Talk:Classical guitar

message: I added a section on technique yesterday. I'll have to go back at some point and add all the cross-references. Also, I suppose I should tidy up the grammar too. --Benzzene 10:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technique

message: Does the information about Greg Williams focusing on playing Wedding Ceremonies in Northern Calfifornia really belong in an Encyclopedia article about Classical Guitar? I'm asking because I honestly am not sure.Randyoo 04:12, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Greg Williams

message: http://www.eythorsson.com/en/
You can add this link.  Nice scores. User:333 14:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean nice rubbish link it appears to be one of those domain name place holders more then anything else. Somebody here with more authority please delete it and my reply to it Alan Kroeger 19:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice link 

message: Is this the best way to describe the guitar (as a list)?--Light current 15:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of features 

message: The link to Adam Holzman goes to a jazz keyboardist, not the classical guitar performing artist and professor at University of Texas. I don't really know how to fix that. --Amazzing5 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern performers 

message: There is a lot of duplicate information between this page and  List of composers for the classical guitar and some with Classical guitar music. Perhaps there could be --some-- merging (at least of information). This page has much better organization than the list, but not as many composers. I understand the concept of having the "highlights" so to speak, but it still seems like a lot of room for error. Also, very few of the composers show up in :Category:Composers for guitar. --Amazzing5 16:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: Would it be frowned upon to add a link to classical guitar tabs? If not, add www.classtab.org to the links. Lovok 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I'm not assessing whether tabs are good or bad, I'm just saying they don't belong in the field of classical guitar. It would be something like giving standard notation to a rock guitarist. F15x28 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Allthough tabs usually don't have as much information as sheet music they are still useful for many people. I myself think that it is nice to have the tabs in addition to the normal notes, as it is easier to visualize where you are supposed to place your fingers Hauberg 08:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been playing classical guitar for 4 years using only tabs. Lauro - Negrito, Adrienne, Natalia, many others. I think a link to tabs has a place 24.164.158.180 01:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabs 

message: When the Contents panel is hidden, the portal section moves up the screen and half of it can no longer be seen. Lovok 18:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glitch-ish 

message: Nylon strings are not gut strings.  Nylon is a synthetic material that was not created until sometime in the 20th century.  Gut strings are made from ox's guts and have a good history of predating Nylon strings.  I would like the section where it refers to Nylon strings as gut to be altered to be more historically accurate.
* At Wikipedia, anyone can be an editor. If you identify a section that needs alterations or additions, and have the knowledge to make them, then please do so! Jerry picker 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gut Strings 

message: Where the article says:
> The finest guitars are built with a solid Western red cedar or spruce top, solid rosewood back and sides,
Inexpensive instruments are made with laminated rather than solid wood since laminated is cheaper and less susceptible to cracking during assembly and shipping. However, some of the world's finest classical guitars are also made with laminated back and/or sides not for cost or durability issues but because of the maker's theory of design. John Williams, the patriarch of players since Segovia's passing, plays a guitar made by Greg Smallman of Australia, the back and sides of which are made with laminated wood. Ana Vidovic, an incredibly talented player in her twenties, plays a guitar made by Jim Redgate that also uses laminated back and sides. Ramirez of Spain makes models with laminated sides and others with solid sides; his most expensive models use laminated wood. Christopher Parkening plays a Ramirez guitar. Friederich of France uses laminated sides; Angel Romero plays one.
:Well materials, accepted construction methods, etc have changed through time ecological and availability of materials issues exist now that didn't even 30 years ago. So it is more a matter of describing these factors. Now you probably see a few complaints already exist about the length of this article. If there was an attempt to add an aspect of every deviation and variation then the article would have to be longer then it is. At the very least there would need to be a sub page for everything that is implied or written here. Best bet is to leave it out and get rid of terminology like "The finest" say something like this "Many guitars are built with a solid Western red cedar or spruce top, solid rosewood back and sides but there are versions that use laminated woods for all or portions of the instrument. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alankroeger (talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solid vs. laminated wood 

message: In the Frets topic:
> Frets are the spaces between the fretwires which are the metal strips (usually nickel alloy or stainless steel) embedded along the fretboard
This is non-standard usage, and I'm surprised to see it. Nearly everyone, if not everyone, uses the word "fret" the way this author is using "fretwire". The fret, in standard usage, is the metal wire across the fretboard. Players refer to fret wire only in specific discussion about e.g. how large they are on a particular instrument, or whether they are worn. Jrethorst 03:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frets/fretwires 

message: this article is far too long. it seems to treat the classical guitar as a unique instrument instead of describing the characteristics that set it apart from a normal guitar. this page could be cut down considerably if we remove all the information pertinent to guitars in general (i.e. how it's tuned, what the frets and neck are, etc) and focus on what is unique to classical guitars. 67.172.61.222 23:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: so why does it have it's own page when it contains the majority of the same content as the guitar article? 67.172.61.222 23:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  type of guitar 

message: Not meaning to cause offence here, but I couldn't help but notice that the picture in the article was rather... old. I think that in order to keep up with the times, we should show a moderner guitar that can demonstrate to the reader that, classical guitars can have cut outs to access the higher frets and an example where a pick up is used with the option to change the tone of your guitar.
--Mikeoman 23:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernising the physical characteristics 

message: Hi People
Very nice Wiki on the Classical Guitar! 
I have added an external link to a social networking page specifically for Classical Guitarists which I hope you or any of your Wiki viewers will take the time to visit and perhaps become a member of.
The site is called "The Classical Guitar Network"
--Thewizardalbany 11:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Guitar Social Networking Site 

message: I would like to question the sources of the statement appearing at the beginning of the article.
"The history of the classical guitar and its repertoire span over four centuries, including its ancestor the baroque guitar."
While it cannot be denied that the two instruments by similar name are related, there appears to be little or no information either in the article baroque guitar, or in the article classical guitar in regard to the baroque guitar itself. It seems then to be slightly inappropriate to mention the baroque guitar as the 'ancestor' without justification and perhaps I might suggest that given the role of the Baroque guitar being closer in nature to other accompaniment instruments in the continuo ,as it was mainly strummed and almost never a solo medium, it would be more appropriate to follow the music of the Vihuela as a solo contapunctal instrument through to the 19th Century guitar music of the Classical period. Or alternatively I would suggest leaving them separate altogether and beginning the Classical guitar article not as an evolution of the instruments construction but rather an evolution of function\style beinning with the classical period. 
I believe the current opening statement to be both confusing and somewhat misleading.
--Lennon808808 12:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of the guitar. 

message: "Spanish Guitar" redirects here.  However, the article reads "Note: The classical guitar of northern Europe is often confused with the Spanish guitar. The Spanish guitar is an arch topped instrument with two f hole apertures in the body's sounding board and is of similar internal construction to instruments of the viol family. While the neck, freting and tuning pegs of the classical and Spanish guitars have much in common, their body construction are vastly different."  But a quick Google images search easily demonstrates that the term 'spanish guitar' very much means a classical guitar used for non-classical Spanish music, I had to go through 13 pages of image results before seeing a single image of an instrument with f-holes, and even that one turned out to be an electric semi-acoustic on a domain holding page.  It also showed a large number of performers who believed they had a music career playing Spanish guitar (and holding an instrument which looks like a classical guitar and does not have f-holes), I expect these gentlemen would presumably be offended to be told they'd "confused" their instrument with a Spanish guitar.  I believe the quoted text from the article is therefore wrong, though I'm not a subject-matter expert to offer replacement text, it certainly seems that in real-world usage in the English language, a 'Spanish' guitar is virtually interchangeable with a 'classical' guitar other than the difference in playing style the instrument's used for. RorschachUK (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The real name of classic guitar is spanish guitar, it was invented and developed in Spain, and the Spanish guitar is an evolution of Latin guitar (Spanish), Today all guitars are a variation of the Spanish guitar and why is known by the nickname of classical guitar, but his real name is Spanish guitar
The original name is Spanish guitar (classic, flamenco, Argentinian etc are derived from it). Often in Spain If you go to a shop you have to specify that you want a classic or a flamenco one, to distinguish the type knowing the two types are Spanish guitar ones (nylon six string based).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.134.167.78 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish guitar 

message: I am of the opinion that the technical performance information, although well written and valuable, appears too early in the article. IMO the article should broadly follow the following outline: Definition, History, construction, repertoire etc and lastly performance information. The article is, or ought to be, primarily about the instrument itself, not about how it is played.
I will leave this open to discussion for two weeks from and then return to make possible changes. RichardJ Christie (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I´m aware that this talk is getting quite old, but I prefer to enter it here instead of creating a new talk on the same matter.
As much as I like the introduction I think the final 2 paragraphs could be deleted or merged with latter parts.
* To state that the guitar is a "popular instrument" seems unnecessary(?), and information on existing guitar festivals, summer courses and competitions could be pointed out elsewhere.
* To explain that the "modern classical guitar is usually played in a seated position" is a fact that we don´t need in an introduction and could be moved to technical aspects of guitar performing.
Deleting or moving these would raise the content-box to be included as one enter the page, which then again facilitates browsing on the article. --Svindland (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article organisation 

message: Current article has a section on truss rods, which states Most classical guitars do not have truss rods, as the nylon strings do not put enough tension on the neck for one to be needed.
Do any classical guitars have a truss rod? I'm skeptical. The strings don't generate enough tension to need one, and if they did they'd pull the bridge clean off the belly. High-end guitars often have an insert of ebony or similar stiffening material in the neck, but not a truss rod. Andrewa (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither have I heard of a truss rod in a classical guitar, and I have never considered the "rigidity of the neck to be a determant on a good instrument versus a poor one" nor have I ever heard this argument in my 7 years of studying classical guitar performance. I suggest it gets deleted as it´s certainly not of any importance. --Svindland (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Truss rod

message: Hi, I was the deleter of the piano comparison that has since been restored in the first para.
The reason I deleted it is that I felt, as one who has recently been arranging a fair amount of piano music for classic guitar and winds, is that it is not an apt comparison.
If you were to say, "much like three of the four parts of a string quartet (cello-viola-violin)" I could buy it, but piano harmony is quite a bit different and more complex than classic guitar harmony.
I'm not going to delete it again, but it might be nice if we could agree on a more modest assertion about the use of multiple voices in classical guitar music. JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Got my eyes on this, but no good cites to offer one way or the other. I have no problem believing that "piano harmony is quite a bit different and more complex than classic guitar harmony." Still, in one sense I think the piano simile is more apt than mentioning a string quartet: Specifically, a piano is usually played by a single musician who must supply the motivation for all the "voices" involved. I'm thinking of Horowitz's transcription of The Stars and Stripes Forever here, which I can't hear as anything more than a highly polished trick. No way that ten fingers managed by one single person can deliver the effect of several dozen individual musicians paying attention to a single work of music. That is an extreme example (I apologize for my negative view of it) and you might be able to make a better case for the guitar having something in common with a string trio or quartet, but I think even that may not qualify as a more modest assertion, given the bowed strings' ability to sustain notes more or less indefinitely.  Carry on, and thanks! __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Think the comparison is a well known and good manner to explain the qualities of a classical guitar. After all some of the most known guitar pieces are originally piano pieces... not to mention the word Asturias:) Compromises usually has to be made when arranging a piano piece for a solo guitar but merely in excluding notes that are not crucial to the harmonic context. And where it´s inferior in harmony as quantity of notes it´s superior in quantity of manners to shape and form the notes. Apart from this (and volume...) the two instruments have very similar musical qualities; - bassline, harmony and melody in one instrument - they both "suffer" from limited sustain of notes (no bow to maintain or even raise the volume) - they both get their sound from strings after action from fingertips - they´re both excluded from the company of orchestra instruments, except for the guest performance in concertos...  Svindland (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Like a piano" 

message: When I was studying classic guitar and classical guitar music in the conservatory in the 1960's and 1970's, the instrument was the "classic guitar" and the classical repertoire for the instrument was "classical guitar". "Classical guitar" as the name for the instrument is a solipsism that hardly matters in conversation, but should we correct it for Wikipedia? I will not "fuss" about this and am simply volunteering to help with the massive editing task that would entail from the community deciding the correction is desirable. __ JacquesDelaguerre (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I know that Thomas F Heck called it classic guitar in his thesis and (later) book on Mauro Giuliani. But today it really is more well known as classical guitar. Perhaps one can solve this very simply, by just adding classic guitar in brackets... I would not change the article title to classic guitar. MySorAccount (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical guitar vs Classic guitar 

message: I find the section Background information both misleading and inappropriate for an encyclpedia article. 
*Background information is not a headline that properly explains what the section is about. I suggest it could be changed to "Classical guitarists" with a reference to "main article:" or "see also:" List of classical guitarists. This would be a fine way of enabling browsing between two articles that are closely related.
*The latter part with the Hebb interview does in my opinion not belong in an encyclopedia article. However the distuinguished this pesonality might be (and however we might agree) it´s a highly subjective viewpoint and down right offending to the many fine new guitarists and classical performers evolving on the music scene today.
* But the short list of performers ranging from Sanz to Williams is a fine introduction and summary to the related article list of classical guitarists or the Category:Classical guitarists. --Svindland (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background information 

message: After spending quite a while on studying the article and it´s discussion I´ve decided to do some editing in order to further clarify the context and improve it´s readability.
I have a deep respect of all the work that has been put behind the writing and therefore think it´s at its place to inform of the changes made and reasons for making them. If anyone consider the changes inapropriate this will also make an "undo" a great deal easier. This list will expand as I go along, and I encourage other editors to add their contributions in order to improve on the article.
::Edits that have taken place;
* Playable/Reachable notes of the guitar has been shortened and re-written. I thought of removing it completely as I found the statements like "Important for the notes playable on the guitar, are the left-hand's position, since it determines the reachable frets..." to be like saying "in order to play a high note on the right side of the piano keyboard you need to place your hand there". It had simply too many words making a rather obvious aspect quite difficult to comprehend. The statement that "open strings can always be played" was also evidently wrong as fretting any other note on a string makes it impossible to play the "open string".--Svindland (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits made to the article 

message: In the section Body it says regarding the top of the guitar: "This thin (often 2 or 3 mm thick) piece of wood...", and a few lines below in section Binding, purfing and kerfling it says: "The top, back and sides of a classical guitar body are very thin (1–2 mm)". We should make up our mind:) A citation is also needed to confirm the accuracy, as is the case with many bold statements in this article??? --Svindland (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2-3mm thick or 1-2mm thick 

message: I'm not sure why this article has a Bibliography section.  Are these references, or further reading? --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography

message: Two recent edits may need some explanation and further work:
*1 remove a  tag for this image.
*2 add the Modern Period section.
Re 1: I am happy to leave the link to an external image as a reference for now, but editors should be aware that the tag indicates that some evidence that the source meets the reliable sources guideline should be discussed. Is the author described as an authority somewhere?
Re 2: One trivial point is that per WP:MOSHEAD the section should be "Modern period" (lowercase 'p'). The real problem is that the section has no sources, so it probably should be removed as original research. Rather than remove it now, I think we should see if the wording can be improved, and reliable sources added. However any editors new to Wikipedia need to understand that we simply do not add text that we know is true because there is no procedure to determine who is a good editor and an authority on the subject; instead, we rely on verifiability. Finally, an embedded external link has been added as an "example of this style". That will be removed because it cannot be converted into a reference since youtube is not a reliable source. Articles are not written in that manner.
Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Excuse me? I've grown up around guitars, and I would agree with the basic information in this article, but it's got a lot of claims and very few citations. I'm not strictly speaking an editor, or I would try to add that box that appears at the top of the article suggesting that the article needs cleanup. You guys are contributing a lot of potentially valuable guitar trivia and statistics, but we need at least a few more citations evenly distributed throughout. -imatroll184.158.41.98 (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations?

message: What happened to 10, 11, and 13? Okay, 13 is unlucky I suppose, but still...TheScotch (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parts of the guitar: Missing numbers 

message: One the one hand, one wonders what purpose this section serves, and by extension, why there is not a Famous Nonliving Performers section.
But the real problem, on the other hand, is the choices presented.  I will concur that John Williams and Pepe Romero are "famous living performers."  But, Xuefei Yang and Kaori Muraji are rather bizarre as members of this list.  I can easily name 50 more famous "living performers."  And, surely, if you include a classical guitarist from Japan it would have to be Kazuhito Yamashita.  So, why are not Julian Bream, Christopher Parkening, Eliot Fisk, David Russell, Oscar Ghiglia, Jorge Caballero, Marcin Dylla, et al not included?
This kind of imbecilic ineptitude makes one wonder at the veracity of the rest of the article, which, overall and in a word, sucks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarvinLuse (talk • contribs) 03:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Living Performers [sic]???????? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Classical guitar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725002715/http://mediatheque.cite-musique.fr:80/masc/?INSTANCE=CITEMUSIQUE&URL=/clientbooklineCIMU/toolkit/p_requests/FSFormulaire.asp?GRILLE=CIMUINSTRUMENTAVANCEE_0&TYPEMENU=catalogue-instrumentoeuvre-bandeau.asp?TYPESOUSMENU=2 to http://mediatheque.cite-musique.fr/masc/?INSTANCE=CITEMUSIQUE&URL=/clientbooklineCIMU/toolkit/p_requests/FSFormulaire.asp?GRILLE=CIMUINSTRUMENTAVANCEE_0&TYPEMENU=catalogue-instrumentoeuvre-bandeau.asp?TYPESOUSMENU=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Classical guitar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100313073529/http://mediatheque.cite-musique.fr/mediacomposite/cmdm/cmdm000000700/guitare_musee_00.htm to http://mediatheque.cite-musique.fr/MediaComposite/CMDM/CMDM000000700/guitare_musee_00.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mediatheque.cite-musique.fr/masc/?INSTANCE=CITEMUSIQUE&URL=%2FclientbooklineCIMU%2Ftoolkit%2Fp_requests%2FFSFormulaire.asp%3FGRILLE%3DCIMUINSTRUMENTAVANCEE_0&TYPEMENU=catalogue-instrumentoeuvre-bandeau.asp%3FTYPESOUSMENU%3D2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727124922/http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/6634w.pdf to http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/6634w.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530073212/http://www.egta.co.uk/content/rakinterview to http://www.egta.co.uk/content/rakinterview
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :Greetings: I have been involved in "external links" cleanup for some time as an external links patroler. I tagged the article and saw there has been a long discussion concerning "External links". There are policies and guidelines (as well as broad community backed essays) that cover external links to include:
*Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember (#3): "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.".
*Wikipedia:External links#Links to be considered: "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page.", with #2 providing exceptions for a possible increase on a case-by-case basis.  
:A rationale to circumvent policy is always WP:IGNORE, explained more in Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, and for this encyclopedia means "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.".
: Things to be considered: 
*This encyclopedia has thrived with a concept of  consensus. This allows consistency of articles by conforming to a set of community supported policies, guidelines, and even essays. A consensus of editors on articles, or even projects, cannot over-ride broad community-wide consensus.
: Stating all this, which sometimes has proven not to matter, anything short of reducing the links "must" have a broad community consensus, including WP:IGNORE, that can be subjective. Inquiries can be opened at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), or this can be solved by dispute resolution; See: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. 
:A drive, regardless of reasoning, to change policy by article additions does not take the place of broad community acceptance (policy change or exemptions) as silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies, nor does consensus by silence, as: "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident..."]].
:I would "like" some constructive dialog to resolve this issue, in lieu of WP:BRD, as I read some of the past discussions. I have not gone any farther in the history or diff's to see if the "External links" were added to after the fact. Regardless, there are too many links and this does need attention. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I see a lot of text without citations. The prose is excruciatingly dull, with the subject disappearing into the esoteric and minutiae. I see no purpose for the small section Living performers when there is a link to a list of current classical guitarists.Vmavanti (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and citations needed 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Classical guitar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Classical guitar until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Classical guitar]] for deletion