lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:String Quartet No. 10 (Beethoven)

message: Much of this discussion appears to derive from an online source on www.classical net - unless theirs is lifted from this Wikipedia original. (Neither appears to acknowledge the other) Whichever came first, the first movement allegro exposition surely starts with a gesture which includes the arpeggio described as a separate theme from -after the brief pause - its natural lyrical response.  This is a bit of an odd way of describing an almost diplomatically regular procedureDelahays (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Talk:String Quartet No. 7 (Beethoven)

message: The section on form seems to be a poorly grounded and needlessly subjective commentary. The notes on "emotional manipulation" and the oddly pejorative employment of the verb "ingratiate" concerning the so-called Russian theme are particularly egregious in this regard. UlrichVonWilamowitzMoellendorff (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Form" and the Russian Theme
Talk:Pechanga Resort & Casino

message: Since the Pechanga Resort & Casino just completed a large expansion a little over a year ago, I think the logo in the infobox and several of the photos should be updated/replaced to reflect this. Could someone provide new photos if they have any? If not, what is the process for uploading new photos? Is it fairly straightforward?
— Pf1127 (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photos/logo
Talk:String Quartets, Op. 18 (Beethoven)

message: Kerman (1967, Beethoven’s String Quartets) has interesting information on a now better-known manuscript copy made by Beethoven in 1799 (usually called the "first version" misleadingly; it's the earliest version we know of, but it's not the autograph manuscript - which is lost - or the provable first complete version that Beethoven wrote, his compositional process from sketches to published work just doesn't exist in anywhere near that state of continuity) - of the F major quartet, sent to Karl Amenda - then later followed with a communication requesting that Amenda not distribute the quartet, as Beethoven had since learned much more about quartet composing and revised the F major quartet extensively (or words to that effect- I've returned my library copy of Kerman, but the words are in that well-known book, will edit when I get a chance.) ... (I wonder though if he revised the D major quartet (1798) before publication too. Kerman also notes that when the last three quartets of this set (chronologically) - Mollo published two groups of quartets, not the whole six of opus 18 as one group - were published, Beethoven mentions that many errors had gone uncorrected in the Mollo edition - Kerman notes that as that edition is almost all we have for those quartets, it's almost impossible to correct those errors today. Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerman
Wikipedia talk:The Zen of Wikipedia

message: Not much here, I'll admit, but I thought the point of "The use of ignore all rules that is noticed is not the true ignore all rules" was important to get across. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 07:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

message: I'm trying to get my mind around this one (#7)
# An editor asked, "has an article featured
 nature or not?" Wikipe-tan said, "Fu."
Why "Fu." ? - Bevo 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a reference to Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, criterion 3. At least I think it is. GracenotesT § 03:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Anyway, it's almost certainly a reference to Mu (negative) as well.  — The Storm Surfer 04:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I caught the reference to Mu (negative) early on.  The koan wikilinks to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:FU .  That does follow a pattern Mu --> Fu --> WP:FU and there is an association of disallowing (as Mu (negative)) inappropriate "Wikipedia:Non-free content" (as covered in WP:FU) in Wikipedia featured articles. - Bevo 16:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why WP:FU 

message: *Every guideline is created to defeat a particular type of problem. If you can determine what the original problems were, you will understand the guideline.
Suitable? Suggested improvements? --Quiddity 05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem with that koan is that it's logical :) GracenotesT § 05:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely we know someone who could obfuscate it beyond comprehension...? ;) --Quiddity 08:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: For these kinds of proto-koans, the simplest procedure, if they're insufficient on their own, is to put it in the mouth of a character, ask "what would be a logical response?" and roll from there. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 20:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: The phrase He summoned his successor to the MedCom is structurally ambiguous (and not really necessary, but whatever).  Is this his successor to the MedCom, or is his successor being summoned to the MedCom?  Also, the clause whom had achieved... doesn't make any sense. — The Storm Surfer 22:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this comment, the first had been changed to to the head of the MedCom, which wasn't much better.  I've reworked the sentence including the who/whom part and hope I've managed to improve it.  If not, revert.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number 18
Talk:Bactrocera dorsalis

message: A quick additional source that may come in handy with covering more behavioral/mating information on the fly: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714078/AnuBalasubramanian (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Mating information

message: Hi, as part of my Behavioral Ecology class at Washington University in St. Louis, I contributed to the B. dorsalis page to make it more comprehensive. I added sections for Description, Distribution, added more to the Life history heading, Food resources, and Interactions with humans. I also added another picture of the fly to the page in the Description section, for an additional view of the fly's coloring and markings. Any feedback is welcome! I also added my references to the References section. Thanks! RappaiT (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behavioral Ecology Project
Talk:Symphony No. 1

message: Why aren't we using pipe syntax here? You don't call Beethoven's First "Symphony No. 1 (Beethoven)" except for Wikipedia's linking purposes. This sort of parenthetical needs to be hidden as much as possible. Anton Mravcek 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:MOSDAB --Jameboy (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: See discussion I initiated at Template talk:Symphonies by number and name#Disambiguation pages?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symphony No. [X] pages
Talk:Symphony No. 4

message: See discussion I initiated at Template talk:Symphonies by number and name#Disambiguation pages?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symphony No. [X] pages 

message: Some of these works have good articles on other wikis (e.g. Magnard's symphonies at fr, 24 of Brian's symphonies at nl-Wikipedia (including no.4 - :nl:Symfonie nr. 4 (Brian)), etc.) Speaking of nl, :nl:Lijst van vierde symfonieën should presumably be language-linked to this page and versa vice... (Symphony No.4, which is a list of 4th symphonies with links; nl's page doesn't always have links, red or otherwise, but is a lengthy and substantial list) ELSchissel (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ills?
Talk:Symphony No. 9

message: What does the bold part mean? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only explanation I can think of is that whoever bolded it in the first place was trying to only bold the subtitle ("Choral," "From the new world") but got all confused. I've removed the bolding, but retained italics for the subtitles. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

message: See discussion I initiated at Template talk:Symphonies by number and name#Disambiguation pages?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symphony No. [X] pages
Talk:Boden's Mate

message: The Bodens Mate article is very insightful and well written.
It demonstrates to the beginning chess player that in reality the queen is not the strongest piece,
and that chess is so much more than blindly moving the queen around like a amateur. 
Here is an game featuring an immeasuably greater brilliant queen sacrafice to viviidly illustrate the
axiom that the queen is a simpleminded chess bully's favorite piece.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1176706
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark25251999 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Talk:Chadhurangam

message: This aricle seems to be exactly the same (other than slight difference in spellings) as Chaturanga.  I suggest they are merged.  Oli Filth 00:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The game as described in this article is the same as chess. Only the name of pieces and some terminology is different. From the other side, chaturanga has completely different (and not exactly known) rules. Instead of merge I would suggest removing this article due to missing sources. Andreas Kaufmann 21:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  May be this article should be merged into new article 'Indian chess', together with Chadarangam‎ srticle. Andreas Kaufmann 21:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:Symphony No. 1 (Ives)

message: These works were performed in Boston and New York at about the same time that Ives was composing his symphony (remembering a note to a review of the Naxos recording of this work, I think, in Fanfare magazine a few years back) so it is indeed possible that Ives knew both of them, just to set that down :) Schissel | Sound the Note! 14:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the finale, close to the very end, there is to my ear a very strong allusion to Tchaikovsky's 5th at the analogous point in the structure. Though closer to quotation than the allusion to Bruckner's 3rd in Simpson's 9th. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm listening to it again. If you have the Sinclair recording on Naxos, cue up around 10:50 in track 8. The similarity to the scherzo of the Pathetique is blatantly obvious. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ives, Tchaikovsky 6, Dvořák 9

message: Why do we specifically mention Andrew Litton and the Dallas Symphony Orchestra? There's nothing special or historic about this recording. Is it paid product placement? One can simply say a performance typically runs xx minutes and is usually accompanied by a filler piece on compact disc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.44.133 (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography
Talk:Symphony No. 2 (Ives)

message: We have the following sentence:
:Comparing Ives' 5th movement with Berio's 3rd movement one can compare the similarities in the quotation techniques, thus a testament to Ives' pointing to the direction that 20th century music would eventually take.
This is just silly (apart from the clunky prose - "comparing ... one can compare the similarities"). There is no such thing as "the direction that 20th century music would eventually take". 20th century music took many directions at many different times - many of them populated by only one or two composers. It is sad and absurd to try and cast Ives and Berio as 
"the eventual direction". Presumably, composers who did not have "similarities in the quotation techniques" are left out in the cold? --Tdent (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The direction 20th century music would eventually take" !
Talk:Symphony No. 12 (Shostakovich)

message: The opening paragraph has what is likely a glaring error. But it is so clear, I wonder if something more is meant. It reads, with my interposed ellipsis: "Dmitri Shostakovich composed his Symphony No. 12 in D minor, Op. 112, ... as his Symphony No. 2."
What is meant by the closing phrase? Perhaps only a word is missing, such as "...dedicated to Lenin, as was Symphony No. 2."? Absent a response in a few months, this phrase should be edited out. Tgkohn (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My only edit to this article was to correct a misspelling that I have been correcting throughout Wikipedia. However, I found that according to the Symphony No. 2 (Shostakovich) article, the symphony is about Lenin's October Revolution. Although the article doesn't use the word "dedicated", the symphony ends with a song that glorifies Lenin by name. So what is meant is that Symphonies 12 and 2 are both about Lenin. It isn't expressed very clearly, but that often happens in articles that attract editors from non-English speaking countries. I made it "... as he did for his Symphony No. 2." Art LaPella (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange, unclear statement
Talk:Composition school

message: Shouldn't this be moved to 'Composition school (chess)' or something?  There are other composition schools in completely different fields, most notably music (which is what I, for one, would have expected an article titled 'Composition school' to be about, especially as if you identify someone as a 'composer' then you are saying by default that they compose music).  Thoughts? KGill talk email 19:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, although I think Chess composition school or School of chess comosition might be better.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Or it might be better to make it a section of Chess composer.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is what I'm going to do.  I don't foresee this article expanding much.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, thanks :-) KGill talk email 00:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title
Talk:Symphony No. 14 (Shostakovich)

message: This symphony is not in G minor, and is the only one of his symphonies to have no key assigned to it. But the list at the bottom of the page keeps saying "in G minor." How to get rid of that? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 11:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a separate edit page for those things.  I've removed the inaccurate key detail. - Lontano 16:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funky display question 
Talk:Czechoslovak Chess Championship

message: Ken Whyld Chess: The Records (1986) has joint winners for a few years, but our table and the external link it is based on have only one.
*1921 – Hromadka, Prokes, Treybal
*1950 – Fichtl and Filip
*1984 – Hort and Jansa
Our article on Ladislav Prokeš also claims he was joint champion in 1921.  The Oxford Companion to Chess says Filip shared the title in 1950 (but doesn't give the name of the co-champion) and also says Jansa was joint champion with Hort in 1984.  Do we know what is correct? Quale (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joint champions?
Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Shostakovich)

message: Requesting consensus to move section to Symphony No. 3 (Shostakovich) discography. See also discussion on Talk:Symphony No. 1 (Shostakovich). Centaur81 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting consensus to move 'Notable Recordings' to new section
Talk:London symphonies

message: I think if we merged the separate articles for these symphonies into this article, this article would be much stronger. --Pixelface (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong oppose per my rationale at Talk:List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal
Talk:Paris symphonies

message: I'm unsure if each of these symphonies should have separate articles. If they were merged into this article, this may become a very good article. --Pixelface (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strong oppose per my rationale at Talk:List of symphonies by Joseph Haydn. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: I don't agree.  The Mannheim School's heydey was 30 years prior to these works and Haydn wrote 81+ symphonies before these Paris works.  A citation has been added for this statement, but I don't understand the claim of influence at all... especially a claim that goes in the lead.DavidRF (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mannheim School influence?
Talk:Symphony No. 10 (Beethoven/Cooper)

message: Kind of silly to elevate Barry Cooper to the level of co-author of this symphony, but, whatever. I guess they think Beethoven's Fifth was so great when Beethoven started to work on it. James470 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Silly co-author

message: Excuse me for being very judgmental, but I have a feeling that the paragraph about Gerd Prengel, discussing his "completions," were added by Gerd Prengel himself, for sake of drawing more views to the YouTube video referenced.  I hate deleting anything on Wikipedia, so I will not, but since the Prengel "completions" are quite inferior to what Beethoven did with coutless similar themes over his lifetime, not to mention inferior to the Barry Cooper completions of other movements, I find them unworthy of discussion in a site of such pretentions as this.  That they were never performed (the recording is obviously MIDI), adds veracity to my claim.  Wikipedia is not a place for advertising.  If you don't agree, by all means don't delete the paragraph; I will not delete anything myself.  98.15.203.43 (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-promotion

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: No consensus - Essentially there is not sufficient agreement about whether a move to Symphony No. 10 (Beethoven) would accurately reflect the authorship of the piece. No point relisting this again as there have been no further !votes. If further move proposals are intended, then perhaps a different name should be proposed that would fully address the concerns about accuracy.   (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Symphony No. 10 (Beethoven/Cooper) →  – Beethoven's hypothetical tenth symphony based on fragmentary sketches for the first movement assembled by Barry Cooper in 1988. Recently, artificial intelligence reconstruct the third and fourth movements and arranged by organist Cameron Carpenter. 49.150.96.127 (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Strong oppose and snow close not only does this proposal make no sense (this article is about Cooper's reconstruction, not an AI), there is absolutely no acceptance or evidence that the AI produced anything remotely close to Beethoven's original intent (which is what changing the title would imply). The nominator has provided no sourcing and a rather non-existent rationale. Honestly, it feels silly even taking the time to write my comment, I'm WP:AGF on this one. Aza24 (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 October 2021
Talk:Symphony No. 11 (Michael Haydn)

message: This work was early on published partially (first two movements only), its finale substituted with a transposed version of the finale of Haydn's "Fire" (no.59) symphony, as a symphony attributed entirely to Joseph Haydn (see Hobokens Werkverzeichnis, also RISM) - the incipits of the first two movements of Hob.I:B2 are the same as the first two movements of Michael Haydn's symphony no.11. Published by JJ Hummel ca.1770 along with J. Haydn's symphonies 20 and 41 as "Op.10". Schissel | Sound the Note! 01:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication
Talk:Symphony No. 12 (Michael Haydn)

message: Here is a blurb about a canonic minuet found in HCRL.  I don't have a recording of this symphony so I can't confirm Landon's point.  Is the canon is actually there?  If so, please add the following paragraph.
:The minuet features a canon between high and low strings at the interval of a single bar.  Michael Haydn likely learned this technique from Joseph Haydn's 23rd Symphony from 1764 (also in G major).HC Robbins Landon, Haydn: Chronicle and Works, 5 vols, (Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press, 1976-) v. 1, Haydn: the Early Years, 1732-1765
Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canonic Minuet?
Talk:Symphony No. 14 (Michael Haydn)

message: If the finale is in E and unusually in the subdominant, that is cause for comment, I think. Any conjecture- whether it is an incomplete work, for example- that has been made? Schissel | Sound the Note! 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, done, in a more comprehensive update.  I've found a (the only) recording of this work, and the most unusual thing about it is that the second movement is titled "Concertino per il Fagotto".  Well worth hearing. Groogle (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Symphony No. 15 (Michael Haydn)

message: Probably only in symphonies, not so rare in chamber music, and in symphonies only rare by proportional amount - lots of symphonies out there. Also at least: Mendelssohn's "Scottish"; Max Bruch's symphony no. 1 (1867-8, I think), George Onslow's 4th symphony (about 1847); Eduard Franck's symphony op. 52 (1883), the minuetto second movement of Louis Théodore Gouvy's fifth symphony (1865) (also recently recorded), most of Joachim Raff's symphonies (symphonies 1 in 5 mvts. of 1859-61, 4 of 1871, 6 of 1873, 7 of 1875, 8 of 1876, 9-11 of 1878, 1879 and 1876), Hubert Parry's 2nd symphony (1883, though revised 1887); Felix Draeseke's 1st symphony (1868-72);  Charles Villiers Stanford symphonies 1 (1876), 3 (1887); George Whitefield Chadwick's 2nd symphony (1886); (which predate or are contemporary with Bruckner 8 (1887) though not the original version of Bruckner 2 (which latter version is probably about as well-known as most of these examples today, though; Raff in his own time was very well-known, on the other hand, and might well have influenced some other composers...) Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scherzo second rare?
Talk:Blue Lake Township, Muskegon County, Michigan

message: Should we include something about Owasippe Scout Reservation in the list of notable institutions?
It seems a little odd to have the OSR reference in the intro to the "township"
The camp occupies almost 5K acres, has been in existence since 1911, and currently there is some consternation about the sale of the camp to developers....
Leftoverbacon 07:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Symphony No. 37 (Mozart)

message: For a long time, this article has said that this music was "quickly dropped from the standard concert repertoire" after its true authorship was discovered by Lothar Perger in 1907. Another user has put on a citation needed tag to this, which sounds like a perfectly plausible thing to happen (given the snobbishness of some Mozart fans) but which at the moment I can't think of a citation for. Anton Mravcek 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now removed that statement. I can't think of the citation right now, but I have a feeling that now that I've removed the statement, I will find the citation when I'm not looking for it. Jindřichův Smith 22:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed for "quickly dropped from the standard concert repertoire"