770:
17:27, 9 January and 14:10, 10 January edits was not the "going back to prior referencing style", but their deletion of large wads of referenced content, which is expressly *not* the object of this RfC, while such content deletions can be handled otherwise (and, for this RfC, focussing on such points would be sidetracking of the actual issue that needs resolving via RfC). Out-of-process content deletion being handled as it may (it stopped after a 3RR warning being sent to the editor), still leaves the question about acceptable referencing systems in this article unanswered, and that could not very well be handled without wider community input. In short, not accepting your criticism that the RfC question wouldn't have been formulated neutrally: the RfC is not, and will not be, an attack on a single editor. Re. "It may be helpful etc." – thanks for the (non-obligatory) suggestion. I have initiated RfCs before, giving me some experience on how to formulate a question neutrally (as I've shown in this instance), and avoid other pitfalls. Maybe you think your grandfathering in this matter as necessary –thanks, and I take the good intentions for granted–, for me, however, it diverts from the question that awaits resolution through this RfC, which is: which referencing system(s) do we accept for this article? --
1782:
article, needing however a large amount of complementary edits against several mass deletions (which were spuriously defended by "CITEVAR"-like rationales). This is not a proceeding any
Knowledge editor should go through: contributions should be assessed on content (including the content of the references) in the first place. Reformatting of references should be a secondary task, which should not impede content development based on sound references, and should never be used as a lame excuse to mass-delete. For that reason, indeed, the current style variant for presenting references is "broken" while an impediment to sound development of the article. --
2223:: I think that the criteria may depend on the music, period and coverage, and the determination of an editor. I think that guidelines A and B are fine, and if C applies it's worth mentioning but shouldn't decide inclusion. I know that a new recording sometimes has to wait for years to be reviewed, so wouldn't want to make A a needed requirement. For some early recordings, all we may know may be that they exist, and I would not want to automatically exclude such information. I'd also like to discuss
1900:: "the information to be found about the recording in reliable sources includes at least: singer, accompaniment, when the performance was recorded, and that date clearly distinguished from other applicable dates such as when it was issued, etc. Further, (1) the recording was or is distributed by an official international commercial distribution chain. (2) at least one independent reliable source outside that distribution chain picked up on the existence of the recording."
182:
158:
279:
74:
22:
53:
84:
244:
1716:. Pot, kettle. Your additions have been challenged, and rather than seek consensus for them on their merits, you respond with reverts and attacks. Again, if there are specific pieces that you feel ought not to have been reverted, start a new section for them so they can be properly discussed. Arguing generically based only on number of bytes is not useful.
2086:
veracity of a quote purportedly taken from a review). The underlying problem being that reviews of somewhat more hobby-like quality can be linked easily, so that a selection based on the proposed A criterion may result in more high-profile recordings, which have exclusively high-profile reviews, being omitted, while lesser quality is easier to include.
192:
2303:. The article was stable for 5 weeks between 9 February and 15 March. That is no longer the case: content, copied en bloc from the deleted discography article (or elsewhere in userspace), now replaces the short article. Two previous RfCs have been ignored. When radical changes are made to a stable article, the wikipedia policy WP:ONUS applies.
1684:
and does not warrant deleting it just because it was added until it has your seal of approval. You're actively preventing a sound development of this article, and I begin to suspect that the drama you cause on behalf of the referencing system, is just a meagre excuse to damage
Knowledge and/or claim ownership of this article.
2043:
reflection to their wanting RfC setup rather than removing the !vote from the Survey section. Also, the OP of the RfC doesn't make clear whether this is strictly a RfC only for this article, or an RfC that is intended to have a broader field of application (in the latter case the RfC should not have been held here, but at
470:: Reference styling on English Knowledge is a serious mess. As long as many competing styles and templates are in-play these disputes will remain. And worse, many pages will have many styles with no editor working toward a single consensus style. We must support invested editors over the power of the mob.
2357:
Re. "... has been recreated" – not entirely correct: it has been undeleted (BTW, by the admin who deleted it at the end of the AfD). Please understand there was no "new" creation of the same article: the previous creation was recovered (its article history goes back to my creation of that page before
1683:
Your massive deletions (again thousands and thousands of bytes since my last reminder of the warning you got in that respect) of well-referenced content, again, and again, are of a quite unprecedented and unacceptable scale of disruption. That well-referenced content is added "boldly" is a platitude,
769:
Re. "talks on the reverting editor's talk page... should have been linked" – my choice not to do that was inspired by trying not to make this an RfC "against" a single editor (which this is not). Also, indeed, this RfC is not about one or two edits that are in dispute. The more disputable part of the
2467:
The recordings section has a few odd irregularities that need addressing. The use of only last names is not usual in discographies on wikipedia, and honestly doesn't tell the reader much about who the person is (i.e. it's confusing and not informative as many singers share identical last names). The
2227:
goes into an entry, and for example find a singer's name more important for vocal music than a duration. For more than ten entries, there's always the possibility to create a separate discography article, which may interest specific readers but perhaps not all who just want information on the music.
2128:
Also, the popularity of the aria for mezzo-soprano and contralto performers throughout the 20th century, and for countertenor performers in more recent decades (none of these voice types being the specified one in the oldest extant manuscript) can be excellently illustrated by adopting voice type in
2095:
Regarding the B criterion, apart from its botched representation in the OP of this RfC (see above), I also think it would need fine-tuning while, for instance, for the very first recording of the BWV 53 aria (which should be included anyway based on reliable sources) I could find no specification of
2085:
indicates five reviews, some of which are in high-profile magazines. None of these reviews appear easily accessible, so the recording may have been left out in the option A approach (assuming that, in that approach, review blurbs on vendors' websites are not in themselves sufficient to establish the
2120:
The oldest extant score has no tempo indication, leading to a wide variety of performance times, with a clear evolution of the performance time of the work generally being faster in modern performances, and slower in older performances. This can be presented without OR in the article, based on what
2089:
I speak and read Dutch, so I could easily locate reviews of recordings by Dutch performers (without being able to find
English-language reviews for these recordings), in contrast to, for instance, the Obraztsova recording: I don't speak or read Russian, so although a google search turns up a lot of
1823:
believe this conversation is sufficient to establish a broader, classical music-wide standard and would encourage interested editors to perhaps pursue that within the context of the WikiProject. However, in the shorter term and to summarize this conversation in case it might inform a future one, it
1730:
No, adding sound content with sound references (in maybe a questionable format) does not compare to removing sound content, references and all, because one doesn't like the format of the references. Trying to equate them as a "pot, kettle" indicates loss of perspective. The first is, whatever it is
2520:
as its modus operandi for list of recordings. Record labels are included in that MOS guide, so I don't think any further discussion is needed on that issue. Just follow the rules already in place. As for the inclusion of artist names, there are no guidelines on that point. I don't think we need to
2124:
Similarly, Elste's late 20th-century remark that the popularity of the work was affected by it no longer being recognized as composition by Bach can be expanded with 21st-century material (In all honesty, I don't think Elste had foreseen the rather high popularity of BWV 53 in the 21st century: I
1168:
For clarity, I'll restore content I put in the article whenever I feel like it: it is not subject to your approval. And when we're having a difference of opinion neither you nor I determine consensus, unless one convinces the other. Without my agreement you can not by yourself determine that your
970:
Re. "Thinking about a new(er) editor ..." – the less the formatting is fixed according to unwritten rules, the less problematic it would be for a new(er) editor, because then they don't have to worry about such unwritten rules. So really, this argument reads like trying to make it as difficult as
1781:
as reason for the revert in the edit summary. That's what's broken: CITEVAR is used as a lame excuse to stall development of the content of the article. For clarity, most of the content & references that were removed less than ten minutes after my 9 January 2021 edit are now included in the
1043:
A user trying to add a new source in the proposed scheme has to know not one set of templates, but several; has to edit not one section, but two; if using Visual Editor, has to master not one workflow, but two; has to use an approach to referencing which does not match that most often taught to
2042:
of what others added to the RfC is quite unacceptable. Indeed, Gerda's comment, which I'd approach fairly sympathetically although not exactly the same as my views, illustrates the questionable setup of the RfC, so if that is the kind of !votes the RfC receives, the OP should have given some
1887:, editors generally feel that the number of recordings listed in composition articles like this one should be limited when there are many examples. Because there are 30+ recordings of this work available, this requires some coherent way of deciding which to include. Proposed criteria so far:
955:
Thinking about a new(er) editor trying to add a reference, what style would they emulate? When do they include a location? What date format do they use when? What IDs should they include or not? Etc. The previous style is much simpler and therefore, as below, more accessible for later users.
2069:
is currently undecided. The option chosen for the BWV 53 article may depend on whether or not we sustain a separate discography article. Currently, I'd think, for this composition, that a discography with some (but not excessive) detail embedded in the main BWV 53 article, with the separate
2358:
the AfD). Then, still the same admin, moved the article to Draft space, then I updated the draft a bit (&listed & linked the deletion discussion from the draft talk page), and submitted the draft to be moved to mainspace, which was granted by another editor in very short time. --
2468:
first names should be visible for clarity in my opinion, as well as conforming to what's typical on discographies elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Second, discographies usually contain labels. This helps prevent the addition of pirate recordings and self published material. (see
2425:
448:
For the most part, the article on this spurious cantata lacks any substantial sources. With such a paucity of sources (e.g. a bare list gleaned from a Bach archive), there doesn't seem to be much point in worrying about referencing style. I added one of the only
1094:). Re. "Visual Editor": can't comment, don't use it – but if this is the problem, that you're trying to adapt wikipedia editing to a system you happen to like (instead of adapting that system to Knowledge editing), then we can be curt – no, not covered by
1571:
1357:
688:
ago. Two reverts does not constitute a discussion. If there are "talks on the reverting editor's talk page", they should have been linked, preferably from the outset. You must not expect people coming blind to an RfC to hunt around for the background.
1023:{{cite book |last1=Forkel |first1=Johann Nikolaus |author-link1=Johann Nikolaus Forkel |last2=Terry |first2=Charles Sanford |author-link2=Charles Sanford Terry (historian) |year=1920 |title=] |publisher=Harcourt, Brace and Howe |page=}}</ref: -->
831:{{cite book |last1=Forkel |first1=Johann Nikolaus |author-link1=Johann Nikolaus Forkel |last2=Terry |first2=Charles Sanford |author-link2=Charles Sanford Terry (historian) |year=1920 |title=] |publisher=Harcourt, Brace and Howe |page=}}</ref: -->
2585:
Great. It seems like there are no objections to these changes. I have gone ahead and made the first names of the singers and conductors visible, and I have added a column for record label. I will leave it to other editors to fill that column in.
1832:’s concerns on board and seriously regarding the broader applicability and, as mentioned, would emphasize that my reading of the consensus here may be advisory elsewhere, but should not be read as dispositive. With thanks to all participants,
1044:
newcomers; and has no consistent model to emulate. You may feel none of that is a concern for a newer editor, or is outweighed by the question of slightly more or less inline code in wikitext; we will need to agree to disagree on that point.
1228:
Articles of higher quality about Bach cantatas use sfn referencing, with the references sorted by group and author name in a seperate section, not cluttering the prose, and better accessible for a later user who wants to add to them. See
2300:
2066:
1978:
2073:
Option A is problematic, while, apart from Gerda's comment below that new recordings can be excluded for too long per this criterion, it is often very subjective whether reviews can be precisely located or not. Giving some examples:
813:- eg whether it is used for all references or only a subset, such as books. Please clarify what your proposed citation style for this article is and what exactly that looks like, as your edits did not result in a consistent style.
2034:– the over-all setup of this RfC is very questionable. For instance, option B is not what I proposed, so I reject the tendentious summary of it given above. A good preparation would have made sure that the preliminary talks (in
883:
No, my intention is to let co-editors voice their (preferably founded) opinions on the matter at hand. It is an open-ended question. Whatever this leads to (within the framework of existing rules, including but not limited to
827:
I evidently started this RfC before mass-converting to a consistent style. During a "major edit" that involves working on, and adding to, substantial parts of the prose large interruptions of the wiki-text in the form of e.g.
453:, the Appendix in the 2006 book of Dürr & Jones, and that source was disregarded. There are very few reliable sources (most websites give circular references to Dürr), so it is not clear why this RfC is being debated.
2125:
don't know any cantata with over 10 completely new recordings in the 21st century, and as for baroque arias separated from an otherwise lost large-scale composition, I don't see much that tops the popularity of this one).
495:) 15:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Expanding: The previous style, in addition to being consistent, is IMO easier for both newer editors (particularly those using Visual Editor) as explained below, as well as for readers.
2669:
2400:
is statedly "a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted" I cannot comprehend how it came to be applied in this instance. I shall be taking this up further with
1540:
1491:
2604:, regarding the value of label. For that reason I've removed that pending a clearer consensus. We did just conclude an RfC above regarding limiting the listing of recordings; I don't think label adds to that.
1731:
looked at, a positive contribution to the encyclopedia, the second is, whatever way it is looked at, harming the encyclopedia. References format is not, not in any way, a viable excuse to delete content. --
2144:
tag heading the "Recordings" section, again illustrating how tendentious the OP's setup of this RfC is. I suggest the OP takes somewhat less of a battleground attitude, and work towards solutions instead.
2114:
would do fine, although working at least some of the material into the prose of a "Reception" section would be better, or an approach such as mentioned in the first bullet of my !vote above might work too.
2051:, and only come back here if that doesn't clear the approach for this particular article – all of this at least illustrating the makeshift character of the setup of this RfC). On the ground of the matter:
2278:
has been recreated. I seek to nominate it for deletion under AfD, but this seems infeasible as the recent deletion discussion is still there. Can anyone advise please on the process in such a situation?--
2134:
Still a last remark on procedural matters: this RfC was initiated based on the OP's very botched version of the article, and the OP has repeatedly reverted whatever is undertaken to remedy the current
1292:
your "invested editors" vs. "power of the mob" distinction seems to muddy the waters. In which of those categories do you see yourself? Do you see any editors in the RfC who are not "invested"? Tx. --
253:
168:
1808:’s request at the administrator’s noticeboard requesting closure. With the RfC having been open for 30 days and the conversation not being particularly “live,” I do think this is ripe for review.
2090:
pages for the recording, I'm unable to determine whether any of these results is a review. So also from this perspective the proposed A criterion may lead to a subjective (read POV) selection.
1132:
templates. As to content issues, again, if you think some of your disputed content merits being restored you're welcome to start a new discussion to address that. Absent consensus for it, it
803:- eg ones using no templates at all. There were also other inconsistencies introduced, eg in date format. Further, it is unclear from your posting above how exactly you propose to implement
2062:
in its 20th- and 21st-century subsections (which I wrote). I think a similar approach for recordings in the BWV 53 article is viable (but certainly not the only viable approach, see below).
1222:
681:
644:
300:
295:
2059:
2055:
591:
is probably the better style, but
English WP policy usually goes in the direction that "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". The current style works and changing it is counterproductive.
400:
as a viable referencing style for this article. Not accepting it appears to be stalling article development (as it has been for several years prior to the recent substantive update). --
1098:. The main problem, however, remains attacking content because of a layout issue, which, imho, is unacceptable – that is what, imho, outweighs by far the referencing system issue. --
214:
699:
It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise.
974:
Re. when to include location: that is not a style issue, it is a content issue. The answer is: when that content is meaningful. Also, completely unrelated to <ref: -->
833:
make it all harder to proceed swiftly, so I use whatever produces shorter interruptions of the wikitext (including template-less). After that, it can go either way: if
2513:
2038:
above) were satisfactorily summarized and represented, and not some botched tendentious version of the viewpoints that don't align with the OP's views. Also, the OP's
376:
375:
with separate sources list as a viable referencing style. This RfC is not about content, nor about the article structure (after the recent updates better in line with
1643:
If you think any of the material that you boldly added which was reverted should not have been, you're welcome to start a new discussion seeking consensus for that.
1249:
to me. I admit that I use untemplated refs when in a hurry, but to protect such laziness by CITEVAR and demand that they should stay that way looks strange to me. --
1391:
941:
Re. "... remains inconsistent in style" – can you explain? Where do you see inconsistencies? What would you like to see improved to consider it "consistent"? Tx. --
719:
428:
2332:
2275:
2003:
1956:
2674:
927:
Thank you for doing that. Unfortunately, the sandbox version remains inconsistent in style, and I remain unconvinced that the proposal would be an improvement.
1183:
It would not be appropriate for you to restore content that you know to be disputed "whenever feel like it", unless and until you establish consensus for it.
427:
as the preferred referencing style of high quality articles about Bach's works. I would like to not have this same discussion for individual articles, last
2601:
2492:
2488:
2048:
2044:
1884:
1816:
2328:
2296:
2181:
per previous discussions. If selected recommended recordings are presented in a table, it might be useful to list record labels and colour code HIP.
1894:: "Recordings for which sources are available demonstrating not only that the recordings exist but that they are significant - eg published reviews".
2659:
140:
130:
736:
The "talks on the reverting editor's talk page" did not involve discussion of the topic of this RfC; they primarily concerned the OP's (mis)use of
2099:
Can't agree with the C criterion either, while way too selective (and POV), and missing out on a substantial part of the composition's reception.
2047:– in which case this RfC is also forum shopping – I do think that it would have been preferable to hold a more general RfC about principles at
1753:
Replying to RandomCanadian's "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" (in the "Survey" section above): of course it is broken. In May 2014 an editor
2664:
2654:
1474:
1411:
718:
The discussion is from six years ago, but nothing changed. An editor has refused - six years ago and now, in this article and others such as
352:
consensus is needed to change a referencing system of an established article. The established referencing system for this article is without
218:
205:
163:
2452:
695:
The statement should be self-contained ... If the RfC is about an edit that's been disputed, consider including a diff in the RfC question.
600:
2557:
Ok. I still think including labels is beneficial on classical discographies because it makes it transparent as to the recording's source.
1846:
2469:
106:
793:
The edits you made to the article prior to posting here included references that don't involve either the article's current style or
2022:
528:
1791:
512:. Change of style was evidently controversial and is unlikely to gain strong consensus, so original style should be retained per
362:
templates; a series of recent updates used these templates, with a separate list of sources, listed alphabetically by author (
1580:
1366:
2543:
No objection to including first names. On the question of label, MOS:DISCOGRAPHY indicates that including this is optional.
1864:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2265:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
97:
58:
1025:
interrupting wikitext makes editing far LESS accessible for later users than the shorter interruption by something like
33:
2096:
the accompanying musicians, so if the proposed B criterion fails to include this recording it should be amended anyhow.
333:
1908:
This is a bit messy because it attempts to summarize multiple posts from the same contributor; wordsmithing welcome.
1240:
expanding - adding more references - it is both practical and better for readers and editors to change to that style.
1761:
which deleted approx. 1150 bytes and re-imposed a former referencing style. After that disruptive revert, there was
2500:
2385:
2363:
2150:
1787:
1736:
1703:
1634:
1297:
1270:
1206:
1174:
1103:
1059:
1058:
Re. "A user trying to add a new source ... has to know ... templates ..." – incorrect: all a user "has" to know is
1034:
946:
918:
893:
852:
775:
671:
405:
1828:
as outlined by
Nikkimaria and that an interested editor should feel free to edit this article accordingly. I take
365:). Possibilities include converting newly introduced references to the formerly established system, and accepting
2117:
Further, I do think discographies should illustrate key points about the composition, e.g. for the BWV 53 aria:
1444:
Don't be surprised, if substandard and/or missing prose is restored that it then is restored references and all.
312:
2627:
2613:
2595:
2580:
2566:
2552:
2538:
2504:
2481:
2456:
2448:
2437:
2418:
2389:
2367:
2348:
2287:
2255:
2237:
2207:
2190:
2173:
2154:
2026:
1990:
1968:
1949:
1917:
1878:
1852:
1740:
1725:
1707:
1652:
1638:
1325:
1301:
1274:
1258:
1210:
1192:
1178:
1145:
1107:
1053:
1038:
965:
950:
936:
922:
897:
878:
856:
822:
779:
755:
731:
713:
675:
635:
604:
596:
573:
553:
532:
504:
479:
462:
440:
409:
21:
1940:. There is always the option for someone to create a supplementary List article if they are keen to do so.--
1839:
1396:
865:
citations, then please make the RfC explicit on that point. That is a different question than using sfn for
2233:
1254:
913:– please take a look at it and let me, and the other participants in this RfC, know what you think. Tx. --
727:
436:
197:
657:, followed by talks on the reverting editor's talk page, without viewpoints coming closer to one-another.
2496:
2381:
2359:
2146:
2138:
2106:
In sum, option D for this composition would, as far as I'm concerned, be: include the entire content of
2018:
1829:
1804:
I am here as an uninvolved admin (though really acting only in my capacity as an uninvolved editor) per
1783:
1732:
1699:
1630:
1313:
1293:
1266:
1202:
1170:
1099:
1030:
942:
914:
889:
848:
790:
771:
667:
616:
524:
401:
39:
1084:
system are imho not easier to grasp for a newbie than a single (not several) additional template (i.e.
2609:
2548:
2316:
2251:
2169:
1913:
1874:
1721:
1648:
1321:
1198:
1188:
1141:
1049:
961:
932:
874:
818:
751:
690:
500:
492:
2529:
would seem to suggest that using both first and last names is better for reader comprehension. Best.
2495:(without response yet – feel free to add one: you seem to have a few good points in that regard). --
1566:
1352:
2444:
1548:
1404:
885:
709:
663:
631:
620:
592:
475:
316:
2443:
AFD closed as redirect. Hopefully this does not require further bureaucracy of that kind. Cheers,
2335:, summarising that this editing "paints an extremely grim picture". Other administrators, such as
2049:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject
Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions
2045:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject
Classical music#Recordings lists in articles on individual compositions
1885:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Recordings_lists_in_articles_on_individual_compositions
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1906:: Use of period instruments + awards + conformance to historic performance + pitch of the bells.
1834:
1006:
Re. IDs: again, content issue, not style issue. Also, again, completely unrelated to <ref: -->
764:
318:
1341:
can be recognised in the text. Hence, the lyrics of the aria are sometimes attributed to Franck.
1386:
2623:
2591:
2562:
2534:
2477:
2344:
2229:
2203:
2186:
1778:
1503:
1408:
1250:
1095:
844:
723:
569:
513:
458:
432:
349:
1869:
What should be the criteria for deciding which recordings to list in the
Recordings section?
217:
for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the
2576:
2526:
2433:
2414:
2406:
2397:
2373:
2283:
2013:
1986:
1964:
1945:
1544:
1517:
1400:
549:
519:
314:
278:
1592:
1588:
1468:
2605:
2544:
2522:
2517:
2312:
2247:
2243:
2165:
2078:
2007:
1909:
1870:
1805:
1717:
1662:
1644:
1532:
1378:
1317:
1184:
1137:
1133:
1045:
957:
928:
904:
870:
814:
747:
740:
562:
541:
496:
488:
210:
1606:
1584:
1370:
1688:
Indeed, it has now, by that behaviour, been clearly demonstrated that clinging to a "no
1520:
2010:
at AfD. I've asked for that list to be draftified at AfD for the duration of this RfC.
1562:
1428:
1348:
1338:
1287:
702:
624:
471:
379:), but exclusively about the article's referencing style. 15:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
89:
1316:, please stop restoring your proposed referencing style until this RfC has concluded.
2648:
1680:, if that is your preferred style, as long as nothing on the matter has been decided;
1126:
1020:
Re. "more accessible for later users", again, no, as explained above, something like
516:. Nothing about the style itself prevents editors from contributing to this article.
2058:
was GA approved. Recordings of that composition are listed and described throughout
843:
is accepted, which I'd prefer (also for future editing), then, of course, following
181:
157:
2619:
2587:
2558:
2530:
2473:
2340:
2320:
2199:
2182:
1811:
At issue in this RfC, as I see it, is the criteria for which recordings to list on
1692:
1673:
1116:
1088:
1066:
1011:
997:
979:
837:
807:
797:
619:
why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC without observing
585:
565:
454:
450:
421:
394:
369:
356:
213:, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the
209:, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to
2572:
2429:
2410:
2402:
2336:
2324:
2279:
1982:
1960:
1941:
1572:
Johann
Sebastian Bach: his work and influence on the music of Germany, 1685–1750
1358:
Johann Sebastian Bach: his work and influence on the music of Germany, 1685–1750
1077:
545:
1955:
But to my confusion and astonishment I now find that an editor has effectively
1959:. This seems completely out of order and I will be raising this twin at AfD.--
1576:
1362:
187:
79:
73:
52:
1431:, based on Spitta's belief that Franck's style can be recognized in the text.
909:
taking up your challenge to deliver a "consistent and coherent alternative",
2463:
Odd presentation of names in recordings section and absence of record labels
847:
would mean that making consistent to that style would be uncontroversial. --
2301:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography
2110:, unless when we continue such separate discography article, in which case
1979:
Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Schlage_doch,_gewünschte_Stunde_discography
1506:
1382:
2602:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#"Recordings"_vs._"discography"
2489:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Classical music#"Recordings" vs. "discography"
682:
Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53/Archive 1#Adding references
645:
Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53/Archive 1#Adding references
1665:, your editing behaviour during this RfC has been, frankly, appalling:
1230:
102:
243:
2121:
is known about performance times in score publications and recordings
1714:
your editing behaviour during this RfC has been, frankly, appalling
1201:? Tx. It is not helpful for a sound development of this article. --
1815:
article, a discussion necessitated by broader conversation at the
1441:, to stop removing thousands of bytes at a time; you ignored that.
722:, as mentioned above - to accept a change of referencing style. --
487:
since no consistent and coherent alternative has been proposed.
1763:
no substantial development of article content until early 2021
992:– And, like the previous: completely unrelated to <ref: -->
319:
272:
15:
2618:
No objection to holding off, and waiting for consensus. Best.
2571:
I would support both first names and labels being included.--
2670:
WikiProject Classical music compositions task force articles
1112:
I also do not personally use Visual Editor, but I know that
242:
1771:
I started to add content & references on 9 January 2012
1236:
There is no need to change all articles in the topic, but
640:
Thanks for your unprejudiced (not) constructive question:
377:
Knowledge:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure
2493:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Classical music#Compact tables
2070:
discography page turned into a redirect would work best.
2056:
Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert)
2491:; for your first point, it is part of what I raised at
2377:
2315:
has previously given strong warnings about POVFORKs on
2228:
For discography articles, criteria could be broader. --
2111:
2107:
2039:
1774:
1770:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1438:
1424:
The current replacement for these removed sentences is:
1331:
989:
910:
654:
650:
363:
1473:
sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSpitta1884 (
1245:
I see no good reason to not permit it. CITEVAR seems
1017:– the issue is the same for both referencing systems.
1003:– the issue is the same for both referencing systems.
985:– the issue is the same for both referencing systems.
1927:- some other criteria entirely, or some combination.
1221:
My arguments for a different referencing style were
971:
possible for new(er) editors to get easily involved.
911:
I have done so (using "sfn" consistently throughout)
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2295:(ec) One of the most recent version of the article
1775:
promptly (i.e. less then 10 minutes later) reverted
1122:is far more complicated to use with it than inline
2067:AfD on the separate discography article for BWV 53
1535:; Emery, Walter (2001). "Bach, Johann Sebastian".
869:citations. What do you propose using besides sfn?
720:Talk:Gottlob! nun geht das Jahr zu Ende, BWV 28#GA
429:Talk:Gottlob! nun geht das Jahr zu Ende, BWV 28#GA
2600:It seems that there is disagreement, here and at
2514:Knowledge:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines
2299:seems to be a variant of the POVFORK deleted in
2108:the current version of the "discography" article
1883:For background: As per discussion above and at
2472:as an example of a typical presentation) Best.
2112:the version before the OP's disruptive deletes
1757:. On 26 May 2014 the sequence of updates was
327:This page has archives. Sections older than
8:
2002:. Any inclusion criteria here and a link to
1549:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.6002278195
1405:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.6002278195
2333:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography
2276:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography
2004:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography
1797:RfC: Inclusion criteria for recordings list
19:
2317:Clavier-Übung III#Reception and influences
1957:duplicated this article as sort of POVFORK
1698:" dogma leads to a substandard article. --
1487:
1062:. A new user is not obliged to use either
152:
47:
1434:... which is not covered by the sources:
1344:Including these sources that go with it:
2329:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53
2297:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53
2035:
1457:
988:Re. date format: indeed, I forgot two,
154:
49:
2242:Note that I have requested closure at
1713:
1464:
1083:template that go with the <ref: -->
698:
694:
337:when more than 4 sections are present.
227:Knowledge:WikiProject Classical music
7:
2675:WikiProject Classical music articles
1860:The following discussion is closed.
861:If your intention is to use sfn for
230:Template:WikiProject Classical music
203:This article is within the scope of
95:This article is within the scope of
1334:you removed some 16500b, including:
1072:s or templates between <ref: -->
38:It is of interest to the following
2470:The Dream of Gerontius discography
2426:deletion discussion is now up here
1337:Spitta believed that the style of
1073:tags. The "name=..." feature plus
14:
2487:Regarding your second point, see
2060:the article's "Reception" section
2006:, if it's not determined to fail
1923:There is of course always option
666:" can clearly be contradicted. --
331:may be automatically archived by
2261:The discussion above is closed.
1748:
277:
190:
180:
156:
82:
72:
51:
20:
2660:Low-importance Germany articles
2521:hash out an MOS guideline, per
2274:The previously deleted article
2077:Robin Blaze's first recording:
1669:I don't object to reformatting
1581:Fuller Maitland, John Alexander
1367:Fuller Maitland, John Alexander
662:In sum, "... without observing
135:This article has been rated as
1427:It is sometimes attributed to
1:
2174:13:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
2155:10:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
2027:01:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
1991:21:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
1969:19:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
1950:12:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
1755:started to expand the article
1749:Re. "... it ain't broken ..."
1225:, so I repeat in a nutshell:
554:12:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
251:This article is supported by
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Germany
109:and see a list of open tasks.
2665:WikiProject Germany articles
2655:Start-Class Germany articles
2319:. He has also mentioned the
2238:09:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
1918:03:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
1879:03:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
1826:loose consensus for option A
1759:interrupted by a mass revert
1741:08:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
1726:14:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
1708:05:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
1653:22:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
1639:14:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
1567:"Book V: Leipzig, 1723–1734"
1539:. Oxford University Press. "
1353:"Book V: Leipzig, 1723-1734"
1326:13:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
1308:Editing behaviour during RfC
1302:11:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
1275:08:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
1259:09:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
1211:16:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
1193:16:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
1179:15:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
1146:15:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
1108:06:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
1054:02:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
1039:15:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
966:13:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
951:06:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
937:01:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
923:13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
898:04:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
879:04:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
857:03:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
823:02:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
780:02:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
756:02:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
732:23:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
714:22:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
676:20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
636:20:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
533:03:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
505:15:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
480:15:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
463:10:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
441:17:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
410:15:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
118:Template:WikiProject Germany
1817:classical music WikiProject
206:WikiProject Classical music
2691:
2628:02:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
2614:01:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
2596:13:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
2581:12:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
2567:02:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
2553:01:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
2539:18:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2505:17:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2482:17:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
2457:01:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
2438:22:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
2419:13:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
2390:12:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
2368:12:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
2349:13:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
2288:12:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
2256:13:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
1853:23:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
1169:opinion is "consensus". --
605:19:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
141:project's importance scale
2372:For discussion about the
2208:20:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
2191:21:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
1792:09:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
1575:. Vol. II. Translated by
1361:. Vol. II. Translated by
1027:{{sfn|Forkel|Terry|1920}}
574:21:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
250:
175:
134:
67:
46:
2263:Please do not modify it.
2198:per the above discussion
1862:Please do not modify it.
1767:nearly seven years later
1387:"Bach, Johann Sebastian"
233:Classical music articles
2339:, have also commented.
2129:a discography overview.
1824:seems to me there is a
1397:Oxford University Press
254:Compositions task force
2164:per discussion above.
1488:Wolff & Emery 2001
1433:
1343:
1332:02:15, 12 January 2021
655:14:10, 10 January 2021
334:Lowercase sigmabot III
247:
198:Classical music portal
28:This article is rated
1541:Doubtful and spurious
1492:Doubtful and spurious
1425:
1335:
651:17:27, 9 January 2021
559:Retain previous style
538:Retain previous style
510:Retain previous style
485:Retain previous style
246:
2405:and elsewhere. (see
1022:<ref name=ft: -->
830:<ref name=ft: -->
2516:specifically cites
2215:Threaded discussion
2036:#Recordings section
1060:WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT
611:Threaded discussion
446:Weak oppose/neutral
98:WikiProject Germany
1863:
1537:Grove Music Online
1392:Grove Music Online
888:) is OK for me. --
684:is from more than
680:The discussion at
248:
34:content assessment
1920:
1861:
1413:978-1-56159-263-0
1197:Can you stop the
768:
697:and it also says
341:
340:
306:
305:
269:
268:
265:
264:
261:
260:
221:for more details.
151:
150:
147:
146:
2682:
2497:Francis Schonken
2407:here for a start
2382:Francis Schonken
2360:Francis Schonken
2147:Francis Schonken
2143:
2137:
2079:its page at the
2016:
1907:
1849:
1844:
1837:
1830:Francis Schonken
1784:Francis Schonken
1733:Francis Schonken
1700:Francis Schonken
1697:
1691:
1678:
1672:
1631:Francis Schonken
1619:
1618:
1616:
1614:
1609:(in French). BnF
1603:
1597:
1596:
1585:Novello & Co
1559:
1553:
1552:
1533:Wolff, Christoph
1529:
1523:
1515:
1509:
1501:
1495:
1485:
1479:
1478:
1462:
1417:
1379:Wolff, Christoph
1374:
1371:Novello & Co
1314:Francis Schonken
1294:Francis Schonken
1291:
1267:Francis Schonken
1203:Francis Schonken
1199:WP:WIKILAWYERing
1171:Francis Schonken
1131:
1125:
1121:
1115:
1100:Francis Schonken
1093:
1087:
1082:
1076:
1071:
1065:
1031:Francis Schonken
1028:
1024:
1016:
1010:
1002:
996:
984:
978:
943:Francis Schonken
915:Francis Schonken
908:
890:Francis Schonken
849:Francis Schonken
842:
836:
832:
812:
806:
802:
796:
791:Francis Schonken
772:Francis Schonken
762:
745:
739:
705:
668:Francis Schonken
627:
617:Francis Schonken
590:
584:
522:
426:
420:
402:Francis Schonken
399:
393:
374:
368:
361:
355:
344:RfC: referencing
336:
320:
292:
291:
281:
273:
235:
234:
231:
228:
225:
200:
195:
194:
193:
184:
177:
176:
171:
160:
153:
123:
122:
121:Germany articles
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
85:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
2690:
2689:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2681:
2680:
2679:
2645:
2644:
2518:MOS:DISCOGRAPHY
2465:
2313:User:Hammersoft
2272:
2267:
2266:
2217:
2141:
2135:
2011:
1934:
1866:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1847:
1840:
1835:
1799:
1773:, the edit was
1751:
1695:
1689:
1679:to <ref: -->
1676:
1670:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1612:
1610:
1605:
1604:
1600:
1563:Spitta, Philipp
1561:
1560:
1556:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1516:
1512:
1502:
1498:
1486:
1482:
1472:
1463:
1459:
1414:
1377:
1349:Spitta, Philipp
1347:
1310:
1285:
1129:
1123:
1119:
1113:
1091:
1085:
1080:
1074:
1069:
1063:
1026:
1021:
1014:
1008:
1000:
994:
982:
976:
902:
840:
834:
829:
810:
804:
800:
794:
743:
737:
703:
625:
613:
588:
582:
517:
424:
418:
397:
391:
385:
372:
366:
359:
353:
346:
332:
321:
315:
286:
232:
229:
226:
224:Classical music
223:
222:
211:classical music
196:
191:
189:
166:
164:Classical music
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
83:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
2688:
2686:
2678:
2677:
2672:
2667:
2662:
2657:
2647:
2646:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2634:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2630:
2569:
2508:
2507:
2464:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2445:RandomCanadian
2422:
2421:
2393:
2392:
2370:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2271:
2268:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2240:
2216:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2193:
2176:
2158:
2157:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2115:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2097:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2087:
2071:
2063:
2029:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1972:
1971:
1933:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1921:
1901:
1895:
1867:
1858:
1810:
1809:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1798:
1795:
1750:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1621:
1620:
1598:
1554:
1524:
1510:
1496:
1480:
1456:
1455:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1442:
1429:Salomon Franck
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1412:
1375:
1373:. pp. 181–648.
1339:Salomon Franck
1309:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1247:no good reason
1242:
1241:
1234:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1018:
1004:
986:
972:
900:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
759:
758:
734:
660:
659:
658:
647:
612:
609:
608:
607:
593:RandomCanadian
576:
556:
535:
507:
482:
465:
443:
412:
384:
381:
345:
342:
339:
338:
326:
323:
322:
317:
313:
311:
308:
307:
304:
303:
298:
288:
287:
282:
276:
267:
266:
263:
262:
259:
258:
249:
239:
238:
236:
202:
201:
185:
173:
172:
161:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
90:Germany portal
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2687:
2676:
2673:
2671:
2668:
2666:
2663:
2661:
2658:
2656:
2653:
2652:
2650:
2629:
2625:
2621:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2611:
2607:
2603:
2599:
2598:
2597:
2593:
2589:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2578:
2574:
2570:
2568:
2564:
2560:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2550:
2546:
2542:
2541:
2540:
2536:
2532:
2528:
2524:
2519:
2515:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2506:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2490:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2462:
2458:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2427:
2420:
2416:
2412:
2408:
2404:
2399:
2395:
2394:
2391:
2387:
2383:
2379:
2375:
2371:
2369:
2365:
2361:
2356:
2355:
2350:
2346:
2342:
2338:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2285:
2281:
2277:
2269:
2264:
2257:
2253:
2249:
2245:
2241:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2226:
2222:
2219:
2218:
2214:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2194:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2177:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2160:
2159:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2140:
2133:
2127:
2123:
2119:
2118:
2116:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2104:
2098:
2094:
2088:
2084:
2082:
2076:
2075:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2052:
2050:
2046:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2030:
2028:
2024:
2020:
2015:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1998:
1997:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1931:
1926:
1922:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1905:
1902:
1899:
1896:
1893:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1886:
1881:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1865:
1854:
1851:
1850:
1845:
1843:
1838:
1831:
1827:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1807:
1796:
1794:
1793:
1789:
1785:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1694:
1682:
1675:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1664:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1608:
1602:
1599:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1573:
1568:
1564:
1558:
1555:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1528:
1525:
1522:
1519:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1505:
1500:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1484:
1481:
1476:
1470:
1466:
1461:
1458:
1454:
1443:
1440:
1437:I asked you,
1436:
1435:
1432:
1430:
1423:
1422:
1415:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1388:
1384:
1383:Emery, Walter
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1359:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1345:
1342:
1340:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1289:
1284:
1276:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1232:
1227:
1226:
1224:
1223:just archived
1220:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1167:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1128:
1118:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1090:
1079:
1068:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1019:
1013:
1005:
999:
991:
987:
981:
973:
969:
968:
967:
963:
959:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
926:
925:
924:
920:
916:
912:
906:
901:
899:
895:
891:
887:
882:
881:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
859:
858:
854:
850:
846:
839:
826:
825:
824:
820:
816:
809:
799:
792:
789:
781:
777:
773:
766:
765:edit conflict
761:
760:
757:
753:
749:
742:
735:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
716:
715:
711:
707:
700:
696:
692:
691:WP:RFCNEUTRAL
687:
683:
679:
678:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
656:
652:
649:Two reverts:
648:
646:
642:
641:
639:
638:
637:
633:
629:
622:
618:
615:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
587:
580:
577:
575:
571:
567:
564:
560:
557:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
536:
534:
530:
526:
521:
515:
511:
508:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
483:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
464:
460:
456:
452:
447:
444:
442:
438:
434:
430:
423:
416:
413:
411:
407:
403:
396:
390:
387:
386:
382:
380:
378:
371:
364:
358:
351:
343:
335:
330:
325:
324:
310:
309:
302:
299:
297:
294:
293:
290:
289:
285:
280:
275:
274:
271:
256:
255:
245:
241:
240:
237:
220:
216:
212:
208:
207:
199:
188:
186:
183:
179:
178:
174:
170:
165:
162:
159:
155:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
2466:
2423:
2273:
2262:
2230:Gerda Arendt
2224:
2220:
2195:
2178:
2161:
2139:List_dispute
2080:
2031:
1999:
1938:for option A
1937:
1935:
1924:
1903:
1897:
1891:
1882:
1868:
1859:
1841:
1833:
1825:
1820:
1812:
1766:
1752:
1687:
1661:
1611:. Retrieved
1601:
1570:
1557:
1536:
1527:
1513:
1499:
1483:
1460:
1452:
1426:
1390:
1356:
1336:
1251:Gerda Arendt
1246:
1237:
886:WP:CONSENSUS
866:
862:
724:Gerda Arendt
685:
664:WP:RFCBEFORE
621:WP:RFCBEFORE
578:
558:
537:
509:
484:
472:—¿philoserf?
467:
445:
433:Gerda Arendt
414:
388:
347:
328:
283:
270:
252:
219:project page
204:
169:Compositions
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
2403:User:Daniel
2337:User:Drmies
2325:User:Smerus
2323:started by
2040:refactoring
2014:Finnusertop
1577:Bell, Clara
1465:Spitta 1884
1395:(8th ed.).
1363:Bell, Clara
581:Agree that
520:Finnusertop
30:Start-class
2649:Categories
2606:Nikkimaria
2545:Nikkimaria
2248:Nikkimaria
2166:Nikkimaria
2054:Yesterday
1910:Nikkimaria
1871:Nikkimaria
1806:Nikkimaria
1779:WP:CITEVAR
1718:Nikkimaria
1663:Nikkimaria
1645:Nikkimaria
1613:11 January
1507:1153724662
1453:References
1439:officially
1369:. London:
1318:Nikkimaria
1185:Nikkimaria
1138:Nikkimaria
1096:WP:CITEVAR
1046:Nikkimaria
958:Nikkimaria
929:Nikkimaria
905:Nikkimaria
871:Nikkimaria
845:WP:CITEVAR
815:Nikkimaria
748:Nikkimaria
693:is clear:
643:See above
563:Nikkimaria
542:Nikkimaria
514:WP:CITEVAR
497:Nikkimaria
489:Nikkimaria
350:WP:CITEVAR
215:guidelines
2527:WP:COMMON
2398:WP:REFUND
2374:WP:REFUND
1842:Phightins
1521:139096499
1288:Philoserf
1265:Agree. --
1134:stays out
686:six years
301:Archive 2
296:Archive 1
2523:WP:CREEP
2453:contribs
2244:WP:ANRFC
2196:Option A
2179:Option A
2162:Option A
2081:Hyperion
2023:contribs
2008:WP:LISTN
1769:). When
1565:(1884).
1385:(2001).
1351:(1884).
990:repaired
601:contribs
529:contribs
284:Archives
2620:4meter4
2588:4meter4
2559:4meter4
2531:4meter4
2474:4meter4
2341:Mathsci
2221:Comment
2200:Sea Ane
2183:Mathsci
2083:website
1819:. I do
1777:giving
1231:BWV 172
566:Sea Ane
455:Mathsci
415:Support
329:90 days
139:on the
112:Germany
103:Germany
59:Germany
2573:Smerus
2430:Smerus
2411:Smerus
2376:, see
2280:Smerus
1983:Smerus
1961:Smerus
1942:Smerus
1932:Survey
1587:. pp.
741:in use
706:rose64
628:rose64
579:Oppose
546:Smerus
468:Oppose
417:using
389:Accept
383:Survey
36:scale.
2586:Best.
2321:WP:AN
1467:, p.
451:WP:RS
2624:talk
2610:talk
2592:talk
2577:talk
2563:talk
2549:talk
2535:talk
2501:talk
2478:talk
2449:talk
2434:talk
2424:The
2415:talk
2409:).--
2386:talk
2378:here
2364:talk
2345:talk
2284:talk
2270:Fork
2252:talk
2234:talk
2225:what
2204:talk
2187:talk
2170:talk
2151:talk
2065:The
2019:talk
1987:talk
1977:see
1965:talk
1946:talk
1936:I'm
1914:talk
1875:talk
1813:this
1788:talk
1737:talk
1722:talk
1704:talk
1649:talk
1635:talk
1615:2021
1504:OCLC
1475:help
1409:ISBN
1322:talk
1298:talk
1271:talk
1255:talk
1207:talk
1189:talk
1175:talk
1142:talk
1127:cite
1104:talk
1050:talk
1035:talk
1029:. --
962:talk
947:talk
933:talk
919:talk
894:talk
875:talk
853:talk
819:talk
776:talk
752:talk
728:talk
710:talk
708:🌹 (
672:talk
653:and
632:talk
630:🌹 (
623:? --
597:talk
570:talk
561:Per
550:talk
540:per
525:talk
501:talk
493:talk
476:talk
459:talk
437:talk
431:. --
406:talk
348:Per
2455:)
2428:.--
2396:As
2327:on
1821:not
1693:sfn
1674:sfn
1593:477
1589:474
1545:doi
1543:".
1518:BnF
1490:, "
1469:476
1401:doi
1330:On
1117:sfn
1089:sfn
1067:sfn
1012:sfn
1007:vs
998:sfn
993:vs
980:sfn
975:vs
867:any
863:all
838:sfn
808:sfn
798:sfn
704:Red
626:Red
603:)
586:sfn
422:sfn
395:sfn
370:sfn
357:sfn
131:Low
2651::
2626:)
2612:)
2594:)
2579:)
2565:)
2551:)
2537:)
2525:.
2503:)
2480:)
2451:/
2436:)
2417:)
2388:)
2380:--
2366:)
2347:)
2331:/
2286:)
2254:)
2246:.
2236:)
2206:)
2189:)
2172:)
2153:)
2145:--
2142:}}
2136:{{
2025:)
2021:⋅
2012:–
1989:)
1981:--
1967:)
1948:)
1916:)
1877:)
1836:Go
1790:)
1739:)
1724:)
1706:)
1696:}}
1690:{{
1677:}}
1671:{{
1651:)
1637:)
1629:--
1607:""
1583:.
1579:;
1569:.
1494:".
1407:.
1399:.
1389:.
1381:;
1365:;
1355:.
1324:)
1300:)
1273:)
1257:)
1238:if
1209:)
1191:)
1177:)
1144:)
1136:.
1130:}}
1124:{{
1120:}}
1114:{{
1106:)
1092:}}
1086:{{
1081:}}
1078:rp
1075:{{
1070:}}
1064:{{
1052:)
1037:)
1015:}}
1009:{{
1001:}}
995:{{
983:}}
977:{{
964:)
949:)
935:)
921:)
896:)
877:)
855:)
841:}}
835:{{
821:)
811:}}
805:{{
801:}}
795:{{
778:)
754:)
746:.
744:}}
738:{{
730:)
712:)
701:--
674:)
634:)
599:/
589:}}
583:{{
572:)
552:)
544:--
531:)
527:⋅
518:–
503:)
478:)
461:)
439:)
425:}}
419:{{
408:)
398:}}
392:{{
373:}}
367:{{
360:}}
354:{{
167::
2622:(
2608:(
2590:(
2575:(
2561:(
2547:(
2533:(
2499:(
2476:(
2447:(
2432:(
2413:(
2384:(
2362:(
2343:(
2282:(
2250:(
2232:(
2210:.
2202:(
2185:(
2168:(
2149:(
2032:D
2017:(
2000:D
1985:(
1963:(
1944:(
1925:D
1912:(
1904:C
1898:B
1892:A
1873:(
1848:!
1786:(
1765:(
1735:(
1720:(
1702:(
1647:(
1633:(
1617:.
1595:.
1591:–
1551:.
1547::
1477:)
1471:.
1416:.
1403::
1320:(
1296:(
1290::
1286:@
1269:(
1253:(
1233:.
1205:(
1187:(
1173:(
1140:(
1102:(
1048:(
1033:(
960:(
945:(
931:(
917:(
907::
903:@
892:(
873:(
851:(
817:(
774:(
767:)
763:(
750:(
726:(
670:(
595:(
568:(
548:(
523:(
499:(
491:(
474:(
457:(
435:(
404:(
257:.
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
