lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:1939 Japanese expedition to Tibet

message: It's a shame this article is in such poor shape; it's an interesting topic, as I did not know previously of any Japanese expeditions to Tibet. LordAmeth 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Assessment

message: Done. It is from here. --Nightshadow28 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese script
Talk:International Campaign for Tibet

message: All sources cited are affiliated with or dependent upon the ICT.
Poking on Google and Google News doesn't pull up sources specifically about the ICT, but rather mentions them in passing in relation to some other main topic.
Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about notability
Talk:Fitzwilliam Virginal Book

message: I wonder if these concerts are being recorded.  I would pay for a complete recording of the FVB, no matter how many disks it ran into.  There are bigger box sets out there!  For example the Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi etc. Masterworks sets by Brilliant Classics are 40 CD's.  The Complete Bach Edition runs into 180+ CD's and the Complete Mozart Edition runs into 200+ CD's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizabethFan (talk • contribs) 11:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much doubt there will ever be a complete recording of the FVB. There's just not enough demand, unlike for the composers you mention above. I suggest in all seriousness that, like me, you learn to play a keyboard instrument (whatever your age), and you will get ten times the enjoyment from FVB - and all the other composers of this period! Nick Michael (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Writing ten years after the above, I am happy to tell you that Pieter-Jan Belder has published a brilliant series of CD's comprising the entire FVB (the last CD is due out at the end of 2019). This is a landmark recording, beautifully interpreted, and you will not be disappointed. Nick Michael (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance of the FVB by Francis Knight 

message: The article says there are "297 separate pieces (actually, 298: one piece is numbered, but is blank. Strangely, the Maitland Squire edition numbers No. 182 twice)", but the number of pieces listed on this page is 283.  I don't understand the discrepancy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.55 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of pieces in the FVB 

message: The virginal takes up about the same amount of space as a harpsichord. It difference is that the jacks pluck far from the nut rather than close, as in the harpsichord, producing a different, less bright, tone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B11A:3180:F07C:A949:D75A:2558 (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  virginal--not a small portable harpsichord 

message: According to Wikipedia:Manual of_Style/Titles#Neither, "Names (not to be confused with titles) of some works of art," should use neither italics or quotation marks. Of the items listed at  only one of the article titles is italicized within the article (Elizabeth Rogers' Virginal Book) and some are italicized within the article and use  (Fitzwilliam Virginal Book, My Ladye Nevells Booke, Parthenia (music), Parthenia Inviolata). Is the title of this article a title of a work of art, or is it a name of a work of art (and should not be italicized within the article nor use )? Hyacinth (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics
Talk:My Ladye Nevells Booke

message: This article is extraordinarily hard to find, even when you know it is here! Perhaps those who know more about these things could do what is needed to help the WP search engine?
86.25.171.179 (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: According to Wikipedia:Manual of_Style/Titles#Neither, "Names (not to be confused with titles) of some works of art," should use neither italics or quotation marks. Of the items listed at  only one of the article titles is italicized within the article (Elizabeth Rogers' Virginal Book) and some are italicized within the article and use  (Fitzwilliam Virginal Book, My Ladye Nevells Booke, Parthenia (music), Parthenia Inviolata). Is the title of this article a title of a work of art, or is it a name of a work of art (and should not be italicized within the article nor use )? Hyacinth (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the work's title, as shown in the external links. Given its archaic spelling, it couldn't possibly be its name. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense - this is: a) an individual physical object, like an illuminated manuscript. These have names, not titles, and b) a collection of works, apparently not conceived as a "work" or even a series, but as a compilation of greatest hits etc. It should not be italicized. The same is true in spades for the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book. Perversely, it seems to be the only member of :Category:Compositions by William Byrd that is italicized. I'd also suggest that keeping the archaic spelling demonstrates that it is is a name, not a title - these are typically modernized. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics
Talk:Horn Concerto (Glière)

message: Well, about the Discography section, it really seems a very personal appreciation not deserved to be in a wikipedia article; well, this is also my personal opinion!
Dbarreda (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

message: About what is a citation needed fgs- that Polekh wrote the cadenza or that some players play the cadenza as written and many don't? Clarity, please. Schissel | Sound the Note! 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cadenza... citation needed
Talk:Symphonie espagnole

message: About:
    It was common practice until the middle of the 20th century for performances of the
    work to omit the Intermezzo,[3] leaving a four-movement work that more closely
    reflected the traditional structure of a symphony.
So, how does that work? We blithely override the opinion of the composer himself, and simply circumcise his composition, because it's all about "tradition," after all, and we know better?
What am I missing here? There's got to be more to the story. Toddcs (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omitting the Intermezzo
Talk:Oboe Concerto (Marcello)

message: I don't see the obvious pick from the list here: Harpsichord_concertos_(J._S._Bach).  The one in C minor is for two pianos and the claim is that the source is "lost".  Is there a mistake in either that article or this article? DavidRF (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The list you referenced is of concertos for harpsichord with an accompaniment of ripieno instruments. Marcello's concerto that is the subject of this Wikipedia article is a concerto for oboe with an accompaniment of ripieno strings, but Bach's transcription (BWV 974) is for solo harpsichord. You will instead find Bach's transcription listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solo_keyboard_compositions_by_Johann_Sebastian_Bach#Keyboard_arrangements_of_concerti_by_other_composers_.28972.E2.80.93987.29. Therefore no mistake is indicated. --Matt1685 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  BWV number for the Bach transcription? 
Talk:Trumpet Concerto (Hummel)

message: Add information on available recordings. My favorite is the Balsom one, of course. 83.79.132.36 (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recordings

message: Shouldn't it be noted that the intro to the first movement sounds uncannily similar to Mozart's 35th, first movement?
68.106.16.98 (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting observation. Generally speaking Wikipedia is a summary of knowledge from published sources rather than original research. Is this an observation that you can credit to a published source? --dbolton (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarity to Mozart's 35th
Talk:Etudes in Twelve Exercises

message: Seems a bit redundant to me to have a separate article for this the first version of the etudes, when: firstly we don't have one for the second version; secondly, we discuss the main differences in the main Transcendental Etudes article; and thirdy, we have individual articles for each etude, where peculiarities can be discussed. I'd understand if the article could be expanded; but anything that could be put here to elaborate I feel would be better placed in individual etude's articles. Thanks, M A Mason 15:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, absolutely. I don't see how this page will ever be much more, better that it should just be added as some history on the main article. Mallocks 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Transcendental Etudes]]? 

message: The original name apparently was Étude en douze exercises - not Études - suggesting that the set was conceived as a whole, but I may be overthinking that. Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The precise title was Etude en quarante-huit exercises, although only twelve pieces were achieved.85.22.125.39 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 08:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: About the renaming
Talk:Messiah Stradivarius

message: References in this article are very specific in regards to one of the historic owners of the Messiah Stradivari- J.B. Vuillaume  played a major role in its history.His son-in-law Jean-Delphin Alard nick named the instrument as such (Le Messie).
The list of publications is very specific to the subject of this instrument and its maker, Antonio Stradivari.
Please respect the article by not deleting valuable information.Milliot (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

message: If "it has apparently never been played", then how does anybody know it's a "marvelous instrument"?  (It looks good?)
Is its fame purely *because* of its nickname, and the fact that it's never been played?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.72.2 (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never played?
Talk:Grandes études de Paganini

message: The main content of this entry has been copied (without indication!) from the booklet of Leslie Howard's Paganini Études CD:
http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/notes/d8f0e3226de86ef8/67193-B.pdf
http://www.hyperion-records.co.uk/al.asp?al=CDA67193
I strongly believe this article should be removed or cleaned up.
189.34.55.213 (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes you are absolutely correct, it's plagiarism. it appears the edit by 116.228.56.250, made at 03:57, October 31, 2008, description 'total overhaul of the article' is the source of this. I'm thinking the best course of action would be to revert the article to the directly previous edit and going from there... --Wikiperson0202 (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Copied material has now been deleted.  The Hyperion notes (from Leslie Howard, who I believe is one of the foremost Liszt scholars in the world) could certainly be used as a source - but copying this material verbatim is simply plagiarism. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Muntz Stradivarius

message: The RT-link about trouble with German customs is broken. I found two sources in German, there are plenty others in various languages:
* https://www.sueddeutsche.de/geld/streit-beim-zoll-steuervorteil-stradivari-1.1490373 (Süddeutsche is one of the biggest newspapers in Germany) 
* https://www.musik-in-dresden.de/2012/10/12/aus-zollnerhanden-zuruck-zur-kunstlerin-stradivari-the-muntz-von-1736/ (local Dresden publication about music business in the city)
* https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rare-violins-get-caught-by-customs-rule-76qvdx88mv5 (The Times, UK)
Could someone with more wiki-foo check this and correct the link?
2003:EF:EF1D:AA00:2E0:81FF:FED3:287D (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link broken: customs trouble
Talk:Three Concert Études

message: Should we merge Three Concert Etudes and Un Sospiro?  Rather than having a stub about the full pieces and a separate article for the most notable section, have the most notable section as a main talking point in this article.  --Sketchee (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with merging. --Kleinzach 10:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  --Kleinzach 10:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Comments-
- This piece is very nice and steady and is very calm
- There is a climax and you will have to play loud
- I never knew Liszt never cried
- I know why this piece is named Un sospiro now - User:24.185.67.43User Talk:24.185.67.43  12:14 March 27, 2011
: I had no idea what you were talking about, so I checked the article.  I have now removed the offending passage you inserted, and restored the passage about the dedication that you removed.   I assume good faith, but please take more care with your edits in future, and please only add material that comes from a reliable source, and tell us what your source is.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment
Talk:Transcendental Étude No. 4 (Liszt)

message: I don't believe this is the "hardest of the twelve etudes" nor do most pianists that i know. Is there a source for that? Number 5 is usually considered the hardest, in my experience.
Help, Wikipedia also says the poem is by Byron !!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.195.102 (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Octave mandolin

message: I've just removed almost half the article and feel more than a little bad about it. However, I felt they were far too inaccurate and I just don't have the time to rewrite them right now. If somebody else wants to do the job, here are some facts:
===History===
The octave mandolin (or whatever you like to call it is not a "modern invention like the Irish bouxouki". The (GDAE-tuned) mandola was the common instrument for the third part of European mandolin quartets at least as early as 1900, probably a bit earlier. At about the same time in USA Elias Howe included the "octave mandolin" in his range of Howe-Orme archtop mandos and guitars.
===Construction===
The instrument should be compared to the other instruments in the mandolin family, not to the Irish cittern and Irish bouzouki.
Frank Nordberg (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: History and construction

message: The instrument should be compared to the other instruments in the mandolin family, not to the Irish cittern and Irish bouzouki.
Frank Nordberg (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Construction

message: This page says that they are the same instrument, though the Irish bouzouki page doesn't; and it's pretty much true, as the essential difference is scale length of the two instruments. Should the pages be merged with a different section for Irish bouzouki? Thoughts?
Dan Cottrell (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Irish bouzouki?
Talk:Transcendental Étude No. 8 (Liszt)

message: I'm not sure how helpful the sheet music found here is, considering the key signature is not visible. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheet music 

message: The article says that the piece is monothematic as the second subject is derived from the first, but is there proof of this connection? The subjects are so different to the ear that it is very well possible that list developed them independently.  RyanAl6 (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monothematic or Dithematic?
Talk:Étude Op. 10, No. 7 (Chopin)

message: It seems to me as though this etude is more a study of repeated notes than changing intervals. The lowest note of the right hand is always repeated. My version of the etude suggests that these repeated notes use separate fingers. First 2, then 1. My edition was edited by Palmer and I am unsure if the fingering is Chopin's original or editorial.
170.140.93.42 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What this etude studies
Talk:Étude Op. 25, No. 1 (Chopin)

message: First, the edition used fails to print the first note of each beat as a principal note, but instead uses "cue" notes (the same as the following 5 notes of each sextuplet).  This is in contradiction of every major edition.  
Second, can't a better recording be found?  I have several "beefs" about this one! It is played on an Erard piano, built in 1851. This is not period-accurate, since the Etude was composed in 1832, and Chopin died in 1849. Chopin's favourite piano was the Pleyel (eventually he would perform on no other).  We need a recording which uses a Pleyel...preferably one from about 1832, if we are trying to be "authentic". But why not use a recording played an a modern (and decidedly superior) instrument? The interpretation is about the most questionable of any I've heard.  WHY does the pianist play every melody note TWICE, when written ONCE? (This is definitely NOT a case of "bouncing hammers".)
Let's clean up!  Prof.rick (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better score and recording needed! 

message: I felt a need to clarify several details in this section.  Most importantly, this work can hardly be defined in terms of "two themes", but instead, the development of a single theme.  I have also tried to clarify elements of the voicings.  Prof.rick (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Chopin would be dismayed, if not irrate, at these "titles" which various editors (and the public) have attached to his works.  As a composer myself, I must make one point clear:  As soon as you "define" (i.e., add a title), you "confine" (limiting the endless meanings of the music.  I am therefore removing this link (out of respect for the composer).  Prof.rick (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: In this rewrite, I have attempted to describe the nature of the technique required to play this work with artistry and conviction.  I hope that those who have achieved this goal would agree with my description.  Prof.rick 14:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting that your version implies the opposite of what the previous version stated.  I'm not a pianist myself, so I can't give an opinion on which version is more correct, but the addition of cited sources to the section would help if anyone were to contest the section's validity. ThemFromSpace 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite of "Technique" 

message: The external link to the Pritchard performance has been restored.  Prof.rick 15:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link restored
Talk:Bismarck Sea

message: On one of the maps in this article, the name Britain is misspelled as Britian, twice. SamEV (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map typos
Talk:Étude Op. 25, No. 5 (Chopin)

message: Hi, just wondering, does
> Martha Goldstein playing on an Erard (1851) - 3456KB
mean the Erard was made in 1851? As Martha Goldstein wasn't born at that time, I think it might be more clear if it was mentioned what (1851) meant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.72.146 (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about recording subtitle
Talk:Pandiatonicism

message: I agree that much of Petrushka is an example of pandiatonicism, but the introduction implies that Stravinsky wrote pandiatonically in his neoclassic period exclusively.  I would change it, but I am not sure whether "neoclassic period" should be changed to "Russian period" or removed completely- I do not know enough about Stravinsky to make that call 72.88.227.172 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment
Talk:Chushi Gangdruk

message: I have removed http://www.chushigangdruk.org from External Links. After some inspection, it appears the current site is a SEO-link site. Even though it contains related Spanish text, it is laced with links to porn sites. According to Wayback machine, the domain was a website for Dhokham Chushi Gangdruk up until August 2015. Given Dhokham Chushi Gangdruk (a charity) is not the exact same organization as the one in the article, I have removed it. --Voidvector (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  chushigangdruk.org 
Talk:What U Gon' Do

message: Does anyone know the official times for the remixes of this song?
TeePee-20.7 06:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time 

message: Seems this article would do better folded into Crunk Juice Lots42 00:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion
Talk:Saw sam sai

message: Discussion of the infobox that just showed up is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments. __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: This draft is much more extensive than the article and should be folded in. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I've replaced the infobox and the article body with that of the draft, and combined the leads. The draft appears to have been created as part of a course assignment. While many other articles from the same course were quite problematic, with machine translations and copyvio issues, this one appears to be quite good. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Draft:Saw sam sai]] into [[Saw sam sai]]
Talk:Tibetan Refugee Self Help Centre

message: Why is the name of this article incorrect? It is CentRE not CentER, see: http://www.tibetancentredarjeeling.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.250.16 (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Name
Talk:Sound hole

message: I'd like to add a reference to the 'Cats-eye' shape as used by Richenbacker and others. This may seem like a daft question but is it 'cats-eye' or 'cat's-eye'? And is it hyphenated? Doozy88 12:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please fix - someone knowledgeable. S-hole and F-hole are used as interchangeable in the text, and this should be explained or expanded. 173.57.26.204 (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative sound hole designs

message: Does that mean there is an A-hole on musical instrument as well? Jacob Poon 01:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the F-hole?

message: I'd like for someone knowledgeable to write a section on the acoustics of the different designs, or maybe just some stuff about the differences in regular guitar sound holes - I hear from people that a bigger hole means less bass, more treble, and vice versa. The physics behind this would be most interesting and would lead to a good linkage to other articles about acoustics.
Thank you! 188.114.162.167 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acoustics of sound hole designs 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Occhio. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Occhio until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Occhio" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:Fender Stratocaster XII

message: My stratocaster xii is black, it was made in 1986. On the head stock it says Fender Stratocaster XII, compared to the modern one which just says Fender Stratocaster, Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.95.124 (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors and differences in models 

message: I can't get this picture--:Image:My_strat_XII_001.jpg--to display inside the infobox (:Template:Infobox Guitar model). If anyone can figure how to do that, I be grateful. Of course, if you can't, just put in the gallery I created. — Ultor_Solis • T 03:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting images to display