimace and ignored the article on Machaut, who is a composer of their time and location vastly more important than them. As a response I worked a lot on the History of music article to try and balance that out, and from then on have felt too guilty to work on niche topics too often. That's just how I have to treat Wikipedia, but it is a database of 'all human knowledge', which includes both The Maiden in the Tower and Finlandia. Aza24 (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

		Vital Barnstar
		Congrats on expanding Euclid to 30 kB! Finally, the Vital Article project can stop arguing about adding/swapping/removing articles and start getting important stuff done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you CactiStaccingCrane! I have plans to get it to GA in the coming future—probably going to reach out to a user I've worked with in the past for their expertise in mathematics. I suspect an entire mathematics section will have to be written separate from the works sections. Aza24 (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm not sure how to get the proper KB number on the drive page, if you could perhaps adjust it for me. Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a food for thought: since you are going to push Euclid towards GA, how about placing it for first GA drive? It'll offload a lot of work from you and make the article improves faster. As for the kB number, it is the one that you see in the edit history written as (X bytes). In this example at Euclid, it is the "32,022 byte" bit.

05:51, 12 August 2022 Aza24 (talk I contribs) m . . (32,022 bytes) (+2) .. (ce) (undo | thank)

– CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I did consider that, but I would probably prefer to do it on my own, and perhaps with the help of the editor I mentioned. I have a pretty clear idea of what the article should look like in a finished state, so part of me feels like adding a bunch more people into the process would be unproductive. I feel like for GA drives we would be better to spend our time on more general topics that are important but too broad to receive much editorship attention. In general, most biographies would probably not fall under that guise, but certainly there are exceptions. Aza24 (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've a very happy news for you: the drive is now almost complete with 47 articles expanded to 30 kB out of 56. Though some articles are "expanded" via a click on IABot, I think that this drive is successful editor-wise as it is the first activity ever in over a decade that made WP:Vital Articles productive. Hopefully the WikiProject will have a good and glorious ending... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

CactiStaccingCrane, this is definitely a great win for the project. The remaining articles are all complex topics, even Social equality, which there is massive amounts of scholarship one would have to search through. You analysis of this drive's importance is certainly correct; only now has the project begun to leave a legacy. Aza24 (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

August songs

pics and thoughts on 13 August -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Did not know that Charles Wuorinen collaborated with Rushdie... how fitting to improve that opera, thank you! Aza24 (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I improved that opera in 2020 when the composer died, but it seemed the right thing to say again. Several concerts and bike trips later, a pleasue to see Josquin des Prez on the Main page, and the church where I heard VOCES8 (finally, cancelled in 2020) pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see. And how funny about Josquin's anniversary today—just yesterday I finished rewriting the article! I adore VOCES8 and am terribly jealous you could see them in person...! Aza24 (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

We had to wait 2 years, had tickets for a group in 2020, and it was cancelled, - same group made it this year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I highly recommend their recording of Josquin's Ave Maria, which is so good I linked it from the Josquin Wikipedia article :) Aza24 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I added their versions to pieces, recalling The Deer's Cry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Just listened to their Josquin Ava Maria interpretation (a piece I'd never heard), per the link Aza provided: Whoa! Gorgeous. (I also like the church's reverb.) :) Thanks for, yet again, expanding my horizons!! I'll program The Deer's Cry later today. Yay community and sharing! :) Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 15:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I listened to the Pärt just now! Christ (pun intended), how beautiful. Double wow! Hmmm... I been meaning to start listening to Pärt's œuvre for years now. Perhaps this was the impetus I needed. ~ Silence of Järvenpää 15:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the source review of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, - crucial to making it a featured article! - images of a rich summer, especially in music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For your exemplary work on several articles related to the arts — across a wide range of areas — and improving them to good and featured quality status. I have relied on some of your work to model articles I have worked on, and I am certain that you have inspired others as well. Thank you for all that you do and I hope you know that you have made Wikipedia a better encyclopedia! — The Most Comfortable Chair 15:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The Most Comfortable Chair, thank you, this is very kind! I don't mean to pry, but am curious, which article(s) have you looked at as reference models? Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Its scope was limited, but I took ideas from Chinua Achebe about how to structure Red Jordan Arobateau. Especially when I cannot phrase something well, I read through featured and good articles of my peers — including yours, such as Portrait of a Musician and La Scapigliata (since I enjoy working with articles related to paintings). — The Most Comfortable Chair 23:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

How touching! I was very happy to help out with Achebe at FAR; he must be one of our only (though with Rowling and Le Guin) FA writers who have lived in the 21st century. Aza24 (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Achebe's article was a lovely read, and you did a fantastic job! I actually read Things Fall Apart after I read Achebe's Wikipedia article (trying to get ideas for Arobateau's article), and it was a great experience. I will be getting the other two from the trilogy as well. — The Most Comfortable Chair 23:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Things Fall Apart is incredible! So chock-full of takeaways. Your work on Arobateau's article appears most thorough, bravo! Aza24 (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I have replied with more detail on my talk page, because it's important to get it right. The (s)election system for board members (if one can call it that) is seriously flawed as one candidate has already stated on my talk page. If you wish your vote(s) to be as effective as possible, you can tactically vote only for your preferred candidate(s) and not for the others. There is no obligation to vote for all the candidates in order of preference. If you change you mind you can always vote again. It will overwrite your previous vote. As a shortcut for you, here is a list of the candidate statements, but it will suffice for you to read the statement talk pages. Some have no comments. Their local user pages are in brackets.

I take a great interest in Wiki governance. As usual, I will be writing a full voter guide (a permitted exposé) on the ACE2022, the most important en.Wiki event of the year, when the time comes soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Will respond on your talk page, thanks for this. Aza24 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 

The first ever Vital GA Drive by the WikiProject Vital Articles has begun. The drive aims to improve Coffee and Land to good article status within 45 days, from 1 September to 15 October 2022. The Vital GA Drive is WikiProject Vital Articles's first step at achieving its ambitious goal: all Vital articles achieving good article status by 2032.

You've received this message because your name is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/30 kB drive. If your name only appear at the 30 kB drive page, you won't receive any more future messages from the WikiProject. If you don't want to receive such messages anymore, you can remove the template {{MMsgI|user=YOURUSERNAME}} at the project's member list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there,

Could you do a source review for the 94th Academy Awards regarding its featured list promotion? I would appreciate the feedback.

--Birdienest81talk 20:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Now done. Aza24 (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:MaranoFan submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Aza24 for EOTW for being a class act and for their tireless contributions across several arenas. They have contributed various featured articles and lists, and quality content about sophisticated topics such as paintings and Chinese history. Aza24 has proferred quality source reviews to several featured article candidates without asking for anything in return, which are both thorough and constructively worded. A thoroughly deserving recipient having done a magnificent 112 reviews at FAR, more than half of them source reviews, making them part of the essential backbone of FAR. A wonderful servant of Wikipedia. They also delegate at WP:FGTC and play a major part in keeping that project alive. He has a special place of honour for reforming the WP:Vital articles project, seen here. Aza24's work ethic, civility, and underrated work on obscure topics are an example for the rest of us and make them a deserving candidate. Seconded by User:Kavyansh.Singh, User:Novem Linguae, User:Gog the Mild and User:CactiStaccingCrane

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

[

Aza24

Editor of the Week for the week beginning September 18, 2022

A class act. Contributions across several arenas and topics such as paintings and Chinese history. Quality source reviews to several featured article candidates, both thorough and constructively worded. A magnificent 112 reviews at FAR making them part of the essential backbone of FAR. A wonderful servant of Wikipedia. A special mention for reforming the WP:Vital articles project, seen here. Aza24's work ethic, civility, and underrated work on obscure topics are an example for the rest of us and make them a deserving candidate for this honour.

Recognized for

delegating at WP:FGTC and playing a major part in keeping that project alive

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 17:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I am deeply honored and grateful, thank you all, MaranoFan, Kavyansh.Singh, Novem Linguae, Gog the Mild, CactiStaccingCrane and Buster7! I normally avoid discussing irl information about myself, but should note that I am male, and use he/him. Best – Aza24 (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I can't think of anyone more deserving. Congratulations.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Jen! Means a lot coming from you. Aza24 (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Ham II (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Most, if not all, the books and articles that you have labeled as "Further reading" are in fact used in the article and therefore are "sources", not "further reading". Some works appear in both source lists.

I have no idea how the sources have come to be split this way.

Best regards, Nihil novi (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Strange... I've cleaned it up some more. Aza24 (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 

Hello Aza24:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Editathon event in October 2022!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2022, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) editathon event – Wildcard Edition! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to any and all women and women's works during the event period. Want to improve an article about a Bollywood actress? Go for it. A pioneering female scientist? Absolutely. An award-winning autobiography by a woman? Yes! GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to receive a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Alanna the Brave (talk) & Goldsztajn (talk) 23 September 2022

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

September songs

Congratulations, highly deserved, and not only for a week! - Chamber music pictured today: Spannungen --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I've just come across a marvelous interview with Lars Vogt, see here, though I'm yet to finish it! Aza24 (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. Want to take it to the article, -it's in English! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

travel and strings sound --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

last images, - music to explore, a Ukrainian baritone first, and the new Casals Forum for chamber music is just wonderful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Mathematician turned musician... how intriguing! Aza24 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your work on Josquin des Prez. Well done. John (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks John! Your contributions have been immensely helpful. Aza24 (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello I am Sunriseshore. Four years ago I worked on editing history articles, I have returned to pick up where I left of. I am trying to work on Post-Classical history so that it can reach 'good article' status. You seem to be an experienced editor so I thought you could be of help. Thanks for everthing in advance. Sunriseshore (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sunriseshore, that is an admirable and terrific goal you have there. I see you've started a PR, so I will try to leave some comments there. At the moment, the biggest issue I see is distinguishing "Main trends" and "Eurasia" sections. The former seems to concern only Afro-Eurasia, for instance. I wonder if both sections should simply be combined into "Main Trends"—I do not believe the title "Main Trends" implies that they involved the entire world population, so the absence of a connection between something like the Silk Road with the Americas/Oceania would not be pressing. Aza24 (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank for your rapid reply. In theory Main trends are supposed to be events that happened in Eurasia, the Americas and Oceania. This is especially true for the climate change section. A good point that the trade routes section is a bit weak but remember that the Amercias did have its own trade network and measoamerican items did move north, but trade was hampered by lack of domesticated animals and the wheel. Also at least for a time there was long distance interaction between different Polyonesian Communites, (Tonga and Hawaii is the best example that comes to mind)

Other than being combined do you have suggestions fr making the Main trends section less Eurasia specific? Sunriseshore (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I have some ideas... I will try to comment on the PR this weekend. Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I am between huge obligations right now and wondered about you. Whereya'at? as they say in my neck of the woods.   Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777! I assume these obligations are WP related?—if so then I myself in a similar place: between desperately waiting for the Josquin FAR to end and trying to find motivation to finish up an old project.

I am beginning to question the merits of working on these larger projects over smaller ones. It struck me as strange the other day when I realized I've only had one GA this year. Yet the fact that these bigs topics have been around so long but are in such bad shape is strangely motivating.

I assume your projects are Christianization-related? I briefly studied Christianity in China a few years ago—which is a really interesting topic. I still find it shocking that the Xi'an Stele is from the 8th century! Aza24 (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, another editor showed up on an old article I had about given up on, and they made wonderful contributions that restored my faith in it. I am trying to decide what to do with it now, and so I am feeling a bit betwixt and between. Big articles are a flaw of the category I think, and YES! "the fact that these bigs topics have been around so long but are in such bad shape is strangely motivating". Absolutely! But smaller more obscure ones are satisfying in their own way. Good luck with your FAR. I feel confident it will do well.

It is my life goal to improve every article on Christianity that I can find that needs it, then move on to other religions if I am still alive and can type... It's what I do. I wish I had another interest, like you do in music, but I am obsessed, and as long as there's as much that needs work as there is, I will keep on keepin' on. I am currently at work on Christianization. There were whole sections with no citations at all, and the entire article was not neutral. It's been interesting. I have learned a lot about eastern Europe that I didn't know. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I admire that goal—ambitious for sure, but what use are goals if they aren't? I believe my early focus on medieval music was to start with that period and then gradually move onto Renaissance, Baroque etc. for the same "improve every article" type ideology.

I'm glad to hear you're picking back up Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire though (and Christianization!). It's the kind of article that could have very well continued to sit there completely uncited for 20+ years if you hadn't given it your time. Aza24 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)