text:
Talk:XML schema

Untitled
I wrote this article in an attempt to help disambiguate "XML Schema" from the more general "XML schema"; there was at least one article (schema) that was using a general reference but linked to the W3C XML Schema article. I moved that article to "W3C XML Schema" for now.

Sadly, when I wrote this article, I was unaware that there is a lengthy section in the article on XML that covers XML schema languages. The concept of a schema and the language used to express that concept are two separate things, so I don't see any harm in having separate articles. However, I don't like the duplication, either, so I'll see what I can do to eliminate overlap ASAP.

Also, I'm really not sure whether it is better to do it this way (a long description of an XML schema, with links to W3C XML Schema), or if it is more Wikipedia-ish to have something like this:

 * a "schema (XML)" article
 * an "XML Schema (W3C)" article
 * an "XML schema" disambiguation page that links to the two articles
 * an "XML Schema" redirect to the disambiguation page

Thoughts? - mjb 06:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes I prefer this other approach you are suggesting. I think it's too confusing having capitalisation of the letter 'S' as the only difference between the titles (XML Schema & XML schema) -- Nojer2 09:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that the article on the W3C XML Schema needs to have a more substantial name difference than just a capital letter. How do we go about making this change? Korval 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
The section on criticism relates to XSD in particular, not to XML schema languages in general. It should be moved to the XSD article. However, I'm reluctant to do this while the list is still in its current state. Although the bullet points are all valid criticisms, they are a "point of view" and therefore need to be presented very carefully, and with cited authority, to justify their place here.

Mhkay (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Example of C-to-XSD API
I have again deleted the example C application which someone has added (and re-added after my first deletion).

This article covers multiple schema languages, so why you think it's relevant to include an example of using one host language API to validate a document using one particular schema language, I really can't imagine. It might *just* be appropriate for the XSD article (where you have also added it), but it's questionable even there, since the article is information about the schema language and not a user manual on how to run particular products.

Mhkay (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Metamodel
The "metamodel" section added by user Ottomachin flagrantly violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. It is extremely opinionated and unsourced. The single source he has added appears unreliable.

'''The leader of the original XML team admits that they did not begin with a data model. "In the interests of time, XML 1.0 did not define its own data model" [1]'''

The only sourced statement, which does not seem to be relevant to anything except the opinions of the editor, and has a very weak looking source as well.

'''They developed a specification for data structures without themselves defining their own data model. A number of people "co-operated" by email over a short time period to create the original spec.'''

Neutral enough, except for the quotation marks around cooperated, but unsourced.

The result is therefore unsurprisingly a very good example of "design-by-committee" but that it is also a master piece of incomprehensibility is not quite so obvious a result, though true.

"Masterpiece of incomprehensibility"? Says who? Your personal opinions do not belong here.

The following diagram

The image includes extremely biased statements, including foul language.

'''is an (the only existent) Entity-Relationship (though in UML format) metamodel of the information elements of XSD. The so-called "conceptual model" (in the specification) of "components" is incoherent therefore this model addresses only the actual information elements themselves.'''

"Incoherent"? Says who? It is complex, but not incoherent.

It is perhaps worth mentioning that the ER metamodel (a well known and accepted system of knowledge represention with a theoretical and philosophic background extending back to at least Socrates) reqires only approx. 10 entities whereas this monstrosity of modern day neo-something-or-other obfuscation contains more than 50.

Needs sources, except that the statement is irrelevant and biased.

Sahuagin (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of criticisms section
Well, I spent my time 'refactoring' the criticisms, only to realize that not only were they originally heavily biased, but they are also not addressing the topic. The criticisms refer to the WC3 XML Schema, whereas this page is for XML schema in general. The WC3 XML Schema page already has a sufficient criticisms section. Sahuagin (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge prop
I don't know why someone decided to write a separate article on a so-called comparison, when xe could have expanded this one. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

From my prospective, XML schema is not a big deal to have a separate article. Definition could be found in XML article and XML schema languages 198.49.180.40 (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC) MS

Let's vote (to merge or not XML schema with XML schema languages)? --Krauss (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, nobody voted but we can understand that me, Tijfo098 and 198.49.180.40 voted YES. I merged

= MERGED TALK OF LANGUAGES= Content moved from old Talk:XML schema languages. Please continue here.

Initial Creation
This page was created from a section in the RelaxNG page, detailing the differences between RelaxNG and W3C XML Schema. Korval 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV suggestion
The section of claimed advantages of XSD over RNG is not exactly adhering to the NPOV. All the advantages claimed could be considered misfeatures of XSD and, therefore, the lack of those features in RNG could be considered RNG's advantages over XSD. Hsivonen 09:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I disagree. While it is possible to consider some of WXS's features to be misfeatures, that should only apply where there is a good faith reason for it. I'll take the advantages one by one:

 * PSVI, for example, is a reasonable feature, even if one might think that such shouldn't be applied to a schema language. It has uses, and these uses are objectively useful. Where PSVI breaks down is that, to make it happen, some of WXS's potential specificity had to be sacrificed. Since the RelaxNG section speaks to RelaxNG's greater ability to define patterns, there is no need to point out that PSVI is one of the reasons for the disparity in specificity between the two.

 * As another example, it was cited on the original article in RelaxNG that RelaxNG's inability to specify specific lengths of sequences could be considered a feature. I fail to see the significance of it, for two reasons. One, the Zero-One-or-Infinity "rule" is, while a nice thing in theory, isn't always wise in practice. Two, you can still write WXS schema's under the ZOI rule; just don't use that greater specificity. RelaxNG schemas must operate under ZOI, whether it is reasonable or not.

 * I specifically mentioned that the WXS ability to specify default data was a double-edged sword in the disadvantages of WXS section. I saw no need to repeat that in the RelaxNG section (which should be about what RelaxNG does, rather than what it does not do).

 * As far as data types are concerned, I mentioned that most RelaxNG implementations support the standard WXS-defined types. And as for having a way to bind a WXS to an XML file... I fail to see any negative consequences of that. It is still up to the parser to deal with it.

 * So, in conclusion, I would say that if anyone isn't adhering to NPOV, it's probably more you than the article. I have a strong dislike for WXS, but I did give it reasonable consideration in this article. You may want to verify that some of what you consider misfeatures comes from whether they are misfeatures or what you personally think of these features.Korval 10:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Regardless of good faith reasons for feature existence, some experts definitely hold views that the purported advantages of XSD are misfeatures. I went ahead and presented the other point of view so that the article shows both points of view.Hsivonen (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I have some concerns with most of your edits, and I'll be modifying them appropriately. First of all, most of your additions were already mentioned in the WXS section under its disadvantages. As an example, you mention the dangers of default data; this was already in the WXS disadvantages section. The commentary on data type extensibility was likewise mentioned as both an advantage of RNG and a disadvantage of WXS.

 * While your section on the Zero/One/Infinity rule is not repetitious, I see it as a false negative. I'm not a big fan of rules of thumb, and ZOI isn't one of my favorites. I understand where it comes from, but I prefer flexibility over hard-and-fast rules. So I'm finding it rather difficult to see how an explicit restriction is an advantage. It's no different from how RNG's ability to combine elements and attributes arbitrarily is more powerful than WXS's, even though WXS had specific reasons for limiting this construct.

 * I'm still not clear on what the problem with PSVI is. I know what the problem with infoset augmentation with default arguments is; I mentioned it earlier. The problem cited in Tim's post with PSVI doesn't seem to be specific. He basically just says, "there's nothing wrong with a Type-Augmented Infoset (TAI), but why link it to validation?" Effectively, he's saying that coupling infoset building with validation is wrong, but there is no justification as to why it is wrong. Simply saying that putting two things together wrong does not make it wrong.

 * The other arguments mentioned on Tim's thread are largely meaningless today. XQuery, XPath 2.0, and XSLT 2.0 are not defined in terms of PSVI; they use the standard XML infoset. PSVI's intended use is clearly conversion between XML and objects in a programming language; it has not spread to "infect" the rest of XML's core. Korval (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline Talk
Please address which schema languages are the most recent. It is quite confusing to read about XML schema validation methods, tools, frameworks, etc since they usually are stuck with whatever schema validation language existed at their initial development. This can lead one to select an obsolete or soon to be obsolete technology (e.g., DTD) for XML validation.

 * I agree with the suggestion for some discussion about tool availability. I'm not sure how the timeline with regard to creating each of these schema languages matters.Korval 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

CFeet77's changes
Your changes removed information about RELAX NG's compact syntax. If you wished to consider the greater specificity to be more important, then remove the statement about the importance of the compact syntax. Furthermore, everything you discussed was mentioned, in far greater detail, below your comment. As such, it was entirely redundant and unnecessary.Korval 19:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

XSD?
"XML Schema Definition" and "XSD" don't appear in the document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.241.121 (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Is there some reason it should? This article is not specifically about WXS. Korval (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias
Some of the statements made in the article are technically inaccurate (e.g., no method to add additional data types in W3C Schema, no way to convert between XML Schema and RelaxNG ). 198.169.189.226 (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 * If there are statements that are technically inaccurate, please fix them (I, for one, would like to know the mechanism to add new data types to W3C Schema). However, I checked the converter you linked to. And it specifically says, "That XSLT conversion may be less "exact" than a conversion performed by a Java API like Sun Multi-Schema Validator." A converter you can't trust isn't particularly useful, but if you feel it counts, add it in. Korval (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OR concerns
I've looked briefly at the two main references and they don't have this advantages/disadvantages approach but rather use more objective criteria. So I conclude the decision to classify features as advantages or disadvantages was mostly what is called WP:OR. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This might be a good source to cite for the kind of comparison that's actually done in this article. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Typo?
"Despite being the ideal, the inclusion of RDF assumptions is very pour and not is a recommendation in the schema development frameworks." -- should that be "very poor" instead of "very pour"? I'm not sure that "very poor" actually makes sense (or is justified without a citation), or I would have fixed it myself, but "very pour" definitely doesn't make sense. Can anyone guess what the intended word actually was, or track down the original author and ask them, please? Xardox (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on XML schema. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070927235958/http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-use/mail-archive/msg00217.html to http://www.imc.org/ietf-xml-use/mail-archive/msg00217.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

SGML
Is it worthwhile including content relating to SGML schema here, given DTDs for example are directly derived from it? Gsnedders (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:XML schema


text:
Al-Fao

Al-Fao was a project for a self-propelled artillery system designed for the former Iraqi Army by the Canadian weapons engineer Gerald Bull. It would have been one of the world's most powerful artillery pieces, with a 53-caliber, 210 mm gun firing 109-kilogram shells over a range of 57 km. The Al-Fao system was to weigh 44 tonnes, and its 550 hp engine was to give it a top speed of 90 km/h on roads, and 60-70 km/h cross-country. The Al-Fao's autoloader was to provide it with a rate of fire of four rounds a minute.

A self-propelled howitzer using the same 155 mm gun as the South African G6, similar to the Al-Fao and named Majnoon, was also designed by Gerald Bull on an Iraqi order.

The design of the Majnoon and Al-Fao started around 1988. That year, South Africa had tried to sell the G6 howitzer to Iraq, but the Iraqis found it too expensive, and requested that Bull design two equivalents for them. Prototypes of each model had to be ready by May 1989, in time for the Baghdad International Arms Fair. Numerous French, German and Spanish companies were contracted to manufacture parts for the guns, while the design for the chassis was bought in Czechoslovakia and modified to South African specifications. The deadline was met, and the prototypes of both Majnoon and Al-Fao were presented at the Arms Fair, although these were far from complete. However, by early 1990, the Iraqis had imported all the know-how, equipment and machinery necessary to produce them, as well as ammunition. Subsequent events prevented the realisation of the Majnoon and Al-Fao projects.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Al-Fao


text:
Director of the U.S. Government Publishing Office

The director of The U.S. Government Publishing Office, formerly the public printer of the United States, is the head of the United States Government Publishing Office (GPO). Pursuant to, this officer is nominated by the president of the United States and approved by the United States Senate. The title was changed to "Director" when in December 2014, Congress passed and President Obama signed into law H.R. 83, which consolidated and continued appropriations for FY 2015. Section 1301 of that act changed the name of the Government Printing Office to the Government Publishing Office and the title of public printer to director. Thus, Davita Vance-Cooks was the last public printer of the United States and the first director of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.

The director is responsible for the administration of the GPO. The GPO, a legislative agency of the government, provides electronic access to and produced most printed matter for government, including the Congressional Record, Supreme Court decisions, passports, tax forms, internal government documents, and agency publications. The GPO did not print money, as that is a duty of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

History
Benjamin Franklin served as Public Printer for several of the American colonies prior to the establishment of the United States. The House and Senate had separate printers until 1861, when the GPO was established; its first superintendent was John D. Defrees. The first man with the title Public Printer of the United States was Almon M. Clapp.

List of superintendents

 * 1) John D. Defrees (1861–1866)
 * 2) Cornelius Wendell (1866-1867)
 * 3) John D. Defrees (1867–1869)
 * 4) Almon M. Clapp (1869–1876)

List of public printers

 * 1) Almon M. Clapp (1876–1877)
 * 2) John D. Defrees (1877–1882)
 * 3) Sterling P. Rounds (1882–1886)
 * 4) Thomas E. Benedict (1886–1889)
 * 5) Francis W. Palmer (1889–1894)
 * 6) Thomas E. Benedict (1894–1897)
 * 7) Francis W. Palmer (1897–1905)
 * 8) Charles A. Stillings (1905–1908)
 * 9) John S. Leech (1908)
 * 10) Samuel B. Donnelly (1908–1913)
 * 11) Cornelius Ford (1913–1921)
 * 12) George H. Carter (1921–1934)
 * 13) Augustus E. Giegengack (1934–1948)
 * 14) John J. Deviny (1948–1953)
 * 15) Raymond Blattenberger (1953–1961)
 * 16) James L. Harrison (1961–1970)
 * 17) Adolphus N. Spence (1970–1972)
 * 18) Thomas F. McCormick (1973–1977)
 * 19) John J. Boyle (1977–1980)
 * 20) Danford L. Sawyer, Jr. (1981–1984)
 * 21) Ralph E. Kennickell, Jr. (1984–1988)
 * 22) Robert Houk (1990–1993)
 * 23) Michael F. DiMario (1993–2002)
 * 24) Bruce James (2002–2006)
 * 25) Robert C. Tapella (2007–2010)
 * 26) William J. Boarman (2011–2012)
 * 27) Davita E. Vance-Cooks (2012–2014)

List of directors

 * 1) Davita E. Vance-Cooks (2014–2017)
 * 2) Hugh Nathanial Halpern (2019–present)


text:
Template talk:History of Western art music

Modernism
Is musical modernism an era or a movement? If it is an era, as is romantic music, then it should be in the template. Hyacinth 07:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Placed in template Stirling Newberry 18:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Leveled
This version gives a little more information:

Hyacinth 00:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks nice, not sure so many people would think the present is modernism though. Even "post-tonal" attracts controversy. What do other people think? Stirling Newberry 00:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The present isn't modernism, it is contemporary. Not even the 20th century is modernism, but "modern". Hyacinth 21:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Removed Modernism (music) per SN's suggestion (part of 20th century classical music). Hyacinth 23:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, how about having the 20th century and contemporary being their own "eras"? Hyacinth 00:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Years
The years given in the template do not match up with what is written in the very articles linked to. Please give justification for current years listed. Hyacinth 21:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * ANYONE? Hyacinth 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Classical?
Considering this is to be placed on the page European-influenced classical music as the main article, shouldn't this template read "History of European classical music" and not art music, for consistency's sake?--Dmcdevit 04:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:European art music eras
Template:European art music eras has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pax:Vobiscum 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Note: Discussion ended (Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_3). Template deleted since it was made redundant by this template. Hyacinth 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Baroque is a part of "early music"
Hi! Baroque is part of "Early music" AND "Common practice". In fact, I don't know if "Common Practice" is a good categorization here... Lfjslohll (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

QUestion about the template about western art music

 * (Copied from ) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Umm, i am perfectly aware that pop and rock music is not art music. but progressive rock is. Do you have a suggesion for your change? McLennonSon (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The template is named History of Western art music and its headline link is to Classical music. That article does not mention the items you added to that template: Baroque pop, Progressive rock, Progressive metal, Krautrock; even the article art music barely mentions these genres. That's why I saw no good reason to include them in this template which is used in those articles which it listed before your addition.
 * All that is my opinion. If you felt that these genres ought to be included, you should have raised a discussion at the template's talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Since then, McLennonSon has to her version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Periods and Eras
I've modified the template several times in recent weeks to try and bring some consistency to the uses of the terms "period" and "era". It appears from general usage documented on the talk page of the article "Common practice period" that in music history, a period normally represents a longer span of time than an era even though the opposite hierarchy is used in geology where an era is the longer span of time. A curious exception is the classical "period" which is frequently so called even though is is a shorter span of time than the common practice "period" of which it is a part. In this case I have edited to call the classical time span an "era or period" to recognise both usages. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk 10:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC) ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk 13:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Style vs. calendar
What's with the inclusion of style era and calendar era in Modern and contemporary period? It seems overly complicated. I think we should make a decision rather than sit on the fence. Squandermania (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was bold and removed "CE". If someone wants to return it, fine, but please remove "AD" in that case. Using both styles side-by-side is pretentious nonsense. Even the "Jesus" article was able to rid itself this problem after years of foolishness, reaching FA in the process. I'm fairly confident that Wikipedia will survive if this template lowers itself from the proverbial fence of which you speak. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Post common practice period
Since no concise or official name has been given to the post common practice period, and since calendar eras don't really belong with the style eras, I think the best approach is to combine the most recent calendar eras into a single descriptive title for our own musical period. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk 23:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No Rococo in the template?
Rococo music, or Galant music as in Wikipedia's article, is a transitory period between Baroque and Classical. So, it ought to be in the template.Dogru144 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Read again; it's there between "Late Baroque" and "Classical era". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * IMHO "Galant era" is a misnomer though. There's no such "era", while "galant music" was composed as well in the Late Baroque as Classical eras, but is, afaik, not usually classified as an "era" in its own right, so seems a bit WP:OR-ish the way it is presented in the template now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Serialism & Changes
Serialism is over. Romanticism is over. It's not because composers still occasionally use these styles (like they do medieval music and whatnot), that the age of such music genres is still "on". --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But this is your simply opinion? You can't just decide that these things are over when composers still write in such styles. The ending dates for Serialism are made up – because it hasn't "ended", likewise there are still plenty of composers classified as "Neo Romanticism". I'd like to see some sources if you're going to make these claims, why would the Neo Romanticism exist if it were not real? And why would it be included over Neoclassicism? Aza24 (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposals: Would be interested to see what and  think of these changes. And why did you remove Neoromanticism? Aza24 (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Serialism is not "over" and should be in Contemporary Music without and end date. The 1980s date is completely made up and not even in the Serialism article.
 * 2) The articles Transition from Classical to Romantic music and Transition from Renaissance to Baroque in instrumental music should be included somewhere
 * 3) The template heading name should be changed to "History of Western art music" or "History of Western classical music" since "Periods, eras, and movements of Western classical music" is pointlessly specific, the word "History" encompasses this fine by itself.
 * 4) The 2nd Viennese School should be removed since we don't include any other schools and their work falls under Serialism or Expressionism

 * Afaik Arvo Pärt writes in the Tintinnabuli style since around the mid-1970s. That style is, afaik, not some sort of serialism (the Tintinnabuli article doesn't mention serialism even once). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is one example. I would like to see a source that explains how Serialism has ended, and how an important composer like Hans Abrahamsen is not serialist... Aza24 (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Abrahamsen has been dealt with: his article doesn't mention, nor has a reference to reliable source for, such assertions: consequently related navbox removed & adapted, & related category removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Francis, you're missing the point of what I'm saying. We need a source that explains when Serialism ended, if it did as you say this should be easy to find. The "1980s" is completely arbitrary at the moment, otherwise the movement simply hasn't ended. What about Milton Babbitt and Pierre Boulez they are clearly serialist and lived well into the 21st century? Aza24 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This source has "the three decades following World War II" for the era of serialism in Canada and "most western countries". Combined with what was already said about Pärt above, c. 1970s seems a more appropriate delineation of the end of the era. Again, "era" – which does not imply that serialism (as a technique) was no longer practised beyond that era, like baroque music is still being composed in the 21st century, its era still being over. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Well -- it's a routine philosophical problem to which there is no easy solution, the problem of imposing binary distinctions (start/stop, on/off) to non-binary phenomena (cultural history, music style periods). With earlier eras it's pretty easy just to go with scholarly consensus: medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, etc. are decently well-delineated. With some argument, of course. The more recent the era, the more difficult the delineation, particularly the end. The more modern sub-eras (serialism, minimalism, etc.) begin with something famous and well-documented and easy to define. The end not so much. They're rather like the sound of a gong: the opening crash is obvious and overwhelming, but it continues to sound -- eventually you can hear the other instruments clearly again, but has it stopped? When do you say that you hear it no more? I'm not convinced we need "end" dates for the more modern eras. Why not just have start dates? They start strong, and then gradually fade, like the sound of the gong. Antandrus (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Template chaos
Someone here at the template is persistently trying to downgrade postmodernism from a broad era to a movement with specific stylistic traits as might be found under impressionism or some-such. This downgrade directly contradicts the Wikipedia article about postmodernism that clearly identifies postmodernism as an era. I think the editor behind these revisionist reverts needs get an editorial concensus supporting his/her position if the edits are to stick, otherwise those who support postmodernism as an era will just keep taking the reverts down and restoring the proper terminology. If an editorial concensus emerges supporting the revisionist reverts, then the reverter must also "correct" the main Wikipedia article about postmodernism to downgrade it to a movement. It will also be necessary to correct references to postmodernism as an era in some other Wikipedia articles to rescue our music articles from the semantic chaos and mutual contradictions that most of them have fallen into. If no editorial concensus emerges about the nature of postmodernism, I will resume my efforts to protect the version in the original Wikipedia article about postmodernism until a concensus emerges to the contrary.ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Does "minimalism" (in music) necessarily belong to "postmodernism" (in music)? I'm not sure it does. At least some reliable sources would need to confirm that. Afaik minimalism is rather a late stage of modernism, which existed concurrently with early postmodern approaches. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, John Cage: his New York Times obituary (see reference in the article on the composer) qualifies the composer as "minimalist" in the title of the article. Qualifying Cage as postmodernist would rather seem like a stretch: I don't see any content to that effect in the Wikipedia article (on the contrary: his collaboration to "Modern" projects is highlighted throughout the article), and even less a reference to a reliable source which would call Cage a postmodernist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I admit I've picked up some bad editing habits lately, including sometimes making intemperate remarks and not following all the protocols in proper sequence. I think this is due to the fact the talk pages on other Wikipedia articles I've worked on recently seem to have fallen into disuse as expanded edit history pages have made it possible to carry on discussions there rather than on the proper discussion pages.  If I propose or perform edits on some of these articles, any comments I leave on the discussion page usually doesn't get read because other contributing editors are going to the edit history pages to get the blow-by-blow accounts of what's being discussed or edited over there.  It is often impossible to find any editorial consensus for many of these article, and this is what leads to many edit wars.  I did some work on this template a couple of years ago, and it seemed my work was accepted for awhile.  Then after a while, my edits started disappearing or being changed or relocated without any explanations I could see, and that's what started to get my back up.  Maybe in my growing confusion and frustration, I was looking in some of the wrong places for the explanations.
 * I see this template is still trying to uphold the old rules, and now that I know that, I can double down to get my own edit habits back into line with that. That said, it seems to me this template has become rather chaotic because most of the articles we draw upon for this template from both Wikipedia and from outside sources are a bit of a shambles themselves.  Most of these articles use book sources which are hard to verify.  We need way more inline citations rather than the book citations which many of us cannot access easily.  There are many other issues surrounding this template and its sources.  The template specifies it is to cover periods, eras, and movements, but now "schools" and vague relative terms like "contemporary classical" are being added without any clear definitions or citations to justify their inclusion as eras or movements, if that's what they are. At this rate, I can see this template growing very long and unwieldy as more and more schools are added. I think it's going to take a ton of work to sort this out and produce a template that is concise, consistent, and cited.  Are we all up for this?ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "... inline citations rather than ... book citations ..." – afaics you're confusing two concepts of a different category. A WP:inline citation can be to a book or to a website. A citation to a website or a book can be an inline citation, but it can as well be a citation of another type (i.e. not inline). For series boxes, such as History of Western art music, there are no citations of any type in the template: the verifiability of its content depends on citations given elsewhere. Whether these citations are to books or whatever is immaterial, the only requirement is that the citations are to reliable sources. So I propose to mention the citations here on this talk page when we're considering changes to the content of the template. For verifiability purposes such citations can then be inserted in mainspace where necessary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Thinking out loud whether we couldn't do something in this vein: →
 * For the proposed start date of postmodernism, see e.g. : "1975 ... The people united will never be defeated! ... one of the .... examples of early Postmodernism." (my emphasis). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Another ref for postmodernism appearing around 1975. (PS: don't know how representative that book is, but it might help out on several of the time range definitions in the template, at least for those that fall, roughly, in the 1945–1995 period) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m more than happy to discus where minimalism fits into modernism vs postmodernism, but I think first we seriously need to address why this template is not simply called “History of Western Classical music”, why the Mannheim school and Second Viennese School are even on the template and why NeoRomantisicm was been removed, since these issues are left over from the above comments and are part of the changes Christ tried to do but was reverted. thoughts? Aza24 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I suppose I think that taking issues one by one (for the shear impracticality of discussing all at once), and not changing subject in the middle of the discussion of a topic works best. Point by point: --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * History of Western art music vs History of Western Classical music – not an issue that needs to be sorted first, nor one that is particularly difficult to address (take to WP:TFD at any point if you think that to be a pressing matter). On the ground of the matter: "Classical music" is far more ambiguous than "Western art music" (see e.g. boilerplate disambiguation notice at the top of the Classical music article; see e.g. also Official Classical Singles Chart, which, for its short existence, used a definition that is not compatible with "Western art music", indicating that "History of Western Classical music" could be seen as a different topic than "History of Western art music").
 * "Mannheim school" is, afaik, a significant part of the history of the "classical era"
 * "Second Viennese School" is, afaik, one of the most significant parts of "modernism" – there is some ambiguity in that some historians see it as a mere early phase of serialism, others as a part of modernism in its own right. So we can discuss that. For the time being, I'd keep it in the template as a part of modernism in its own right (because of its fundamental significance in all modernism-related developments).
 * "Neoromanticism" – not sure why it should be either in or out of the template. Sources? I mean, without sources indicating it as an important part of the history of Western art music, it should probably best be left out (for the time being).
 * Oh sorry I wasn't clear about the title thing. I meant for the actual title at the top of the template should be something other than "Periods, eras, and movements of Western classical music" – it's kind of a mouthful, either "History of Western Classical Music" or "History of Western Art Music" would be better imo, perhaps the "History of Western Art Music" due to what you said and the fact that the template itself already has this name. I could understand the Manheim School's inclusion, but the Second Viennese School is fully covered by Serialism and Expressionism so its inclusion hardly seems pertinent. Neoromanticism (music) already has sources for various important composers, demonstrating its importance. Btw Francis, are you going to take that Music of the 1500s template to TFD – or should I? Aza24 (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "Periods, eras, and movements of Western classical music" vs "History of Western classical music" as header of the template: one approach to "history" is treating it as a succession of events (e.g., 7 May 1824: première of Beethoven's ninth Symphony), which would be an impractical approach for a template; hence limiting the series box's content to "periods, eras and movements" seems like better approach. I think it best to make that clear in the template's header, in order to avoid (as much as possible) uncontrolled growth of its content.
 * Re. Second Viennese School – still preferring the current approach: too important to compound it with serialism.
 * Re. Neoromanticism (music) – no preference: does this have workable start and end dates? I also suppose it is not a subdivision of modernism (or is it?), so remains also to propose a way of how to present it in the template.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Related question: where do composers such as Gershwin and Bernstein fit in 20th-century classical (or: art) music? Neoromanticism doesn't seem like a right fit, nor any of the other categories currently in the template? Or is it OK such composers are not covered by the template's general categories? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. Music of the 1500s template – off-topic in this discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced with having the Second Viennese School. Expressionism and Serialism were the result of such a school and completely cover all of the music it produced. The inclusion of Neoromanticism raises the same question as Impressionism, Expressionism, Serialism and Minimalism – something to Antadrus brought up earlier – they have clear starting dates but the ending dates are not. Sources seem to simply refer to when they were most popular rather than when they ended, and an authoritative sources like Grove that gives clear start and end dates for periods like the Classical and Renaissance, doesn't even attempt to do so for these. To this end, the end dates should be removed for all modernism periods (Neo Romanticism is a movement of the 20th century – at least that's how Grove explains it). There scholarly consensus doesn't exist for them in the same respect that it exists for others. As far as Bernstein and Gershwin, there probably is no appropriate "classification" their styles vary too much – and sometimes fall under a "Jazz–Classical" hybrid, which I don't think a term for even exists. The scope of Modernism as a whole probably includes them enough. Btw, all you had to say about the 1500s template was "yes" or "no"... Aza24 (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but how do you propose to list neoromanticism in the template? With which dates? Above I mentioned https://books.google.com/books?id=o9HJ8EObFgcC – the book does not seem to mention neoromanticism once, thus confirming that it is not a part of modernism and/or had become insignificant after 1945.
 * "Jazz–Classical" might be too specific, "Crossover" might be a more generic approach (i.e., covering more than only what these two composers were engaged in). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For clarity: I don't really agree that end dates are mostly too vague to work with – it took me a few minutes to find a workable end date for serialism (see above). Maybe not always that easy (end of the modernism umbrella seems a bit more difficult to nail satisfactorily), but that's why we have this talk page discussion, & an invitation to continue looking for sources that may provide the info. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * One source doesn't "confirm" anything – the same source doesn't mention Impressionism once... there are plenty of sources in the Neoromanticism (music) article that demonstrate its importance to significant composers. Since the term refers to a return to romanticism in the 20th century, having it start at 1910, the end of the Romantic era would make sense since the Romantic era can't be "returned to" until it's over. It doesn't seem to have "ended" either, with two important living composers David Del Tredici and Ellen Taaffe Zwilich being associated with it. On the topic of "end dates" for modernism movements, the fact that it took you "a few minutes" to find a source that vaguely gives a time where Serialism "enjoyed currency" is telling it it self – for the Romantic, Baroque and Classical eras, it would take seconds to find multiple sources give clear "start and end dates". I wonder if or  might have some thoughts on if we should list "end dates" for 20 century movements. Aza24 (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Object to your selective pinging per WP:CANVASS.
 * Del Tredici: "He pioneered neo-Romanticism in the 1970s not as an act of commonplace communication but as one of rebellion against Modernism" (my emphasis), per the LAT source used in the article's intro. Neither Bartók nor Schoenberg are usually classified as Romantics, although their early compositions were clearly written in that tradition, thus Del Tredici should not be classified as a Modernist (although his earlier compositions likely belong there).
 * Zwilich: the source (and the intro of the Wikipedia article copies that verbatim – or is it the other way around: the source may be based on Wikipedia, which would be a WP:CIRCULAR no-no) has: "... post-modernist, neo-romantic style ...", so again talking about a style that originated after postmodernism had already started.
 * Taking these two composers together, the "neoromanticism" mentioned in their articles,
 * has nothing to to with modernism (confirming what was already said above);
 * seems to be one of the (smaller?) sub-categories of post-modernism.
 * ... and does not provide an anchor for "the end of the Romantic era" anywhere near where neoromanticism would have started (other sources are needed for that if that would indeed be the case). And again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so, please, provide external reliable sources directly on this talk page to support assertions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:CANVASS, all I was trying to do is exactly what is said to be permissible: "broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Both users I notified are musicologists. At this point you seem to be arguing for the sake of doing so, so frankly I don't really care anymore. Both, myself and Antandrus have laid out serious concerns with the modernism movements being so rigidly defined and completely ignoring of the lack of academic consensus. If neoromanticsm is not well defined enough for you, fine, put it in a "see also" section at the bottom of the template, with other articles like Art music, Musical nationalism, Dates of classical music eras and Composition school that have importance but not a place in the actual template. This template is still missing the vital movement of Troubadour/Trouvère which Grove describes as "the earliest and most significant exponents of the arts of music and poetry in medieval Western vernacular culture." but if I added that you would immediately revert and then accuse me of WP:CANVASS when I try to broaden the conversation by asking others of their opinion. This conversation is pointless when you seem incapable of compromising. Aza24 (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nah, broadening would for instance be at the WikiProject Classical music talk page (without pinging anyone in particular), and, that is, if and when we'd have reached a dead end here, which also seems far from the case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Italicization

 * Also, the ars nova etc. revert is pointless. MOS:FOREIGNITALIC is clear that they should be italicized since they are latin words "that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English". Sturm und Drang already does this, unless for some reason you think otherwise I would ask that you self revert. Aza24 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really something that should be discussed here (although indeed, your "partial" italicisation omitted to italicise these terms in this template). I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music as a better venue for a comprehensive discussion on that topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a waste of time to me, we follow the guidelines and what reliable sources say, both agree with italicization... Nevertheless I will open a thread there. Any thoughts on my previous comments would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been stable without italicisation for a long period of time, and partial italicisations seem undesirable anyhow. So, either it is discussed, for finding a new consensus (see WP:BRD), or it would probably better remain as it is now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Groves
I see quite a debate was raging on while I was preoccupied with other matters in my life, but for the sake of getting in my 2 cents worth, I'd like to make a simple suggestion regarding what goes on this template and what gets taken off. Basically we go with Groves as our main source and authority. If it's in Groves, we can go with it; if it isn't, we mostly don't. I've looked for other reliable sources and have come up empty-handed. Groves has been THE AUTHORITY on classical music history since long before I came into this world. As far as I'm concerned, everything else I've seen so far is either original research or POV, and that includes (but is not necessarily limited to) any non-grovian contributions or deletions I may have attempted (however it doesn't include Wikipedia info based on citations taken from books rather than websites, since I can't easily access the books and therefore can't currently comment on them). I see that Groves designates postmodernism as a "period" (or era, in Wikipedia parlence?), which as far as I can tell, is more than a "movement". However, I haven't become a subscriber yet so I haven't seen everything they have to say about the topic. Logically, if modernism is more than a movement, then postmodernism should be as well, since it basically means "after modernism". In the same way, post-minimalism means "after minimalism", both of which appear to be movements, or at least trends or styles of the same order in the hierarchy of classification. Groves seems to support this idea. I think we also have to see what Groves has to say about "schools". If they are equivilent to periods, eras, or movements, then they belong on the template; if not, they don't. Any takers? ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Groves is often a good start, but almost never the all-and-everything of a classical music topic:
 * The on-line version is based on the latest print edition (2001), with several articles in that edition based on earlier versions without much updating. Some articles were updated after their 2001 version, some weren't. So, would likely not work too well for late 20th-century and 21st-century developments.
 * Some articles in Grove's contain absolute nonsense (example)
 * Since Grove's is written by a wide variety of authors, without harmonisation between the work of all these authors, it can, and does, contain internal contradictions: these contradictions even occur between two articles on the same topic (e.g. the 1994 and 2018 versions of the Fanny Mendelssohn article, by Citron and Mace respectively, both still available online).
 * The website also is a subscription website, with limited access for most (often equally reputable sources have better access, via, e.g. Google Books).
 * I would also not make too big a deal about whether something is usually termed an era or not. Often that is purely circumstantial, e.g. "modern" can be a characteristic of a Romantic era composition (e.g. Liszt wrote some music that was pretty "modern" for its time), "Modernism" is however an era, to which Liszt did not belong, whether or not it is termed "Modernism" or "Modernist Era". Second Viennese School is in all circumstances clear enough to not need an "era" qualifier. For the series box I'd always stay close to the Wikipedia article title: the box represents a way of navigating between articles, so maybe best to keep to the way these articles are titled for best recognisability, I mean, without adding the "era" qualifier when it's not in the Wikipedia article title. The box's header is clear enough – "periods, eras, movements": if its not one of those, it doesn't belong. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Grove is undoubtedly as authoritative as any music source gets. All of the examples you have listed are based on your opinions and do not reflect any Wikipedia policy that states it is unreliable. NYT says that "(First Grove's and now New Grove's closest competitor in terms of scale and authority has been the German Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart -- Music in Past and Present. Edited by Friedrich Blume, it appeared in 14 volumes from 1949 to 1968. Ludwig Finscher is now overseeing a second edition, which began in 1994 and is intended to encompass 21 volumes by its completion in 2004.)" (here) meaning that a reliable source is stating that it is one of at least two authoritative sources. Either way, perhaps "era" should be taken out entirely, since "era" literally refers to the Middle Ages (Medieval era redirects there) and the Renaissance (Renaissance era) redirects there etc. removing it may be the clearest way and would avoid any confusion as to why its not "Modernist era". Alternatively we could use words that are actual in the article: "Medieval period" but this doesn't seem any more or less desirable since the phrase "Medieval period" also redirects to the general movement and its repetitive as the overarching movements (Early, common practice) are also "periods". Removing it would the clearest way and wouldn't be adding OR of calling it an "era" – the indentation would make its importance clear enough by it self. Aza24 (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"Template:W cl mu hist" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:W cl mu hist. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 16 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Simplifying the template
I am beginning to think that this template should ideally be a lot more straight forward, something like the example to the right. There are two many assumptions and too much arbitrariness in the current format. What makes the three Ars more notable than the troubadour, trouvère and minnesang movements—they were the first real secular schools after all. Or what about the first major Italian period (Trecento) or the beginning of Polyphony under the Notre Dame School. If the latter is covered under Ars Antiqua then surely the Mannheim school is covered under the classical era. Galant music is presented (in the current state) as a major movement alongside Baroque and Classical, but clearly it was not—my proposed template would be its transitional status clearer (though admittedly, it can probably be formatted better, but I think the point is clear). The Late 19th-, 20th- and 21st-centuries has a huge host of problems; each "movement" has extremely arbitrary dates, most of which are not found anywhere in their respective articles. Impressionism is hardly a movement, but mearly a historical/musicological term for a handful of composers; Expressionist is a little clearer, but why not the "Second Viennese school" instead? Serialism is hardly a movement, but a technique which composers continue to readily engage with (there are plenty of recent and/or living composers in Twelve-tone composers).

The point is, we are seriously streching the facts to make this template work in the state it's in, really it should just be the core movements and their transitions. The more specific characterizations should be left to more specific templates, such as Medieval music sidebar; after all, what use does a reader have been navigating between Ars nova and Impressionism? Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of response, I'm going to go ahead and implement this approach.  Aza24  (talk)   06:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Implementing this doesn't help anything so far. Yes it is more straightforward, but the issue right now is that the article on Modernism in music is missing a lot. It would be more helpful to keep the articles that have substantially more information on them. Right now the issue is not the template, it's expanding and organizing the articles. Xenoriole (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Modernism
@EdwardElric2016, modernism is a very specific historiographical term in Western classical music, and does not reach even close to as far as 1975. See modernism's lead:

"Authorities typically regard musical modernism as an historical period or era extending from about 1890 to 1930, and apply the term "postmodernism" to the period or era after 1930. For the musicologist Carl Dahlhaus the purest form was over by 1910, but other historians consider modernism to end with one or the other of the two world wars."

If we're going to include Postmodernism, it needs to somehow be a subset of contemporary. Having 20th-century as a subset of contemporary is also an issue; much of the century's most important music was written before WW2.  Aza24  (talk)   20:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi @Aza24, the problem with the 1945 ending date for Modernism is that it doesn’t take into account the postwar composers such as Pierre Boulez and Karlheinz Stockhausen who are generally considered to be modernists rather than postmodernists.
 * I think the 1975 date is used and works better imo because it was around that time where there was a backlash against the strict serialism promoted by the Darmstadt School and movements such as Minimalism and New Simplicity began to arise in response.
 * Contemporary music is a catch all term for all classical music post-1945 rather than a movement compatible to Romanticism like I think Postmodernism is which is why I had it in its own separate section.
 * 20th century music is also a catch all and there really isn’t a great place to put it since there is a lot of overlap with the other articles. I felt placing 20th century under contemporary was the least bad choice because most of the 20th century was after 1945.
 * I’m not against adding a “see also” section at the bottom of the template for all the important articles that don’t seem to fit in cleanly somewhere. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to strongly disagree with not ending modernism at 1945. These dates are messy and will not work perfectly no matter what we do, but at the moment you are simply ignoring cited information. I highly suggest you revert back to the status quo of 1945, unless you can find consensus or prove that the majority of secondary reliable sources agree with you claim. Things like "it doesn't include Boulez and Stockhausen" is OR.
 * "most of the 20th century was after 1945" –, 55 years vs 45 years is hardly a convincing metric! There must be better ways to do this—the current is vastly far from ideal, and certainly worse than the former inclusion of the 20th and 21st in the header.  Aza24  (talk)   22:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The status quo was not 1945 for this template but 1975. You’re the one trying to change it from that. And the cited statement from Modernism’s lead you used for your argument uses 1930 as it’s end date not the 1945 date you keep changing it to. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1930 would be a huge improvement. The cited statement says "For the musicologist Carl Dahlhaus the purest form was over by 1910, but other historians consider modernism to end with one or the other of the two world wars". The second world war ended in 45; I was giving the more generous change to match your insistence on a longer periodization. Please provide sources that back up 1975, otherwise it must be changed.  Aza24  (talk)   23:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of centuries
EdwardElric2016, date changes are one thing, but I feel you are missing the fundamental point of this template when removing contemporary, 21st century and 20th-century classical music: its navigational value. There is no need for over-consolidation (otherwise, this template could just be "early music, common practice and new music"); we want to give readers the ability to traverse between these larger periods with ease, not limit this for the sake of extreme conciseness.

In any case, the new music article is a rather poorly written direct German translation by a now-banned user. It is not a well-defined term, simply because it is hardly used in scholarship (you'll see the entire article has no citations, including its proposed span of "1910 to the present").  Aza24  (talk)   18:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


text:
The Night Porter

The Night Porter (Il portiere di notte) is a 1974 Italian psychological war drama film co-written and directed by Liliana Cavani. It stars Dirk Bogarde and Charlotte Rampling, with Philippe Leroy, Gabriele Ferzetti and Isa Miranda in supporting roles. Set in Vienna in 1957, the film centers on the sadomasochistic relationship between a former Nazi concentration camp officer (Bogarde) and one of his inmates (Rampling).

The film's themes of sexual and sadomasochistic obsession, and its use of Holocaust imagery, have made the film controversial since its initial release, dividing critics over its artistic value. In July 2018, it was selected to be screened in the Venice Classics section of the 75th Venice International Film Festival.

Plot
During World War II, Maximilian Theo Aldorfer, a Nazi SS officer who posed as a doctor to take sensational photographs in concentration camps, and Lucia, a teenage girl interned in a concentration camp due to her father's socialist political ties, had an ambiguous sadomasochistic relationship. Max tormented Lucia, but also acted as her protector.

In 1957, Lucia, now married to an American orchestra conductor, meets Max again by chance. He is now a night porter at a hotel in Vienna, and a reluctant member of a group of former SS comrades who have been carefully covering up their pasts by destroying documents and eliminating witnesses to their wartime activities. Max has an upcoming mock trial at the hands of the group for his war crimes. The group's leader, Hans Vogler, accuses Max of wanting to live "hidden away like a church mouse". Max wishes to remain hidden, but he voices support for the group's activities. Memories of the past punctuate Max and Lucia's present with urgent frequency, suggesting that Lucia survived through her relationship with Max—in one such remembered scene, Lucia sings a Marlene Dietrich song, "Wenn ich mir was wünschen dürfte" ("If I Could Make a Wish"), to the camp guards while wearing pieces of an SS uniform, and Max "rewards" her with the severed head of a male inmate who had been bullying her, referencing Salome.

Because she could testify against him, Lucia's existence is a threat to Max and his former comrades. He goes to see a former Nazi collaborator, Mario, who knows Lucia is still alive; Max murders him offscreen to protect his secret and Lucia. After Lucia's husband leaves town on business, Max and Lucia renew their past lovemaking in Max's apartment. Max confesses to Countess Stein, another guest at his hotel, that he has found his "little girl" again. The Countess tells him that he is insane; Max replies that they are both "in the same boat". Meanwhile, Vogler has Max spied on by Adolph, a youth who works at the hotel.

Max is interviewed by the police about Mario's murder. He spends days with Lucia in his apartment, chaining her to the wall so that "they can't take her away", and sleeps little. Vogler, who wants Lucia to testify against Max in the mock trial—though he harbors more ambiguous long-term intentions towards her—visits and informs her that Max is ill. He suggests that Lucia must also be ill to allow herself to be in this position, but she sends him away, claiming to be with Max of her own free will.

The former SS officers are infuriated at Max for hiding a key witness. Max refuses to proceed with the trial, calling it a "farce", and admits that he works as a night porter due to his sense of shame in daytime. He returns to Lucia, telling her that the police questioned him and others at the hotel about her disappearance, and that no suspicion fell on him. Eventually, Max quits his job, devoting all of his time to Lucia. The former SS officers cut off the couple's supply of food from a nearby grocery store. When Max briefly walks along an outdoor terrace, Vogler shoots and wounds him. Max barricades the door to the apartment, and he and Lucia begin rationing.

Max seeks help by phoning one of his old hotel friends, who refuses, and imploring his neighbour, who is unwilling to provide aid and harbouring Adolph in her apartment. Max retreats again to the apartment, where Lucia is almost unconscious from malnutrition. After one of the former SS officers cuts off the electricity to Max's apartment, Max and Lucia, respectively dressed in his Nazi uniform and a negligee resembling one he gave her in the concentration camp, leave the building and drive away, followed by a car driven by Max's former colleagues. Max parks on a bridge, and he and Lucia get out and walk along the bridge rail as dawn breaks. Two gunshots ring out, and the lovers fall dead.

Production
Filming took place in Vienna and at Cinecittà Studios in Rome. Locations included the Vienna Volksoper, the Linke Wienzeile Buildings, the Mozarthaus, the Vienna Central Cemetery, Karl-Marx-Hof, and Schönbrunn Palace. The concentration camp scenes were shot in the Tuscolano district of Rome. The film's costumes were designed by five-time Oscar-nominee Piero Tosi.

The budget, which had been paid for by the Italian distributor, ran out near the end of the shooting of the film's interiors at Cinecittà. To ensure the film's completion, producer Robert Gordon Edwards instructed editor Franco Arcalli to create a rough cut of the best scenes that had been shot, which he presented to an American colleague who worked at Les Artistes Associés (the French arm of United Artists). On the basis of the rough cut, the company agreed to pay for the filming of the exterior scenes in Vienna in exchange for French distribution rights.

Romy Schneider turned down the role of Lucia. Mia Farrow was considered, as well as Dominique Sanda, before Charlotte Rampling was cast. Rampling shot the film only four months after giving birth to her son Barnaby. She and Dirk Bogarde re-wrote and ad-libbed much of their dialogue. Bogarde also enlisted Anthony Forwood to help rewrite the script, uncredited. Bogarde seriously considered retiring from acting after the end of principal photography, which he considered a very draining experience.

Several of the actors' voices were dubbed, including Philippe Leroy (by Edmund Purdom), Gabriele Ferzetti (by David de Keyser) and Geoffrey Copleston (by Charles Howerton).

Critical response
On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 67% based on 33 reviews, with an average rating of 5.8/10. The website's critics consensus reads, "The Night Porter salaciousness gives its exploration of historical trauma a bitter aftertaste, but audiences seeking provocation are unlikely to forget the sting of this erotic drama." In response to The Night Porter, Cavani was both celebrated for her courage in dealing with the theme of sexual transgression and, simultaneously, castigated for the controversial manner in which she presented that transgression within the context of a Nazi Holocaust narrative.

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times thought the main roles were well-performed, but nonetheless gave the film one star out of four, and called The Night Porter "as nasty as it is lubricious, a despicable attempt to titillate us by exploiting memories of persecution and suffering", while adding that he did not "object per se to the movie's subject matter." In The New York Times, Nora Sayre praised the performances of Bogarde and Rampling, and the "dark, rich tones" of the cinematography, but began her review by writing, "If you don't love pain, you won't find The Night Porter erotic—and by now, even painbuffs may be satiated with Nazi decadence." Vincent Canby, also writing for The New York Times, called it "romantic pornography" and "a piece of junk". Leonard Maltin's 2015 Movie Guide called it a "[s]leazy, bizarre drama", awarding it two out of four stars.

In Europe, the film was met with opposition as well. German magazine Filmdienst categorised the film as "political pornography". Despite the poor German critical response, it grossed over $1.3 million. In the French Cahiers du Cinéma, Michel Foucault criticised what he saw as a sexualised vision of Nazism.

In her 2000 essay for the Criterion Collection release, Annette Insdorf called The Night Porter "a provocative and problematic film. ... [I]t can be seen as an exercise in perversion and exploitation of the Holocaust for the sake of sensationalism. On the other hand, a closer reading of this English-language psychological thriller suggests a dark vision of compelling characters doomed by their World War II past." In his 2020 review for The Guardian, Peter Bradshaw described the film as a "dated" but "intriguing period piece", adding, "Perhaps there is something in its very crassness, horror and tastelessness that does at least jolt us towards an acknowledgment of pure evil."

Mikel J. Koven characterised The Night Porter as a "Nazi sexploitation" film.

Accolades
The film was nominated in two categories at the 1975 Nastro d'Argento Awards, for Best Director (Liliana Cavani) and for Best Screenplay (Cavani and Italo Moscati), but did not win in either category.

title: The Night Porter


text: File:Watchmencovers.png

title: File:Watchmencovers.png


text:
List of colonial governors of Chad

(Dates in italics indicate de facto continuation of office)

For continuation after independence, see: President of Chad

title: List of colonial governors of Chad


text: Category:Royal New Zealand Air Force squadrons


text: Category:Musical techniques

title: Category:Musical techniques


text:
Talk:Tufts University

Oliver Dean second president
The article identifies Alonzo Ames Miner as the second president, beginning in 1862. The first president, Hosea Ballou II, is written in his article as having served from 1853 to 1861, the year he died. Ballou's 1911 Encyclopeia Britannica entry includes that he held the position "until shortly before his death", without detailing how 'shortly'. However, published actions by the Tufts Board of Trustees in 1860 show that Oliver Dean was elected president that year, with Miner elected secretary. I intend to update this article accordingly. Any concerns before I do? —ADavidB 16:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems Dean served as an acting president between Ballou and Miner, so I added him accordingly to List of presidents of Tufts University and List of Tufts University people without mentioning him in this article. —ADavidB 02:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Repeated unexplained addition of maintenance templates
You are welcome to open a discussion here in Talk about your concerns that this article is promotional. You are not welcome to continue adding maintenance templates to this article without any attempt at explanation, actions to which multiple editors have objected. ElKevbo (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Olive Byrne Notable?
Olive Byrne is notable enough to have her own wikipedia page, in which it states she went to Tufts, class of give or take 1925. She went on to be an author and the presumptive inspiration for Wonder Woman. Not sure what the threshold for notability for graduates is on this page, but I think she should clear it. 2601:47:4B02:840:A1C6:1654:346C:CC66 (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Communications and Media Studies, Tufts University into Tufts University
This course or department is not independently notable Tacyarg (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tufts University


text:
Alan Templeton

Alan R. Templeton is an American geneticist and statistician at Washington University in St. Louis, where he is the Charles Rebstock emeritus professor of biology. From 2010 to 2019, he held positions in the Institute of Evolution and the Department of Evolutionary and Environmental Biology at the University of Haifa. He is known for his work demonstrating the degree of genetic diversity among humans and, in his opinion, the biological unreality of human races.

Research
In 2002, Templeton published a genetic analysis showing that some gene variants that are present in modern populations existed already in Asia hundreds of thousands of years ago. This meant that even if our male line (Y chromosome) and our female line (mitochondrial DNA) came out of Africa in the last 100,000 years or so, we have inherited other genes from populations that were already outside of Africa. Since this study other studies have been done using much more data (see Phylogeography).

According to Templeton's research, perceived differences in races are more related to cultural perceptions and biases than any underlying genetic reality. For example, Templeton's statistical analysis of the human genome shows that much greater genetic diversity exists between populations of chimpanzees than humans from different parts of the world.

Using data from the International HapMap Project and the 1000 Genomes project, Templeton and a team of researchers looked at mutations encompassing the gephyrin gene of chromosome 14 and were able to trace the split back to the last common ancestor.

title: Alan Templeton


text: Category:Royal New Zealand Navy

title: Category:Royal New Zealand Navy


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High score

High score was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to delete.

Dicdef. Two other pages link here, but neither would be less without the link. SWAdair | Talk 07:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)  Wow!  'Happy to be proven wrong. I didn't see any way this dicdef could become an actual article, but you folks surprised me. Keep. SWAdair | Talk 05:01, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * I've expanded it to a reasonably encyclopedic stub, and thus vote to keep as it can be expanded. — siro  χ  o  08:18, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * keep Why play if not to kill things, take their stuff and get the high score? The Steve 08:46, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. bbx 09:13, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a long definition. Exploding Boy 09:31, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * It contains a rough idea of the origins of the high score, and recent and current trends in tracking high scores, all encyclopedic info. It needs expansion, but that doesn't make it a definition. — siro  χ  o  16:29, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep! If you think it is just a definition, expand it. Deletion shouldn't be an easy way out. David Remahl 09:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: It doesn't have a lot of room to grow, but it's ok.  It might benefit from explaining, a little more, how this is tied to competitive gaming found in social gaming in arcades.  There were bars where the high scorer was a local legend, etc. Geogre 13:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A good example of how an interesting article can be made about an unlikely topic. Jgm 22:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Jgm.  I just added something about the default fake high scores that show up when you first plug in an old arcade game—I didn't know if new ones or home video games ever have those, so please correct that if they do.  Postdlf 01:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good information. Eric119 23:36, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Added a bit about high scores on Internet --MaxMad 07:43, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
Messor

Messor is a myrmicine genus of ants with more than 100 species, all of which are harvester ants; the generic name comes from the Roman god of crops and harvest, Messor. The subterranean colonies tend to be found in open fields and near roadsides, openings are directly to the surface.

Colonies can achieve huge sizes and are notable for their intricately designed granaries in which seeds are stored in dry conditions, preventing germination. The structure of Messor spp. nests is complex and the genus on the whole is one of very accomplished architects.

Messor spp. are polymorphic and have a distinct caste of macrocephalic dinoergates whose role is carrying and cutting the large seeds which comprise much of the colonies' subsistence. Although they primarily feed on seeds, they occasionally eat insects and snails. Some snail shells possibly are taken into the nest because of their grain-like shape.

Equipped with a tough, shining cuticle, Messor spp. are slow-moving and form long, seed-carrying runs. Colonies tend to be monogynous - founded by a single queen alone.

Looking specifically at the M. arenarius species for example, like some other types of harvester ants, they emit trail pheromones as well as operating on an individual level when looking for food sources.

Species

 * Messor abdelazizi Santschi, 1921
 * Messor aciculatus (Smith, 1874)
 * Messor aegyptiacus (Emery, 1878)
 * Messor alexandri Tohme, 1981
 * ''Messor mediorubra
 * Messor andrei (Mayr, 1886)
 * Messor angularis Santschi, 1928
 * Messor antennatus Emery, 1908
 * Messor aphaenogasteroides Pisarski, 1967
 * Messor aralocaspius Ruzsky, 1902
 * Messor arenarius (Fabricius, 1787)
 * Messor atanassovii Atanassov, 1982
 * Messor barbarus (Linnaeus, 1767)
 * Messor beduinus Emery, 1922
 * Messor berbericus Bernard, 1955
 * Messor bernardi Cagniant, 1967
 * Messor bouvieri Bondroit, 1918
 * Messor buettikeri Collingwood, 1985
 * Messor caducus (Victor, 1839)
 * Messor capensis (Mayr, 1862)
 * Messor plinii
 * Messor capitatus (Latreille, 1798)
 * Messor carthaginensis Bernard, 1980
 * Messor caviceps (Forel, 1902)
 * Messor celiae Reyes, 1985
 * Messor cephalotes (Emery, 1895)
 * Messor ceresis Santschi, 1934
 * Messor chamberlini Wheeler, 1915
 * Messor clypeatus Kuznetsov-Ugamsky, 1927
 * Messor muticus (Nylander, 1849)
 * Messor collingwoodi Bolton, 1982
 * Messor concolor Santschi, 1927
 * Messor decipiens Santschi, 1917
 * Messor dentatus Santschi, 1927
 * Messor denticornis Forel, 1910
 * Messor denticulatus Santschi, 1927
 * Messor arcistriatus
 * Messor diabarensis Arnol'di, 1969
 * Messor ebeninus Santschi, 1927
 * Messor hesperius Santschi, 1927
 * Messor excursionis Ruzsky, 1905
 * Messor ferreri Collingwood, 1993
 * Messor foreli Santschi, 1923
 * Messor fraternus Ruzsky, 1905
 * Messor galla (Mayr, 1904)
 * Messor ebininus Santschi
 * Messor hebraeus Santschi, 1927
 * Messor hellenius Agosti & Collingwood, 1987
 * Messor himalayanus (Forel, 1902)
 * Messor hispanicus Santschi, 1919
 * Messor ibericus Santschi, 1931
 * Messor incisus Stitz, 1923
 * Messor incorruptus Kuznetsov-Ugamsky, 1929
 * Messor inermis Kuznetsov-Ugamsky, 1929
 * Messor instabilis (Smith, 1858)
 * Messor intermedius Santschi, 1927
 * Messor julianus (Pergande, 1894)
 * Messor kasakorum Arnol'di, 1969
 * Messor kisilkumensis Arnol'di, 1969
 * Messor lamellicornis Arnol'di, 1968
 * Messor lariversi (Smith, 1951)
 * Messor kazakorum Arnoldi, 1969
 * Messor lobicornis Forel, 1894
 * Messor lobognathus Andrews, 1916
 * Messor luebberti Forel, 1910
 * Messor luridus Santschi, 1927
 * Messor eglalae Sharaf
 * Messor lusitanicus Tinaut, 1985
 * Messor maculifrons Santschi, 1927
 * Messor mcarthuri
 * Messor marikovskii Arnol'di, 1969
 * Messor marocanus Santschi, 1927
 * Messor medioruber Santschi, 1910
 * Messor melancholicus Arnol'di, 1977
 * Messor minor (Andre, 1883)
 * Messor turcmenochorassanicus Arnol'di, 1977
 * Messor nahali Tohme, 1981
 * Messor niloticus Santschi, 1938
 * Messor oertzeni Forel, 1910
 * Messor olegianus Arnol'di, 1969
 * Messor orientalis (Emery, 1898)
 * Messor perantennatus Arnol'di, 1969
 * Messor pergandei (Mayr, 1886)
 * Messor piceus Stitz, 1923
 * Messor picturatus Santschi, 1927
 * Messor planiceps Stitz, 1917
 * Messor postpetiolatus Santschi, 1917
 * Messor regalis (Emery, 1892)
 * Messor reticuliventris Karavaiev, 1910
 * Messor rufotestaceus (Foerster, 1850)
 * Messor rufus Santschi, 1923
 * Messor ruginodis Stitz, 1916
 * Messor rugosus (Andre, 1881)
 * Messor sanctus Emery, 1921
 * Messor aciculatus (Smith, 1874)
 * Messor sculpturatus Carpenter, 1930
 * Messor semirufus (Andre, 1883)
 * Messor semoni (Forel, 1906)
 * Messor smithi (Cole, 1963)
 * Messor sordidus (Forel, 1892)
 * Messor stoddardi (Emery, 1895)
 * Messor striatellus Arnol'di, 1969
 * Messor creticus Salata & Borowiec, 2019
 * Messor striaticeps (Andre, 1883)
 * Messor striatifrons Stitz, 1923
 * Messor striativentris Emery, 1908
 * Messor structor (Latreille, 1798)
 * Messor subgracilinodis Arnol'di, 1969
 * Messor sultanus Santschi, 1917
 * Messor syriacus Tohme, 1969
 * Messor testaceus Donisthorpe, 1950
 * Messor timidus (Espadaler, 1997)
 * Messor tropicorum Wheeler, 1922
 * Messor turcmenochorassanicus Arnol'di, 1977
 * Messor valentinae Arnol'di, 1969
 * Messor variabilis Kuznetsov-Ugamsky, 1927
 * Messor vaucheri Emery, 1908
 * Messor vicinus Kuznetsov-Ugamsky, 1927
 * Messor wasmanni Krausse, 1910

 * Messor minor x cf. wasmanni (Interspecific hybrid)
 * Messor hismai Collingwood & Agosti, 1996
 * Messor hodnii Barech, Khaldi, Espadaler & Cagniant, 2020
 * Messor spec Santschi, 1927
 * Messor erectus

title: Messor


text:
Talk:Michael (given name)

Meaning of the name
July 21 2004: I changed the translation of Michael to include "Likened unto God," because that's what my rabbi once told me. Archangel Michael was so powerful because he was "like God." I have no other authority than a memory of Rabbi Joey, and I beg to be corrected. Also, I replaced "the Lord" with "God" because I think it's a more literal translation of the Hebrew root "el". In Hebrew, "the Lord" is better translated "Adonai," and "el" is used to refer to many gods, not only the God of Abraham. (Orthodox sticklers note: I haven't blanked out he middle letter of "god" because the commandment refers to God's name, not the word "god." Please excuse me.) --Cladist July 21 2004

Edit: I thought Michael meant "Who is like God?" a rhetorical Jewish exclamation, meaning "To whom can God be compared?"

The name definitely means "Who is like God?": see A J Kolatch, "The Complete Dictionary of English and Hebrew First Names". Runcorn 21:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the meaning is "Who is like God" without the question mark. It's not a question, it's a statement: "...who is like God." I.e., the name-bearer "is like God."

Currently there is a version with, and one without a Question mar (see also box on the right). Can someone clarify which one is correct? And if both should be, make a case for one of both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.49.137 (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Those of you who disagree with the "One who is like God interpretation", on linguistic or theological grounds—please recognize that it is a very common interpretation, even if it seems "incorrect" to you.
 * It is not difficult to find examples. As one source, I've cited a discussion of an Irish devotional, 15th century or earlier, that lists five "victories" that it says make the archangel Michael "like unto God." http://www.omniumsanctorumhiberniae.com/2015/09/michael-one-who-is-like-unto-god.html
 * Linguistically, it is not uncommon for a phrase to omit a pronoun, nor is it uncommon for or a word or phrase to have multiple meanings, even opposite ones, over time. Statesman 88 (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I know some hebrew, and it is definitely a question. Though for the purposes of a definition I'm not sure the question mark would be necessary or correct. The question is also meant to be rhetorical.  Equazcion •✗/C • 23:35, 8 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
I have already pointed out that the translation "One who is like God" is impossible.--Runcorn 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

 * You did say: "The name definitely means "Who is like God?": see A J Kolatch, "The Complete Dictionary of English and Hebrew First Names"." But as far as I can see, you did not point out that the translation "One who is like God" is impossible. I would like to learn more about this. How is it impossible? Sunray 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the Hebrew for "One who is like God" would be "Echad ke-ayl".--Runcorn 18:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is unusual to have the meaning of a name as a question. Why must it be translated as a question? Sunray 06:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe unusual, but that's what it is--a question. "Mi" = "Who"; "cha" = "is like"; "el" = "God." There is no "one" there. Note, it's not a real question, it's a rhetorical question whose point, seems to me, is that there is no one like God, which rules out the translation "One who is like God." BTW the content under discussion here is dictionary content which is why it's been transwikied to Wiktionary and should be removed from Wikipedia following Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pan Dan 14:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What bothers me about that translation is how the question mark gets added. "Who is like God," without a question mark has quite a different meaning. Sure etymology is dictionary content, however, that isn't the only content. Second para and other parts of the articll are encyclopedic. Sunray 14:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That is an illustration of the difficulty of translating from another language, especially one so different from English. I have another reference: "Oxford Dictionary of the Bible" ed. W R F Browning, Oxford University Press 1996, art. "Michael": "Hebrew for 'Who is like God?'". I can't see that an explanation of the meaning of the name is beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia.--Runcorn 18:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When the article talks about the rate of uptake of the name; that is beyond etymology.
 * There are several dictionaries out there with different explanations of the meaning. I grant you "Who is like God?" is the most common. However, the phrase also appears without the question mark. Which led me to wonder. Sunray 16:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see that an explanation of the meaning of the name is beyond the scope of an encyclopaedia -- then you disagree with WP:WINAD. Note also that the sources you have cited regarding the meaning, are dictionaries. Pan Dan 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I could have cited the Oxford Companion to the Bible, or several other books that are not dictionaries.--Runcorn 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is not only an explanation of meaning given. There is also information on its usage and other facts. Sunray 19:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't haggle about the content on Michael's popularity. The content on its etymology and variants should go. Pan Dan 20:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I've read the policy on this. You will have to point me to the line that says "it is forbidden to have any etymological information in articles" (or some such statement). Many articles have etymological information as part of the article (see, for example Culture. I would think that such an approach only makes the article more informative (and sometimes interesting) for the reader. In the case of an article about a name, it seems pretty basic to have that included.  Sunray 20:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy that I linked to explains what dictionary content is, and the title of the page is "Wikipedia Is Not a Dictionary." That seems clear. However I'm not going to haggle over that either. Let me just lay out what I think the ideal thing to do here would be. I think we should do here what was done with the page Emily. The dictionary content was removed, and a link to List of most popular given names was added at the bottom (I see a vandal has removed that; have just put it back). No information was lost, and I think the information is now presented in a more coherent fashion. The page Emily is now a disambiguation page. The reader seeking information about the etymology and variants of Emily is referred to Emily. The reader seeking information about its popularity is referred to List of most popular given names. Pan Dan 21:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 * My reaction to that is that the people who worked on Emily obviously haven't put in nearly the same amount of time and effort as the people who have produced Michael. So far, in this discussion, you have given short shrift to the points raised by me and simply quoted policy in response. I tend to disagree with your interpretation of that policy and have asked you to show me where it says that an article cannot have etymological information in it. This you have failed to do. Should we move on? Sunray 22:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I already said I wouldn't haggle about this. I've said my piece, and as far as I'm concerned the article can stay as it is for now. However you might want to read Wikipedia is not a dictionary just one more time; also check out Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages). Pan Dan 16:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an incomplete etymology. It only deals in "Michael" first attested Biblically. There is evidence it has direct links at least as far back as Neo-Bablylonia and is tied to Meschach/Misael (cf. Chaldea link https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/meshach/; and Akkadia by extension https://www.behindthename.com/name/meshach) 2600:1700:940:79B0:55AA:7B87:B468:21AE (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Princess Michael
In the second paragraph is written:

"although there are women with the name Michael, such as Michael Learned and Princess Michael of Kent"

Princess Michael is not named Michael. Her husband is Prince Michael, and so she is styled Princess Michael just as the wife of John Doe can be called Mrs John Doe.

I think the reference should be removed. Michaelphonic (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See also the section below Princess Michael of Kent by OldStopfordian.

Maybe "women named Michael including Princess Michael of Kent and the actresses Michael Learned" should be replaced by (or something similar to) "women named Michael the actresses Michael Learned. Princess Michael of Kent's name is actually her title, the female equivalent of her husband's title" {though "equivalent to her husband's" appears in the article about her of sounds better to me}. Are there any other well known genuine examples? Mcljlm (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Michael Burnham?

Rulers named Michael
British Royal Family Prince Michael of Kent (born 1942), cousin of Elizabeth II   Princess Michael of Kent (born 1945), author and wife of Prince Michael

In what way is Princess Michael of Kent 'a ruler named Michael'? If my name is Eric the Bold and my wife is refered to as Mrs Eric the Bold, does that make my wife a ruler named Eric? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.167.173 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Prince Michael is not a ruler. The queen is!178.176.223.60 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Christian Feast days - please add Orthodox dates
In the Orthodox Church, Saint Michael's principal feast day is November 8 (November 21 by most Orthodox churches since they use the Julian calendar), where he is honored along with the rest of the "Bodiless Powers of Heaven" (i.e. angels) as their Supreme Commander. Please add this to the locked article!178.176.223.60 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you simply create an account and verify your email address, you can do it yourself. --GrantBnet (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, scratch that. Your factoid does not appear to be germane to this article.  So don't do it yourself. --GrantBnet (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2014
in the Forms across languages the Hebrew variation isn't present. why?

 * Hebrew || מִיכָאֵל, מִיכָאֵל מִיכָאֵל, Mikha'el ||

Gshamir (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Before there are any accusations of bias, the very next sentence is "In Arabic, it is "میکائیل" (Mīkāʼīl; pronounced [miːkæːˈʔiːl]" and Arabic is not in the list either. Arjayay (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ The article clearly states:- "In Hebrew, "מיכה" (Mikha) [ˈmiχa] is a common shortened form of "מיכאל" (Mikha'el)" I agree this is not in the list, but Wikipedia prefers text descriptions to lists where possible.

Princess Michael of Kent
It has already been pointed out that Princess Michael of Kent should not be included here as it is not truly her name but simply a title derived from her husband's name. The reasoning for this is that she was not born a princess but became one through marriage. Her actual name (as distinct from Royal title) is given in the Wikipedia entry for her as "Baroness Marie Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida; née von Reibnitz" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Michael_of_Kent. Although I cannot profess to knowing what her family and friends call her I am willing to bet it's not "Michael", perhaps just Marie, her first given name. Can we please remove the title "Princess Michael of Kent" from this article as it is not strictly a name. OldStopfordian (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

See my addition to the section above Princess Michael by Michaelphonic. Mcljlm (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

unbalanced parens
The second closing parenthesis in the first sentence does not have a corresponding open parenthesis: Michael /ˈmaɪkəl/ is a male given name that comes from the Hebrew: מִיכָאֵל / מיכאל (Mīkhāʼēl, pronounced [miχaˈʔel]), derived from the question מי כאל mī kāʼēl) 208.253.23.130 (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing this out. —Bruce1eetalk 05:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No question mark!
The name Michael means "Who is like God". It's not a question, rhetorical or otherwise. It's a statement. The archangel Michael being the closest to God and on God's right as he was the most like God. Likened unto God. I have grown up with this name and that is what it has always meant. Only in recent years has the meaning become a question by adding a question mark. It may be politically correct to question who could possibly be like God, but no-one is saying they are God. Just like God. Don't we all aspire to be like God? It seems that this page is now being used for a source on every other baby naming page and thus continues to perpetuate the question mark. No question mark needed. Michael, who is like God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.63.41 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's rubbish. In Hebrew, the first syllable of מי כאל mī kāʼēl, means "who?" (the question word). The Hebrew for your meaning "X, who is like God" would be very different: אֲשֶׁר כאל asher kāʼēl.
 * Please contribute to Wikipedia discussions based on evidence in WP:Reliable sources, rather than your own opinions. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Micheal
I see this a lot, and assume it is typically just a mistake by people who can't spell properly. But recently, I've been told that this is the correct spelling in Ireland,  and that it properly should have some kind of accent mark as well. There isn't any wikipedia entry for "Micheal", it just re-directs straight to "Michael". If correct, it should probably be added either to the list of variant forms near the top,  or to the list of equivalent names in other European countries. Lathamibird (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Michael Burnham
Another - fictional - female Michael: Michael Burnham. Hektor (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Micheal (name) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

mikhail
Since Mikhail redirects here i added the list of people with the name mikhail page along with the list of people with the name michael pageHydra24538 (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Split between Michael and Michael (Archangel)
I think sections 1 and 2 can be merged into Michael (archangel), and parts of Michael (archangel) can be included in the name/origin section.

Themadprogramer (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Michael (archangel) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Michael (given name)