User talk:Niggle1892

Welcome!

Hello, Niggle1892, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement, and you may wish to read our newspaper The Signpost. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

July 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Frederica von Stade has been reverted.
Your edit here to Frederica von Stade was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://fredericavonstadediscography.blogspot.com) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Niggle1892, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Niggle1892! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Frederica von Stade

Your updates to Ms von Stade's biography are colorful, but the lack any sources with which to verify your facts, and so have been reverted. Please remember to properly cite sources for changes, especially to articles about living persons. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:14, 23 July 2018 (UT

von Stade albums

Welcome to Wikipedia and believe me, you're not alone in trying to get accustomed to the policies and guidelines of this encyclopedia. Most here mean well and, if not the first person you ask, you will always be able to find a friendly administrator who is willing to help out new editors. Regarding the changes I have been making to the names of the articles you've created, my understanding is that there is a difference between a recording of a composition and the release of an album. So the example, Goldberg Variations (Glenn Gould recording), would represent a notable recording by Glenn Gould of the composition "Goldberg Variations". The style guide for albums may also be helpful for you, which you can find at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice. As for loading images of album covers, there must be some issue with the free use criteria you are citing to claim the use is valid on Wikipedia. I'm sure someone can help you with the procedure. Happy editing. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Frederica von Stade albums

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ellipsis

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

File permission problem with File:Frederica von Stade.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Frederica von Stade.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Il mondo della luna (Antal Dorati recording) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Il mondo della luna (Antal Dorati recording), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster _talk 19:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Christmas with Flicka for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christmas with Flicka is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Softlavender (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)