User talk:Michael Aurel#Precious

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Greek deities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyperion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Congratulations and well done -- a really worthy addition to the list, and I immensely enjoyed working with you on the article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thankyou, UC! The feeling is mutual, and I'm grateful for your guidance and encouragement throughout (without which the article mightn't have got to this point). – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox

|image = Cscr-featured.svg

|imagesize=60px

|extracss=font-size:1.25em; font-family:Georgia;

|text = Congratulations, Michael Aurel! The article you nominated, Orphic Hymns, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.{{parabr}}This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, {{user0|Gog the Mild}} via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{User QAIbox

| image = Yellow roses, Johannisberg.jpg

| image_upright = 1.3

| bold = story · music · places

}}

Bach's cantata was performed 300 years ago, by occasion. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Today's main page has again memories of three people who died, for two just the name and for the third an image (great!) coupled with a little bit from her life which seems too little for my taste. What do you think? - A friend of mine sang in Verdi's Requiem at Trinity Church, - you can watch [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8ld7VNaKss the lifestream] (Verdi about 30 minutes into it). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Very nice, Gerda. That hook is a bit out of my wheelhouse, but it seems (judging by this) that your preferred wording was indeed squeezed in, belatedly. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Yes, it was - better late than never. - Recommended reading today: Christfried Schmidt, also a story about patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:: check my talk today for two pics of Margot Friedländer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:: thank you for updates to the FAC, - I'll look but not sure when. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:: ... because today are anniversaries, 100 and 300: musings on 15 May --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:: all Verdi today: tenor Luigi Alva and the premiere OTD of his Requiem, see my talk - remember that early in the thread there was a link to a performance? - looking forward to what you think about my latest changes to the Easter Oratorio --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::And just one year after the 150th anniversary as well (I've always loved [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIANx0bVd7s Giulini's version with Schwarzkopf]). (I'll hopefully get to replying at the Easter Oratorio FAC later today.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: I brought it to OTD last year, - it's the laziness of that project that brings things back because nobody changes ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: I just found [https://oae.co.uk/resurrecting-bachs-easter-oratorio/ this] short announcement of the Oratorio which I won't use as a ref because - while most is fine - it misses completely that Bach wasn't fueled by listening to Dresden opera to write his oratorios, at least not this one which was already composed then. It's phrasing is "It wasn’t until the mid-1730s that he became really interested in the concept of oratorios." Useful? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I've given that DYK a read, and I see how many times you had to repeat that it wasn't yet an oratorio in the 1720s! So yes, making it extra clear that he only became interested in that type of work the following decade could be helpful. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Thank you! - Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, born 100 years ago, described by Alan Blyth --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Ascension Day today, time for a service at a small church nearby and meeting friends. 300 years ago Bach performed a cantata for the occasion, with a rich use of brass and winds, and to the libretto of a woman. (The oratorio for that occasion came 13 years later, - great work, especially the closing chorus!) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: reasons to look at Bach (and listen): it's a recent GA (not by me), he assumed the position of Thomaskantor OTD in 1723, he's up for PR, and several of his cantatas for GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, incidentally, for your work on Interpretatio graeca. My experience editing on Celtic side of this subject has shown me how tricky the topic is (see Lugus#Caesar and Gaulish Mercury for a typically difficult example), and the difficulties involved in reducing such a practice to a wikitable. Happy editing, Tenpop421 (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, {{u|Tenpop421}}. Syncretism indeed has many a pitfall, and I've wondered at least a few times whether {{tq|reducing such a practice to a wikitable}} is really the best idea (though I suppose having a slightly less egregious table is still an improvement, regardless). I did also recently notice your deft handling of the topic at Lugus (with Greek religion, we at least usually have the advantage of knowing which deities it is we're talking about!). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

From this, here not to derail. Re {{tq|there isn't agreement (and there won't be) that the presence of an accompanying citation to a secondary source is necessary to indicate the relevance of a claim from a primary source}}. The issue with not requiring the presence of an accompanying citation is that it is not possible for the next editor to determine quickly which portions are or are not supported by a secondary source. This exact situation already came up in discussion earlier. Requiring it would have a huge benefit for maintainability. Ifly6 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Ifly6}} In that sort of situation, yes, I think we should be citing the primary sources such that it's clear they've come from a secondary source, and that all of the preceding text is supported by the secondary source. (Not doing so is particularly bad if the editor didn't actually read the primary sources before citing them, and later editors can also end up chopping things such that the secondary source and the text it supports are completely divorced.) I think there are others who disagree (or at least don't think it's necessary), but you can certainly try to convince them.

:I'll also add that (as I'm sure you already realise) the quoted statement was referring to all claims from primary sources, so it would apply in other cases (eg., when we have a claim from a primary source which isn't repeated by any secondary source), and I think there are similar disagreements there. Not entirely sure what the solution is here; I think if/when/how/to what degree secondary sources need to be cited alongside primary sources when stating what those primary sources say is the main point of contention through the discussion (maybe even an RfC on this specific point would be appropriate?). – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think something such as {{tq|Some editors believe that it would be undue weight to cite one of these sources without a corresponding secondary source demonstrating its relevance}}, strengthened as a recommendation rather than a statement of opinion, would probably be sufficiently justifiable as an interpretation or implementation of the WP:PRIMARY text in the context of the Graeco-Roman literary sources:

::{{tq2|While a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere, do not put undue weight on its contents.}}

::The first two clauses of the sentence seem to describe to me the summary issue that we discussed earlier. Exactly what "undue weight" means is something we should be able to determine. A cumbersome RfC procedure wouldn't be necessary; others, of course, could disagree. It wouldn't be something for the reliable sources noticeboard however, since the boundary of WP:NOR isn't a topical reliable source question. Ifly6 (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|strengthened as a recommendation rather than a statement of opinion}}: Yes, I think we're basically in agreement then. My main goal with that original comment was to suggest that, if we have a choice between "Some editors believe ... [strong version]" and stating a less strong version (or equally strong version, if there is agreement with the original statement) in our own words, I would opt for the latter. As to an RfC, I was mindful that the number of editors consistently involved in that discussion was fairly slim, but I can see that starting one may simply lead to the same arguments being rehashed for the nth time, without bringing about any real progress. In any case, you've asked the question again there ({{tq|I would like to refocus ...}}), so I'll respond there. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It would be more compelling, I think, if you were to bring the matter of strengthening it to a recommendation on that page. Ifly6 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. It's currently planned for June 16-July 13, partly due to me having hayfever during that period and not wanting to run it throughout July or August in the hotter summer and will be run then unless multiple editors object. There is currently $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. As 250 countries and entities is too much to patrol, entries will be by user, but there is $500 going into prizes for editors covering the most countries. Sign up if interested! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hero&diff=prev&oldid=1293327606 You think?]. Paul August ☎ 10:29, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:(; – Michael Aurel (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

{{User QAIbox

| image = Foxglove, Scheid, Ehrenbach.jpg

| image_upright = 1.3

| bold = story · music · places

}}

The places: a day full of great discoveries, culminating in Oliwa Cathedral which was called a must-see by Graham Waterhouse (subject of my first article, filling a red link) who played the organ once. Dinner right next to the Abbot's Palace, where Penderecki had also been a guest.

The story: Bazon Brock spoke at an exhibition at Kolumba to honour Anna and Bernhard Blume on her 80th birthday. [https://bazonbrock.de/werke/detail/?id=3341] Did you know "An Anna Blume"?

Easter Oratorio is planned to be on the Main page on 7 June. Would be nice to have questions resolved by then. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hmm, if you're referring to the DYK, then whether or not the article is an FA yet hopefully shouldn't matter. I'll give responses today, and will try to crack on with the rest of the review once I get the chance (but I don't know we'll be able to resolve things by 7 June, and I think some others, such as UC, haven't got around to a comprehensive review yet). – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Did I say FA? No, it just should be in the best possible form, meaning no open questions, if possible. UC wants to wait for you and me to complete, understandably ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I see, I really had no clue what you meant. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: Easter Oratorio is on the main page, but of course told the story, which is admittedly complex, on Easter Sunday for the music's 300th anniversary. - Thank you for your creative reviewing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Nice! I will make sure to finish off the review when I get the chance, but I won't be especially active for the next week or so, and UC seems happy to resume their review, so that should keep the nomination rolling along. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)