Talk:Concerto for Two Violins (Bach)

message: Does anyone know where I can hear the Violin II part of this piece? Any suggestions are welcome!
I sort of know: If you look at the last song in the Suzuki Violin School Volume 4 Violin Part you will find. Get someone to play it for you. Or you can buy the Suzuki Violin School Volume 4 Violin Part tape and listen to the last song. Just a suggestion.-Theclassicalman24.83.9.218 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006–2007 

message: I have a score for a concerto for oboe and violin in C minor (as the 2 Harpsichord concerto BWV 1060) which claims that, judging from the way the harpsichord parts are written, the harpsichord version was originally the lost concerto for oboe and violin (in C minor!), later adapted as the double violin concerto and transposed to D minor for better matching the violins' sonorities, as well as turned into the harpsichords version. -- megA (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerto for Oboe and Violin in C Minor? 

message: In the provided audio clips, the first violinist's name is
spelled "Perry" in the main article, but "Parry" on
the page for the audio clips themselves, and in the metadata
of the files.  On 2013-05-19=Su Google tells me there exist
professional concert violinists named both "Perry" and "Parry";
"Perry" is the one that comes up as the first Google hit,
but most of the hits are for "Parry".  But overwhelmingly,
most of the Google hits are to MP3 piracy sites copying data
from each other, so a Google vote on the correct spelling
isn't really possible; there's too much noise.
Could somebody who actually knows who performed this respond
here telling us what the correct spelling is and how you
know it's correct, and then perhaps correct the erroneous
spellings?  (It's an easy fix if "Perry" is the one that's
wrong, because that only occurs once, in the main article.)
67.183.64.49 (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parry or Perry? 

message: There's no obligation to put anything in bold in the lead section, see MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Following your suggestion I included the date, but I disagree about the bold part, most Wikipedia pages do include the title of the article in bold. See the Wikipedia page for orchestra, where orchestra is in bold. 99% of articles in Wikipedia follow this procedure so to achieve uniformity we should keep the boldness ot the title.  James343e (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Following your advice, I did not change your edits and agree with the inclusion of the term "succesful" and the deletion of the FM source from the lead. But I included back the other more solid sources from the books. If you read Wikipedia articles for Beethoven's symphony No. 5 and Symphony No. 9, they include sources in the lead for claims such as "it is one of the most important/best/succesful compositions". I think the claim "it is one of his most succesful works" is strong enough to include references in the lede, even if it is supported in the body of the article. It will also avoids that some Wikipedia editor in the future, in say, 300 years, could delete such claims or  put "this claim needs references to reliable sources" because he did not bother to read the whole article to find the references to such a claim. Such an edition (deleting the claim or adding "this claim needs references to reliable sources"), despite being unfair, could go unnoticed. So to avoid problems like that in the future, I included two references (again, following your suggestion of excluding the FM source).James343e (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold in lead section 

message: A few sources are below par, and should not be used in the article:
* Amazon (see WP:RSP: "generally unreliable")
* Discogs (see WP:RSP: "generally unreliable")
Spotify has been discussed at WP:RSN (e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 289#Formally make Spotify a "generally unreliable" source?) without final verdict afaics – I'm not sure whether we should use it (I tend to avoid it). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I could not find better sources, I'm glad you improved it with more reliable sources.James343e (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of sources