Talk:List of classical pianists

message: This list should require that only notable entries with their own main articles can be included here, as in other similar lists. If a person does not even have their own article, it is dubious as to why they should be mentioned here. Shawnc 01:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt it could be "trimmed" (I do try and keep an eye on new entries, but I've never had time to go through the whole list), but it's also perfectly possible that a genuinely notable performer has not yet had an article written about them, a red-link here will hopefully give someone the idea of writing that article.  Do you have an example of a similar list wehre all red-links have been removed?  David Underdown 11:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a sort of vanity in the idea that if you are not in Wikipedia you are not notable. There are indeed many pianists who have had distinguished performing and recording careers who are not yet on WP.  Rconroy 23:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is an objection.  Please see and discuss in #Pianists without articles, below.  TJRC (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Hello,
I think it might be opportune to separate the list between pianist composers of classical music, and performers of other classical pianist 
composers..   Or maybe it would be better just to specify whether pianists in the list are composers or performers..
Obviously I couldn't do this massive job all alone but I could help.
I think this might be important.. In my case, I was going to research all the notables pianist composers of classical music because
(I know, I'm quite crazy but, for me, music is life) I'd like to listen to ALL of them.
I'm waiting to receive opinions on this subject..
Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alekos985 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea, but on the whole I can't say that I'm in favor.  For one thing, we already have separate lists for pianists who recorded and for pianists who played in multi-pianist teams; while I consider both subdivisions useful, the thought of maintaining and policing yet another one is, shall we say, not inviting.  For another, leaving aside the problem of how to categorize pianists who merely dabbled a bit in composition on the side, it would probably end up largely placing all the pre-20th-century artists in the "composer/pianist" list and all the ones from the recorded era in the "played the music of others" list. Drhoehl (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  classical pianist: performer or composer? 

message: I suggest we change the wording "This is an alphabetized list of notable solo pianists who play or played classical music." to "This is an alphabetized list of notable solo pianists who play or played classical music and have dedicated articles in Wikipedia.". --Kleinzach 00:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose  The proposed wording would be a self reference, which should be avoided in the article text, per the WP:ASR guideline.  We should put the inclusion criterion here on the talk page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know the latter was possible. Are you saying there is a template or something to do this? --Kleinzach 13:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

text: As I've outlined in earlier discussion, I think judicious inclusion of red links is appropriate in this list as it has developed to date.  Given that mine seems not to be the prevailing view, in practice if not as a matter of consensus, however, I'd endorse the suggestion as a good compromise.  It avoids leaving the ordinary reader with any impression that inclusion in or omission from the list carries any significance beyond "hey, there's no readily available information about this guy on the web from which easily to assemble a Wikipedia article," and it actually takes what has been just a list of names and expressly repurposes it as a convenient portal leading to articles of interest to a defined readership.  The "self-reference" objection strikes me as no real impediment.  This is a list, after all, not really an article as such; under the circumstances any transgression seems minor compared to the benefit to be achieved.  As to placing a notice on the talk page, in practice it might as well appear in one of those "Newspapers of General Circulation" that publish bankruptcy filings and probate notices—and that nobody but a law clerk ever reads. Drhoehl (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: This list is becoming a spam magnet. Virtually every recent adddition of a red link has been a COI. These types of unreferenced lists are meant to be navigation aids only, not aide-memoires to projects for articles that should be created, or ways for non-notables to get their name mentioned on Wikipedia. Such lists belong in Project space or at WP:Articles for creation. I strongly suggest removing the following from the editing box:
::Please note that existence of a Wikipedia article can suggest notability, but absence of such an article does not necessarily denote its lack.  Do not engage in wholesale removal of red links below without first raising the issue on the discussion page.
And explictly stating on the list page that it is for pianists who already have an article on Wikipedia.
- Voceditenore (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links are a real problem here 

message: Song Siheng has been removed. The notability may well be there but the recently added article has been deleted for "unambiguous advertising and copyvio from http://www.kammerorchester.com/en/artists/view?id=4304".  The French Wikipedia has an article :fr:Song Siheng, but if anyone wishes to re-create the article do not do a straight translation from French Wikipedia as it is a copy vio from Radio France. Voceditenore (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Song Siheng]]