Talk:List of compositions for viola: A to B

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 29 December 2022, see discussion.
keep, 24 August 2022, see discussion.

This page was proposed for deletion by Why? I Ask (talk · contribs) on 22 August 2022.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of compositions for viola: A to B. 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/20070609130618/http://www.lindabouchard.com/about.html to http://www.lindabouchard.com/about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on List of compositions for viola: A to B. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of compositions for viola: A to B. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article split

Would it not be better to only include sonatas and concertos on the Viola sonata and Viola concerto pages? It seems like an unnecessary duplication of information to have a large list of concerti or sonatas on those pages and then fill up a considerable space here. Perhaps this page can be renamed and condensed to only include viola solos and other things such as the symphonic poem, Don Quixote. Just some thoughts. Why? I Ask (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Or, perhaps more contentious, we could merge both pages here, including the prose.) Why? I Ask (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State of article

After I nominated this article for deletion, it was decided to be kept. Reading some of the comments and keep rationale, several argued that viola music is a notable topic and that the list could be improved. I tried just that. I added sources and further reading, trimmed out the non-notable entries, and set a specific selection criteria per WP:LSC. However, a couple of other editors are not happy with my edits, and have taken their grievances to mine and others' talk pages. That's why I'm asking for a formal discussion to be had here, on the actual page. Please explain to me why you think I should revert it and why you don't think my edits are an improvement. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already contributed some of my thoughts on various pages, but I will go ahead and record a response here per your request (“Please explain to me why you think I should revert it and why you don't think my edits are an improvement”).

The original article was an incredibly important and valuable resource on a topic that has had scant serious research during the viola’s long history. Indeed, the bias against the viola and its repertoire remains strong within the classical community, and the original version of the article dispelled many myths about the available repertoire for the instrument. Providing such an article via a source (Wikipedia) that is both trusted and widely available has proven beneficial to many over the past fifteen years. I have not only used the article myself for many purposes, but I have been approached on numerous occasions regarding repertoire that violists have located solely through this article.

The edits you made deleted thousands of entries and destroyed fifteen years of contributions by the community. There is no situation in which I would consider such widespread destruction of knowledge (which is what your edits are) to be an improvement. Indeed, such an attempt to subvert the distribution of knowledge is something that I associate with book banning (if not book burning). Dbynog (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)dbynog[reply]

The article is now as it was, and I like that. In all the years, it seems to have bothered one user. Perhaps just look away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So how would you get this list to comply with the Wikipedia policies I've mentioned prior? Why? I Ask (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent policy you cited as part of these discussions is WP:IAR. I trust I do not need to elaborate. Dbynog (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. I cited that as part of the RfC discussion, not the actual content of this article (of which I would never invoke IAR for). Articles do need to follow policies, in my opinion. The backrooms of Wikipedia, where consensus building is more important, can be a bit more lenient as long as people agree it's productive (which the RfC arguably is). So I ask the question again: how do you plan to make this article follow previously established global consensus. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]