Talk:Lyubomir Pipkov

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Dmitri Shostakovich ranked the symphonic works of Lyubomir Pipkov alongside those by Sergei Prokofiev and Benjamin Britten? Source: "Many excellent symphonic works have appeared recently. I should like to mention, for example, Sergei Prokofiev, Benjamin Britten, or the Bulgarian composer Lyubomir Pipkov." (Dmitry Shostakovich: About Himself and his Times, p. 316)
  • ALT1:... that Lyubomir Pipkov was a painter, poet, writer, and teacher, as well as composer? Source: "Любомир Пипков, също като баща си, има многостранни интереси. Занимава се с рисуване, поезия, прави критични оценки на драматични спектакли, участва в литературни дискусии. (Lyubomir Pipkov, like his father, had myriad interests. He was involved in painting, poetry, critically appraised dramatic performances, participated in literary discussions." (https://duma.bg/?go=news&p=detail&nodeId=92108)
  • ALT2:... that Lyubomir Pipkov is considered one of the founders of Bulgaria's modern professional musical establishment? Source: "Nowhere does she discuss, or even acknowledge, the founders of the country's professional musical establishment: Pancho Vladigerov, Liubomir Pipkov, Marin Goleminov, Veselin Stoianov, Dimitar Nenov, and at least three generations of their students."(Democracy Performed—Setting the Record Straight: A Critical Response to "Performing Democracy—Bulgarian Music and Musicians in Transition" by Donna Buchanan; Perspectives of New Music, Summer 2009, p. 151)

• Reviewed: Mapuche polygamy

Created by CurryTime7-24 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC).

• New enough, long enough, written within policy (I particularly appreciate the Legacy section which is appreciative but balanced, giving voice to several opinions on Pipkov's work). All hooks work well, and supported by in-line citations. Bulgarian language sources AGF. The article is ready for DYK. You do however have some problems with the citations in the article not working properly and should address those. Nice work, I enjoyed reading the article! Yakikaki (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Done! And thank you! :) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Dating dispute

My understanding on this matter is that MOS:DATEFORMAT states that unless the article's subject deals with people or events whose importance are mostly within the domain of their homelands, that the dating style defaults to whichever was used by the article's "first major contributor," which in this case is me. (The dating system I use simply out of habit is MDY.) This can be changed according to the strong national ties a particular subject may have to a country and its attendant dating system. Lyubomir Pipkov, however, is a classical composer. As with any other important composer, his work is part of the patrimony of the world. Implying that he is merely a matter of importance to Bulgarians is like arguing a figure like Szymanowski or Kodály are only relevant to Poles and Hungarians respectively. Moreover, there are other classical musician articles which clearly defer to MOS:DATEFORMAT despite where their respective subjects may have been born or lived most of their lives. Dates in Stravinsky's article is DMY throughout, despite the fact that he lived most of his life in the United States, was an American citizen, composed for American organizations often, and was a vital figure in American musical life. Conversely, Bruno Walter spent most of his life in Germany and Austria, yet has his article rendering dates MDY. Moreover, MOS:STYLERET makes it clear that consensus needs to be gathered before making stylistic changes to articles: "If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page" and "Edit-warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is never acceptable." This courtesy was not adhered to by GiantSnowman, who instead opted to unilaterally change the dating systems without discussing the matter with their fellow editors on the talk page. So can other editors please weigh in on this matter? Whichever way my fellow editors decide to render dates hereon is fine with me. Thanks in advance. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

TLDR - but if you are going to insist on date consistency please at least ensure the dates are consistent... GiantSnowman 08:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You good, bro? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)