The story is today about the first published composition by Arnold Schönberg which I was blessed to hear. Listen, and perhaps read what Alma Mahler (to-be-Mahler at the time, to be precise, who was present at the first performance) said, and yes that was too much for the Main page ;) - Thank you for adding the title! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new month, @Gerda Arendt: and thanks for sharing your photographs from June... some very delicious looking food! I will have a look at the things you mentino later on!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - today's story is about a Bach cantata premiered 300 years ago OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 July is the birthday of Leoš Janáček, and I'm happy I had a meaningful DYK in 2021. It's also the birthday of Franz Kafka, and I uploaded pics from his family's album seen in Berlin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libuše Domanínská, the subject of yesterday's story, would have turned 100 today, but I missed that ;) - Overnight, Tamara Milashkina became GA and Lando Bartolini went to the Main page. I made my story about his almost unbelievable career, from Luigi in Il tabarro in Philadelphia in 1968 (with a nod to Liberty) up to Calaf in Turandot in Beijing in 1999 ;) - 4 July is also the birthday of Brian Boulton who was a pioneer of a concise infobox in 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a friend's birthday - she is pictured on my talk - I have another RD death article that needs reviewing, Martti Wallén. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pictured on the Main page: Brian's Mozart family grand tour, my story today, and related to three items of music: our 2023 concert, an opera in a theatre where a Mozart premiere took place, and those remembered, the bass and Liana Isakadze, a violinist from Georgia, and her article would be better with more details about her music-making. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about an outstanding violinist from Georgia, which is a sad story in the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: it seems like she had a very distinguished career. RIP, sad indeed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I rather meant that the lead went to 1988 but the sadness began in 1995. - Today, thank you for UEFA Euro 2004 Final, introduced in 2021) as about "the 2004 edition of the European Championship, and it brought one of the greatest shocks in the history of football. Outsiders Greece, who had never won a game at a major tournament before, stormed through the tournament, beating hosts Portugal in the opening game and then seeing off the tournament-holders France in the quarter-final and the Czech Republic in the semi-final. In the final, they met Portugal again and, through a combination of resolute defending and nicking a goal from a corner, they managed to overcome Portugal in their own back yard for a second time to claim the trophy."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember today Bach's 1724 cantata for this Sunday which is unusual in many respects. Another woman needs attention for RD, Marina Kondratyeva. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notes on the cantata, Gerda Arendt and for reminding me of the FA I wrote on the Euro 2004 final. Today was the 2024 final in Berlin and sadly England lost again, as in 2021. The winning Spanish team played very well though. All the best for the coming week  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Moar: My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I listened in concert to Mozart's Clarinet Quintet, with Sabine Meyer: a delight, and very intimate (yt with same people). - Today's story is about Ruth Hesse, with a pic in the article only, sadly. I found it difficult to point at a YouTube sample, because yes, her signature roles - the Nurse and Brangäne - exist in great full-length operas with great casts, but hard to find her. - Talking of YouTube: today I was pointed at Elijah by a friend who performed in the concert of the Dessoff Choirs in their centenary year, and I'm quite impressed by samples (beginning and No. 32 where I linked it) - enjoy! --(forgot to sign)

Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: fantastic, sounds like a great concert. I am walking in the Yorkshire Dales, fantastic scenery I'll upload some pics in a few days.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, looking forward! - Today's story begins with Psalm 124, paraphrased in 1524, and put to five (!) chorale settings in one cantata by Bach in 1724, for this Sunday. Nominated for GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a look at music (on my talk) shows remembrance of three people who died, and then creating an article or improving one is all I can do. Three are on the Main page today, and three others planned ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Wikipedia:Main Page history/2024 July 30b will have a baritone, a violinist, a composer and a Bach cantata, - almost too much, and the composer's article, Wolfgang Rihm, should be better, help wanted. - Plenty of music on my parents anniversary day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey Would you be interested in creating a page for Tink's latest album, winter diary 5? KARANSUTTA (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone disagreed with you here but you just ignore them to have your own way? WT:In the news/Archive 111#Linking of sports in blurbs, nice one. Stephen 23:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen: - "everyone disagreed" is putting it a bit strongly... It seemed like Bagumba was tacitly agreeing with the point that they could access the sport through the bolded link, making the responses 2 to 1. Anyway, what's more telling is that the editors proposing and posting these hooks on the ground at ITN more often than not seem to omit the link, and that has nothing to do with me. It suggests the feeling in the ground is different from the sentiment in that discussion. This tennis one was proposed at ITN/C and posted with no link. We also had a cricket one last week which moved down ITN without a link for about five days, with nobody intervening and no apparent issues.[1] More often that not I think you and I are in agreement about ITN edits these days, but in this case I'm really quite puzzled as to why you'd prefer the version where a full 12 of the 18 words in the hook are blue... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it’s not worth fussing over. Sorry for starting this thread, best wishes. Stephen 16:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no worries and agree it's not a big deal. We just love to argue over tiny details sometimes...!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Priestess has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 22 § Priestess until a consensus is reached. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Let There Be Peace on Earth (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:ONEOTHER, secondary topic is already hat-noted in Let There Be Peace on Earth, no incoming links

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July regarding a requested move in which you participated. The thread is Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_July#Srebrenica_massacre. Thank you. 122141510 (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Culture of Rwanda, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

---

story · music · places

Today I have two "musicians" on the Main page, one is also the topic of my story, watch and listen, - I like today's especially because you see him at work, hear him talk about his work and the result of his work - rare! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and a third, like 22 July but with interview and the music to be played today --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gerda Arendt and thank you for the above stories. Good to hear! I'm on vacation at the moment in Kenya, but finding a bit of time in between swims in the pool/ocean and walks on the beach to sort out a few of the upcoming pictures of the day!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks lovely, enjoy! - On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extraordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. For the beauty of the earth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about a stage director, - watch Aida, so tender so cruel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday story about another of Bach's chorale cantatas, listen, as I listened to two impressive very different choral concerts, - music by 16 composers. In the latest cloudy pictures: a hidden deer, a cat and a blaze of a sunset. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the closing rationale is don't see any kind of slam-dunk argument in the overturn !votes to suggest that I should not find consensus with the majority, why would you count involved participants in calculating those numbers? Among those completely uninvolved, more supported overturning, no? who believed that the participants of the RM and move closer had interpreted sourcing correctly in regard to how it terms this topic, and that there was no POVTITLE. It's striking how many of those endorsing present arguments or sources which say not that "the debate over whether this is genocide is called 'gaza genocide'" but rather that "this is genocide". That is, of course, different from the subject of the article itself, which is about the debate, so without consensus to change the subject of the article, any source which doesn't make clear that the term is used to talk about the debate itself doesn't actually support this title. Anyway, I'm not going to initiate some challenge-challenge or anything and cheers for taking on a contentious discussion, but I'll register disappointment in the determination that fundamentally style-based arguments (counting sources to choose one from many possible titles) should ever be considered equal or greater in strength than a substantiated NPOV argument (which, in this case, finds its substance in both the subject of the article and every source about the debate that doesn't call it "gaza genocide" -- but that doesn't lend to a simple keyword to choose in a stylistic argument... it requires a descriptive title). YMMV. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: thanks for your comment, and your registered disappointment is noted. I don't stray into the Israel–Palestine area too often - I don't really have the time or energy for protracted debates on every little question... In this case, however, it was a month-old move review with lots of discussion, that just seemed to need someone uninvolved with the question to evaluate and close it. I get that you, and probably all of those who thought the close should be overturned, would not be happy with this outcome - you !voted to overturn, so clearly you think that was the right outcome. But equally had I closed the MRV as "overturn" those who supported the move and those who endorsed the close, not to mention the closer himself, would have been unhappy with me instead. That's why I attempted to phrase the close as I did, summarising that I didn't see any arguments about the close on either side that would suggest a policy or guideline-based reason to overturn or uphold the close. Note that had the close of the MRV been "no consensus", the outcome would still have been to endorse the closure, so to actually overturn the move I would have needed to see an overwhelming rationale for why the closure needed overturning and the numbers in the MRV were wrong, something that just wasn't present in either the numbers or my assessment of the debate. Some sources don't call it a "Gaza genocide", but also many sources and many international bodies do call it that. There's no right or wrong answer. Finally, you mention a distinction between involved and uninvolved commenters at the MRV, but I've never heard that closers are supposed to discard or even downplay the !votes of those who participated in the discussion. The instructions merely say "Commenters should identify whether or not they were involved or uninvolved in the RM discussion under review", which colours that editor's viewpoint on the close, but does not invalidate it. And lots of uninvolved people endorsed the close too. Anyway, sorry if this is a rambling response, but ultimately while I understand you won't be satisfied with the outcome, I hope this goes some way to explaining it. Without invoking some sort of WP:SUPERVOTE, I don't think the MRV could reasonably have been closed the way you want, notwithstanding that many such as yourself find there to be strong POV problem with the Gaza genocide title.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't stray into the Israel–Palestine area too often Neither do I. I'm not "unhappy" because of the consequences for the pro-Israel side; I jumped in (against my better judgment) because I saw a core safeguard failing to the detriment of the project and hoped I could help. Specifically, the role of the closer in weighing the strength of arguments. In this case, that didn't properly happen. We had a closer which simply accepted the framing put forward by the [narrow] majority that it must be a source keyword-counting game and weighed counter-arguments according to that framing. Furthermore, he put stylistic arguments and NPOV arguments on equal footing, which they absolutely shouldn't be. We go around telling people that numbers alone don't win arguments on Wikipedia because consensus is based on the strength of those arguments, but that relies on closers (or review-closers) seeing that the majority's argument isn't as strong. Instead, the move review again cites numbers (including members of the same majority through involved !votes) and again accepts that the arguments are equal. So it's less that I'm unhappy at the article title and more that I'm unhappy at providing the world with a high-profile example of our system failing. Or so says this one Wikipedian, anyway.

I know this is unpleasant for a lot of people, and I don't want to belabor it, so this will be my only follow-up response. — Rhododendrites \\ 12:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Matthew here with Seminole Hard Rock Support Services at Hard Rock International.

Over on the Hard Rock Cafe talk page, I've proposed splitting the Hard Rock Cafe page to Hard Rock International and Hard Rock hotels and casinos, in order to separate out text about the restaurant brand from the parent company and Hard Rock's properties. I've saved Draft:Hard Rock International and Draft:Hard Rock hotels and casinos to demonstrate what the pages would look like. Another editor has supported the split but suggested I seek help with the page and section moves.

I noticed that you have responded to requests submitted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, so I am hoping you might be able to answer a question for me. Would it be appropriate for me to submit requests to move Draft:Hard Rock International to Hard Rock International, and/or Draft:Hard Rock hotels and casinos to Hard Rock hotels and casinos? Or, are you able to assist with moving these pages and sections? I'm not entirely sure how this process should be completed.

Thanks for any guidance here! MattHardRockInt (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]