Talk:Steinway & Sons/Archive 3

Rebuilt Steinways from the "Golden" era

I am surprised no one has included material on how many pianists prefer to have rebuilt steinways from the 1920's and 30's.. There is much published about this topic, and an incredible amount of pianists prefer the tone from the older pianos, with new actions parts. --Ronnie segev (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the popularity of rebuilt Steinways in the trivia section, not only because I own one, but mainly because I played many, many of them in Europe, America, and Asia. The known fact that Steinway is the preferred piano for majority of concert halls, and after the primary use expires, all retired Steinways go to studios or private venues due to high demand. Steinway remains the most desired piano for rebuilding and re-use, even many non-Steinway dealers, who do not have a license from Steinway, still offer used and rebuilt Steinways. Larry Fine (pianos) has a wealth of information on rebuilt Steinways. Steveshelokhonov 21:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Loesser's book, Men, Women, and Pianos

The wonderful Arthur Loesser's book, Men, Women, and Pianos: A Social History, describes the rise of Steinway & Sons in Sections 6 and 7. It has over six hundred pages and a wealth of valuable information on the role of pianos in culture and society. A very nice book indeed. Steveshelokhonov 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"citation needed"

Unfortunately there are some "citation needed" in the large and very good article about Steinway & Sons. I have tried to fill in the citations but it's not easy to find the references. Can anyone fill in the needed citations? It will make the article even better. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Quotes Section POV

These quotes read like they came out of a Steinway brochure - and probably did. I've added a neutrality tag, but feel the section should be deleted. Other piano manufacturer articles do not have quotes.THD3 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The selection of quotes are facts, and I think that facts are correct in an encyclopedia. Importantly, no artists are paid for giving their opinion about Steinway grand pianos.

Because other piano manufacturer articles don't have quotes doesn't mean that it's wrong to have quotes. Remember that the article about Steinway & Sons is much more informative than other piano manufacturer articles. Fanoftheworld (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the selection of quotes are factual only in that they represent the opinions of various pianists.THD3 (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, that was what I tried to wrote.

And remember that it's not up to us to decide which opinions there are right or wrong. Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, in that case, you wouldn't mind if I added some critical opinions of Steinway by well known pianists?THD3 (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, that's obvious. Good luck finding critical quotes about Steinway grand pianos by world renowned classical and rhythmic pianists. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The introduction

There's no doubt that Steinway & Sons manufacture good instruments, but expressions such as "world renowned" have no place in an encyclopedic article, even if they are well sourced. --Karljoos (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that note of sanity.THD3 (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lots of independent internet pages (independent newspapers, independent books and much more) mention Steinway and Steinway pianos as "the world's finest piano producer" and "the world's finest pianos". The Wikipedia article about Steinway & Sons does only mention Steinway as world renowned. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added independent references to the introduction. Much more can be found. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the Britannica. You will never find there claims to prestige and greatness. If we aim to some degree of objectivity here, we should go for "Steinway is a piano maker without any decorations such as "highly regarded". Here are some examples of good neutral articles: Royal Academy of Music and Juilliard School. They can both claim greatness and being highly regarded and sources supporting this could be easily found. However the articles have a neutral and encyclopedic tone and do not mention such judgements. Let's learn from them. Thank you --Karljoos (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good example of an objective article about another top piano manufacturer: Bösendorfer. It seems like Fanoftheworld has a special interest in highlighting (do you work for Steinway & Sons Inc?)that Steinway pianos are the best pianos in the universe (perhaps they are), but can't really understand that a minimum of objectivity has to mantained here to make the articles sound encyclopedic. Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on consensus between myself and Karljoos, I have added the advert and peacock tags. Please do not remove them until the issues with this article are resolved. Fanoftheworld, if you have a business interest in Steinway pianos, whether as an employee of the company or as a salesperson for a dealership, you should not be editing this article, period. Wikipedia has no way of confirming this, it's on the honor system. But based on your edit history, it certainly appears to be the case.THD3 (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• First of all, do you really think that Steinway (or any other company) will use staff and money for writing on the english Wikipedia... Don't think that Wikipedia is the center of the universe.
• As I see it, the contributions above is written because of the words "highly regarded". Before writing you could have read what already is discussed on this page.
• Dear THD3: You have for not long ago asked for a mediator. The mediator and I agreed that "highly regarded" is okay. Do you also think that the mediator is working for Steinway... Before writing about the Steinway article you could read other articles about piano manufacturers than Steinway and Bösendorfer. For example: the words "highly regarded" is mentioned in the introduction of the article about Bechstein. --Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the article is the general tone. I placed this note in the introduction section because that's where the most recent strands of the thread are. As for the "highly regarded" business, in the Bechstein article the remark is applied to the instruments, not the company. Bosendorfer's article is similar. You'd be surprised the number of companies (and individuals) that monitor their own Wikipedia articles. Not just smaller companies like Steinway but Fortune 500 companies as well. As often as not, they're too stupid to cover their tracks and you can trace them via their IP address. Given that the majority of your editing history revolves around this article, it's natural to have suspicions.THD3 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a noticeable difference about saying "a highly regarded piano maker" (Steinway article) and "highly regarded for their concert grand pianos as well as upright pianos" (Bechstein article). I think there are other and more important things to do on Wikipedea than talking about such a small difference. (For example finding more references to the claim about "highly regarded" in the Bechstein article. The claim has only 2 references which is very few compared with the many references about the claim "highly regarded" in the Steinway article).

But as I said above "The mediator and I agreed that "highly regarded" is okay.", so I don't see any problem about this.

As I said above, you have for not long ago asked for a mediator. On the whole, you didn't participate in the discussion/mediation here on this page, although it was you who asked for a mediator. Your only comment (to "highly regarded" among other things) was "Sorry for the late reply, Theseeker4 (the mediator). Your suggestions sound fine to me.THD3". Therefore I'm a little confused that you now shortly after have opposite views. Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the following sentence should be moved somewhere else in the article “The world's most expensive grand piano (€1.2 million) and upright piano (£1.67 million) are built by Steinway”. It seems to me trivial information and doesn’t seem relevant for an introduction. Any suggestions about where it should go? --Karljoos (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it seems relevant. The sentence is a short and precise formulation, and it is right after the company's dedication and principles. I think it should be there. Fanoftheworld (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

But the present tense is wrong, and the implication is wrong. Steinway made the upright (past tense) that Lennon used, but it was not offered by Steinway as the most expensive upright model when it was sold new. It became the most expensive upright at an auction many years later. The most expensive grand piano was made (past tense) as a one-time piece; that particular piano was not part of an ongoing model line. If Steinway, right now, was offering the most expensive upright and grand pianos, then the sentence would hold up. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to insist, but I believe that the fact that the pianos were sold for x millions does not add any information that is needed for a lead and it is just something anecdotic. Also, there are other implications in fact that the instruments were sold for that amount is not only because of being a Steinway (one being the piano of John Lennon and a custom made piano made with exotic woods). What is needed, in my opinion, is just info about what is Steinway and Sons (a piano builder with factories in Europe and the States, founded in 1953 etc.) and basic info about their products (Steinway makes both uprights and grands and has a long history of innovation and research into piano making). Then in the sections can go all the development of this info and the trivia. I think the intro is OK as it is, with the exception of the info about these two pianos. --Karljoos (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is notable and relevant in the Steinway article to mention that the most expensive grand piano and most expensive upright piano are made by Steinway. How the pianos got their high prices is another story. I didn't wrote "grand pianoS" and "upright pianoS" but just piano (without "s"), so the reader don't think that both the pianos were sold new by Steinway and both pianos were priced by Steinway.

However it can not be an instance that the most expensive grand piano and the most expensive upright piano both are made by Steinway, like it probably isn't an instance that Juhn Lennon bought an upright piano made by Steinway.

Maybe the sentence can be written another way, so the reader doesn't think that these two piano are some of Steinway's standard models. Maybe a [[Steinway & Sons#Price records|See below]] should be added right after the sentence. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the quote "world's most expensive" does not match the source in either case. The source calls the grand piano model "the most expensive grand piano it [Steinway] has ever built". Second, to call the Lennon piano the most expensive because it's a Steinway is dishonest at best. It sold for a high price because it belonged to John Lennon.THD3 (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

But as a said, the sentence is correct - these two pianos are built by Steinway. I think that to add a [[Steinway & Sons#Price records|See below]] right after the sentence will be appropriate. The reader can in the section below easily read about the pianos. And/or maybe the sentence can be written another way. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Lennon's piano was a Steinway is accidental. The price would had probably been the same if it was a Pleyel, a Yamaha or a Schimmel. There's also a section for price records, where this is also mentioned, so let's remove from the intro. --81.38.243.213 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No doubt that it is not an accident. The high price of the upright piano is because of both the owner John Lennon, and the brand Steinway which is considered to be the most prestigious piano brand. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit. "No doubt"? There is indeed doubt. All of this is complete conjecture, though, unless we find an interview of George Michael saying he would have bought it even if it were a Currier or Lindner, or that he wouldn't have bought it if it were a Bosendorfer grand. Your opinion, and mine, don't count. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think it was an accident that John Lennon for years ago bought an upright piano from Steinway. And I don't think it is an accident that the bids got that high just because of the former owner John Lennon. Some of the persons who bid on the piano could have been interested in the piano mostly or also because of the prestigious brand Steinway. No one knows. I don't think that a Yamaha piano owned by John Lennon would have gone that high. It is like some users here think that the brand of the piano is completely without importance. But one thing is sure: The most expensive upright piano is built by Steinway. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not buying what you're selling. John Lennon may have been more interested in getting a Steinway than another brand, but the world will never know, because he didn't care to tell us. It was 1970, and he was worth millions. He had his choice of pianos, yet he bought an upright. He spent US$1500 on it which would today be US$8500. Sure, it was a nice upright... nobody doubts it. What gets wiggly and hard to pin down, though, is what George Michael would have paid for it in auction if it were another make, or if he would have bid at all. I believe he would have paid just as high a price if it were a fine quality non-Steinway upright. One thing is for sure: The upright piano which sold the most at a celebrity auction was built by Steinway. Very different meaning. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The most expensive upright piano is/was built by Steinway - that is a fact. To use "is" or "was" is a matter of present tense or past tense.

It is like you forget that in an auction, Georg Michael is not the only person. Nobody knows the reason why all the other persons bid on the piano like nobody knows the reason why Georg Michael bid on the piano. It is your own opinion why Georg Michael among other persons bid. But one thing is fact: The most expensive upright piano today is/was built by Steinway. Fanoftheworld (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I say again: The source does not say that the grand piano was the most expensive piano ever produced, only the most expensive piano that Steinway has ever produced.THD3 (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that Steinway is modest.

Then a better citation is needed. Below at the website Most Expensive Pianos there is a Bösendorfer grand piano priced $1.2 million. When the Steinway grand piano is priced €1.2 million, it is the more expensive. But you are right that it would be good to find a better reference. Fanoftheworld (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

<==I'm deleting all mention of "most expensive" from the lead section. It is trivia, pure and simple. These two piano sales are not foundational to the core of Steinway, who sells hundreds of thousands of pianos that aren't the most expensive. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Binksternet for the application of common sense.THD3 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

- "These two piano sales are not foundational to the core of Steinway..." = Wrong. The world's most expensive grand piano ever built was sold by Steinway. So the grand piano sale is foundational to the core of Steinway. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

- I observe that none of the users above could match "It is notable and relevant in the Steinway article to mention that the most expensive grand piano and most expensive upright piano are made by Steinway. How the pianos got their high prices is another story.". Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet. Let's not forget that this info is already in the "price records" section. Thanks. --Karljoos 19:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't rewrite the sentence to try and keep it in the lead section! It is still trivia, and inappropriate for the lead. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with having the info about the €1.2 million-piano in the "price records" section? It is, asBinksternet has said, trivial information, and does not contain important info about what is Steinway, and what they do, which is what I would expect to see in an introduction. --Karljoos (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Steinway concert piano banks

Lots of piano makers have concert piano banks. Concert piano banks in general are explained - not only Steinway concert piano banks.

Furthermore it is explained that Steinway has concert piano banks around the world. I don't understand how this should be a commercial. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with this article

I believe a little give and take is necessary for this article to improve. Fanoftheworld, I know you have done a huge amount of work to this article for several months, greatly expanding it and in many ways improving the article. However, I am worried that ownership issues may be creeping in. I believe the article is suffering from a significant positive POV at the moment. Whether you believe the positive point of view is justified or not is not the issue; regardless of whether an editor thinks the POV is accurate, we need to maintain a neutral POV throughout the article. Unfortunately, large sections of quotes and words like "world renowned" have no place in this article. Quotations of the sort that are near the end of this article serve no purpose other than promotional. It is possible some of the quotes should be saved, but the sheer volume is inappropriate. Additionally, citing the company's website raises serious POV concerns; it should be avoided if at all possible, and it certainly should not be relied on for the quotes included in the article. Additionally, the list of patents is excessive. It seems to serve no purpose other than to try to fluff up the accomplishments of the company, which should not be necessary. Only the most notable patents should be listed, and I know there are only 24 of the 125 total patents listed, but that is still excessive. In addition to being inappropriately promotional, the list does not conform to the manual of style in that any relevant information about the most notable advancements can be dealt with in paragraph form and not as a huge bullet pointed list. I suggest removal of the vast majority of the problem areas, as the article can present the factual information about the company while relying on third-party sources and without sounding like a promotional piece. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the majority of the questionable material. Please discuss here, do not simply revert without discussing. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Theseeker4, I have just read your texts above and I understand that some changes are necessary for this article to improve.

- Regarding the words "world renowned" we could use the words "highly regarded", which is written in the beginning of the article C. Bechstein Pianofortefabrik.

- Regarding the section "Patents" with 24 patents listed, we could have 12 patents listed like the German article about Steinway de:Steinway & Sons#Patente.

- Regarding the section "Quotes about Steinway pianos" we could remove whole this section. Regarding the section "Quotations by Heinrich Engelhard Steinweg" this section is not to promote Steinway. The quotations are mentioned because they are very famous and therefore I think it would be correct to write the quotations in an article about Steinway. I could probably find other refenrences than the Steinway Website.

- Regarding the section "Steinway concert piano banks" I don't understand how this section should sound like an advertisement. Lots of piano makers have concert piano banks. Concert piano banks in general are explained - not only Steinway concert piano banks. Furthermore it is explained that Steinway has concert piano banks around the world. In case the section sounds like an advertisement I don't think I am apple to rewrite the section.

I look forward to hear what you think about my suggestions. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding "world renowned" vs. "highly regarded" I do think highly regarded sounds more neutral, though I would be interested in what some of the other editors who objected to the previous phrase have to say. Feel free to insert that phrase and i will certainly not revert it; if anyone objects to that new phrase they are free to discuss it and alternatives here.
• Regarding patents, I believe a list is not called for. The purpose of the section, as I understand it, is to demonstrate innovation by the company. To this end, I believe the article would be better served by a section in paragraph form of a few of the most notable innovations made. I am certainly not in a position to declare an arbitrary number which is "correct" but believe a more detailed description (in neutral terms of course) of some of the most notable/significant innovations would work better and improve the article more than the bulleted list which had existed. I of course would welcome comments by other editors regarding this point as well.
• I am not sure what to do with the quotes by Heinrich Steinweg. Significant quotes that support points being made in various parts of the article could be included, but I don't think a section consisting of nothing but quotes adds to the article, even if it does/did not sound promotional. I think his quotes can be used, but think they would work better incorporated into the text, rather than as a stand-alone section. Regarding the other section of promotional quotes, since you agree they should remain out of the article, I believe that issue is resolved.
• Finally, regarding the section "Steinway concert piano banks" I left that section alone in my bold edit as I do believe that section has merit. It certainly is notable and worthy of inclusion based on the fact that they are the first piano banks of their kind. Some of the language does seem overly promotional, but the section as a whole should stay, IMHO. I will take a crack at making the language more neutral if I get a chance, but prehaps one of the previously involved editors can make some edits that can be examined and discussed here to allow removal of the template on that section.

That is all for now. Let me know what you think, and anyone else reading this thread, please feel free to comment. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

::::Sorry for the late reply, Theseeker4. Your suggestions sound fine to me.THD3 (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I feel the "highly-regarded" is also POV, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. If the phrase is also present on the Bechstein page, that should be addressed as well.THD3 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't hope that User:THD3 will change his opinion once again in few months. Of course it's irritating for other users if some users doesn't take the discussion serious from the beginning and change there opinions and acts - when the mediator is gone. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

- I have added "highly regarded" to the introduction. I hope that this issue is resolved.

- I have written a little text about the patents in the beginning af the article. I don't know what to do with the list of patents.

- I have written a little text about the quotes by the founder H.E. Steinweg in the beginning af the article. I hope that this issue is resolved.

- I really hope that the section "Steinway concert piano banks" could be re-written soon, so the whole article can be in the correct Wikipedia standard.

I look forward to hear from you. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Don't have as much time today to edit as yesterday, but I took a shot at removing most of the promotional language as well as cutting some of the detail without removing the meaning of the section about piano banks. If there is something vital i cut, let me know as I am not an expert on the subject, but I think it sounds a bit more neutral. Will review the rest of the article when i have a chance, and I do encourage other editors to weigh in, at least with comments if they don't want to edit themselves. The article will only get better the more people looking at it and making suggestions. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for rewriting the section about Steinway concert piano banks. I have made some small changes which I hope is okay. I have also added some of the old text about the Steinway concert piano bank in Los Angeles because that is an important concert piano bank. The addition is the last part of the section. I hope you will read it. Feel free to change words and other. Fanoftheworld (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What is it about the Los Angeles piano bank that merits special inclusion in the article?THD3 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Steinway concert piano bank in Los Angeles does not only provides Steinway pianos for the "normal" touring artists performances but also for a very wide range of performing artists. What the wide range consists of are mentioned in the text, which is the very last part af the section: "... from Hollywood stars and touring guest performers, to film composers, songwriters and ensembles, as well as to film and music schools in California." and "... and the entertainment industry in Los Angeles.". It is unusual for a concert piano bank to provide pianos for such a very wide range. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage editors to review the following neutrality-related policies that this article seems to violate in spades with the repeated unencyclopedic assertions of prestige and reputation. Assert facts, not opinions, Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide, and Words to avoid/Peacock words. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Madcoverboy, thank you for articulating what I've been trying to say. There are plenty of references in the article about how great Steinway supposedly is. It doesn't need to be slathered all over the introduction as well.THD3 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that User:Madcoverboy and of course User:THD3 don't respect the solution (few months ago) by the mediator and me who where the only users participating in the discussion/mediation. I also understand that User:Madcoverboy and User:THD3 have not made any actions at all regarding the claim "highly regarded" in the article about Bechstein, although the Bechstein article has been mentioned several times. I also understand that "highly regarded" has been mentioned in the Bechstein article for longer times than in the Steinway article but that User:Madcoverboy and User:THD3 are more eager for changing "highly regarded" among others in the Steinway article than changing "highly regarded" in the Bechstein article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is just Wikipedia, not a pissing match. Just because another article does something wrong, isn't an excuse to do it as well. I updated the other article's lead to remove the "highly regarded" comment. Let's all get back to writing neutral, verifiable, and excellent articles instead of praising/denigrating their subjects. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Let's be neutral. That is something that some people do not understand around here. Objectivity does not affect the category of the product. There're some weird interests here.--Karljoos (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Conway Stewart logo.png

The image File:Conway Stewart logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad link in citation

A citation in the hearing aid section goes to a broken web page, http://verve.phonak.com/?wm=m%2834%29sp%283%2C30%29

Also, the cite ref seems to be mispelled: "Premiun service for you", Phonak Verve Website.

Perhaps the link should go here: http://verve.phonak.com/consumer/products/instruments.htm, although much of this section seems to be irrelevant fluff anyways, imho. --Bobbozzo (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that Phonak has closed the website used when this section was created. That explains the problems with the links. I have updated the references. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking

There seems to be a great deal of overlinking in the article. The pages on Germany and New York, for instance, are linked to dozens of times; every date is linked; even everyday words are linked for no apparent reason. I'm removing whatever unnecessary links I can find, but if I go too far, or not far enough, please change it accordingly. Alexrexpvt (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a quality for the article to have links where possible.

But whatever it can never be a problem if an article has many links, quite the contrary. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a guide to linking in the Manual of Style. It's generally considered overlinking to link every date; to link the same word multiple times in the same paragraph, never mind the same article; and to link to pages that add nothing to the reader's comprehension of the subject of the article. Links should be used judiciously, not indiscriminately. I've tried to restrict links to the essential. Alexrexpvt (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about the page Wikipedia:Linking.

Why did you remove the link to 1853 (the year Steinway was founded) in the very beginning of the introduction? Other years like 1797, 1871 and 1860s have still links. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't got round to removing all the date links yet. If you think a link to the 1853 page is important, please re-add it. Alexrexpvt (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff picture

The Blüthner article claims that Rachmaninoff is sitting beside a Blüthner in the picture; the Steinway article claims it's a Steinway. I can't tell from the photo which is true, and the site the picture is taken from isn't particularly informative. I've removed the claim that it's a Steinway piano until someone can demonstrate that it is. Alexrexpvt (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lyngdorf

There is a statement from Lyngdorf on the Web site to the effect that he wanted to create the 'perfect audio system'; but writing that they sought to produce the perfect audio system without direct attribution, and then juxtaposing that with the product they came up with, seems to imply that they achieved the goal of making a 'perfect audio system'. At any rate, a 'perfect audio system' is an impossibility; it's typical advertising fluff, and adds absolutely nothing to the article. A simple description of the product with a link to the Website where people can read all the promotional material they want seems enough. I've also made a number of small grammatical changes to this section; if you desperately need to get the expression 'perfect audio system' into the article, please don't revert the whole section, just add the quotation with attribution. Alexrexpvt (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole idea about a music system by Steinway was that it should be the perfect audio system. - Like Steinway thinks, that a Steinway piano is the perfect piano. Steinway would not make just another audio system but the best audio system. Therefore the mission wasn't to develope Steinway Lyngdorf model D, that was the result. The text doesn't claim that the mission is accomplished. Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, I've put 'perfect audio system' in quotation marks, though it's still an imperfect compromise, as it appears to be a quotation by Lyngdorf about his personal ambitions, rather than any formal sort of 'mission' that the two companies shared. At any rate, I think we might need to get an another, independent opinion here. To me, the whole entry is exactly what you'd expect to find on an advertising web site: it's not objective, it's relentlessly positive. Whereas to you it apparently seems NPOV. Alexrexpvt (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion. Well, I had to wade through a lot of article history to see what you guys were talking about. I'm glad to see that the Lyngdorf material is now relegated to two external links. There was too much marketing hyperbole in the version I saw dated April 11, the one with a bunch of non-piano Steinway-licensed products. Looks like you guys settled the question. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cavalca

The quotation I've removed is entirely about Cavalca. Steinway isn't mentioned. The product isn't made by Steinway; it's made under licence. The source itself is a site designed to advertise the watches. If the product was actually made by Steinway, the quotation might just be justifiable. As it is, it's a very long, irrelevant quotation that comes across as pure advertising, that even a tenuous link with 'music' can't salvage. Alexrexpvt (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hearing aids

'Hearing solution' is typical advertising jargon; no one who uses a hearing aid would say 'I'm wearing a hearing solution'. 'Deluxe' doesn't appear to mean anything here: does it mean that it's the most expensive product the company makes, the best made? It's not necessary to constantly drive home the message that everything Steinway lends its name to (but doesn't make) is the best; that's a job for Steinway's marketing department. If you can find third party sources that discuss the hearing aid it might be justifiable. Alexrexpvt (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Four principles

As far as I can tell from the Steinway website, there are three guiding principles, and one original mission statement of sorts (to build the best pianos in the world, or words to that effect). The source that I removed appeared to be a tertiary source (that cited no sources) and a form of self-publishing. All four statements are still there, so I'm not convinced that it materially affects the article. Alexrexpvt (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Always read what you are reverting. There was clearly a new reference added. Fanoftheworld (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes: I read the reference. It was self-published; the new reference isn't in English, and doesn't link to a page that supports the claim. The mission statement and the first principle are also two variants of the same thing, so one or the other should go. Alexrexpvt (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The "finest" piano and the "best" piano isn't the same. A company which builts the best pianos isn't the same as a company that builts the finest pianos.

The new reference links to a page (Steinway's Official German Website) that supports the claim. Fanoftheworld (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Finest" and "best" are clearly two altered forms of an original quotation; I don't see a direct link to the page on the German web site that supports the claim, and even if there were a direct link, it would still be a matter of translating it into English, and choosing between 'finest' and best'. At any rate, both sources are self-published (the manufacturer's own Web site), and don't indicate whether the original quotation is in German or English, and where it occurred. Perhaps the simplest way to resolve this would be to remove the section altogether until someone finds a reliable, secondary source that confirms it. Alexrexpvt (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"To build the best piano possible" is written in English at the German website so translation isn't something to discuss. See the reference No. 6:

"The intro", Steinway & Sons German Official Website. Accessed April 23, 2009.

Fanoftheworld (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A flash screen with a quotation on it is a poor source, especially when it's self-published. At any rate, the source you've provided doesn't say that it was one of his guiding principles; the Steinway source just one line later specifies only three guiding principles, and quotes what is presumably a paraphrase of 'to build the best piano possible', as it's not a direct quotation. It requires a reliable, secondary source, as I said. Alexrexpvt (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

- I understand that you finally have seen the source.

- The source is acceptable, so it doesn't give you the right just to delete the claim.

- The American website with 3 of the quotations is also self-published and that didn't you complain about. By the way, on wikipedia you find a lot of references linking to company's own websites.

- Remember that you don't get to understand a company that's more than 150 years old, just by reading (a few) websites. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed it in line with the Be bold in editing articles guideline. Sources should be from reliable third party-sources (WP:SOURCES). You can use self-published sources where nothing better can be found (WP:SPS), but the article does rely on them to an unusual extent. I don't agree that the source is acceptable, because it does not say that the quotation is one of the guiding principles, in other words, it can't be verified. The American website is objectionable, but to a lesser degree, because it's not being used to support something that isn't even mentioned. The fact that other pages do something does not justify bad practice, or violation of guidelines. Alexrexpvt (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion. The URL http://www.steinway.com/steinway/catalogue/worlds_finest.shtml which talks about "three basic principles, as stated by our founder Henry E. Steinway" is the most reliable of the two sources. Three, not four, principles. Whatever the fourth thing might be called, it can't be introduced as coming from Henry E. Steinway. A flash screen isn't suitable as a source. My browser is configured not to allow them, and I'm not the only one. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Steinway Artists

Was Liszt an Steinway & Sons Artist? I couldn't find any reputable independent references regarding this. If no reference is provided it should be removed from the list. Lets be serious, lets be objective, lets be neutral, lets defend the objectivity of this article from Steinway & Sons Inc's PR Department. --Karljoos (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I finally found a reference on Steinway's official website, which is not very neutral. Also, List is also known to have owned/performed pianos from other builders ([1]). --Karljoos (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Steinway article at the moment claims the Steinway Artists program started with Paderewski's American tour, which was 1891. Liszt died in 1886, so it's very unlikely he joined a program that didn't exist. He did play on Steinway pianos, and praised them at least once; but he played lots of other pianos too. Alexrexpvt (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Where do you read in the Steinway & Sons article that the Steinway Artists program started in 1891? Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"Later Ignacy Jan Paderewski played 107 concerts in the time of 117 days, travelling through America with his own railroad car and a Steinway concert grand piano. The Steinway Artists program was born." The juxtaposition of "was born" and the Padereswki tour strongly implies that the concert began with the tour; the syntax doesn't permit you to make the inference that the program began in 1872, or any other date save 1891. The article, unfortunately, cites no reliable, secondary source to establish precisely when the program began (as opposed to the distinct practice of simply encouraging pianists to play one's pianos). Perhaps it needs a fact tag. Alexrexpvt (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Steinway Artists program began 1872 when Steinway engaged the first pianist, Anton Rubinstein. I think "The Steinway Artists program was born." should be removed one sentence forwards to avoid misunderstanding. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any objective and neutral source (Steinway's official website can't be a reliable, reputable, neutral and independent source) indicating that Liszt did indeed join this program (by making a public estatement, signing a contract etc.). Performing on Steinway's often does not make a performer an Steinway Artist. Did Franz List and Sergei Prokofiev (???) join this program and can be proved? Otherwise, please, remove their names. Thank you. --Karljoos (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the names "Franz Liszt" and "Sergei Prokofiev" as requested. I think this is the quickest and easiest way to solve the problem. Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Richard Wagner (1813-1883)?? Please provide a reputable third-party source or remove his name from the list. Thank you. --Karljoos (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could try to do just a little work yourself, than keep asking stupid questions. I will not use my time for answering these questions.

Steinway & Sons - 150 Years, p. 102. Fanoftheworld (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you, *******, have a source, just add it.--Karljoos (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, your comment "Well, if you, *******, have a source, just add it.", says more about you than it says about me.

You have been very negative on this discussion page, which induce a negative and bad discussion, and you have harassed me on this discussion page and on my own talk page by asking and mention me several times as a Steinway salesman, Mr. PR Department or that kind of words. That is clearly very unacceptable way of acting, and I am sure it is not acceptable according to the guidelines!

I have been very friendly and served you with answers on your questions, but when you keep being very neagtive and impolite and that you still harass me and probably also are started hounding me, I don't see any reason for serving you with answers on all your questions - and of cource, that is actually not my job.

Regarding your claim about a missing reference to Richard Wagner (and apparently not the other names), are you sure you have read my earlier answer completely... Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I observe that Karljoos has no comments. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that Fanoftheworld removed the Artist list from the Baldwin Piano Company page. Bias, perhaps?THD3 (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all: THD3's newest comment (18:29, 4 May 2009) has, of course, nothing to do on a talk page about Steinway & Sons.

Second: It looks like my presumption, about some users being judging the Steinway article harder than other piano articles, is correct. It can not be interesting for anyone, that a long promotional list with no information than just names, shall be removed from the article Baldwin Piano Company. Articles about other piano brands shall, of course not, be judged more gently than the Steinway article. And remember, the harder the Steinway article will be judge, the harder will all the other piano articles be judged. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Karljoos hasn't written an comment yet because I have a life outside this wikiworld, and can't keep commenting on every change made to this page. But don't worry, I will make all the comments I want when I feel like it. By the way: if Steinway pianos are of such as good quality as claimed, they deserve a good quality article. Thank you. --Karljoos (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A person with a normal behavior who starts a discussion will of course answer the comments he get. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Dead link" tag

I have checked the link in the section "Steinway worldwide sales operations". The link is fully funktional. Therefore I have removed the "dead link" tag. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On-going POV problems

I stopped by to see if the previous discussion over POV terms in the lead had resolved itself amicably, but was disheartened to see more peacock terms as well as references to press releases and Wikipedia in the lead. I have stripped these out and condensed the lead somewhat, but I encourage editors to continue to approach the topic with a NPOV and strive to use reliable, third party sources to verify content. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've also gone through and restructured the article into more appropriate sections and reduced the over-sectioning in some areas (like history). I've also removed a lot of quotes from marketing brochures and press releases that were patently inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I think the entire licensed product section could stand to be merged significantly since it currently still reads like a mail-order catalog. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, specify the reasons for {{article issues|advert=April 2009|peacock=April 2009|unencyclopedic=April 2009}} and {{non-free|date=April 2009}}. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for trying to bring more common sense back to this article. I'll be more than happy to help with this. I don't think Mr PR department (we all know who he is) is going to make it easy, though. --Karljoos (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The reasons are that the article has peacock words, unencyclopedic tone, non-free content, and is written like an advertisement in many places. I've gone and removed the most egregious examples, but the article could stand to benefit from a thorough copyediting as well as merging much of the content on licensed products. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"The reasons are that the article has peacock words, unencyclopedic tone, non-free content, and is written like an advertisement in many places." - but can you please specify? For example about the non-free content. Fanoftheworld (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

New structure

I see that the structure is changed. Now the reader will have difficulties to get an overview of the article (especially the sections "History" and "Components"), than before when the sections were smaller, and the section's names were more precise. But that is something a typographer can explain...

The section name "Anniversaries" should definitely have another name. The section has information about a lot of others than just the anniversaries. For example information about Henry Z. Steinway's death in a section named anniversaries????? Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

New edits

- The dealers mentioned are not a list but examples, therefore not what you call indiscriminate information - and you links to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Fanoftheworld (talk)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you now have another argument. Your have to be truthful from the very beginning. Only examples of authorized dealers in world cities are mentioned. Therefore it is acceptable according to your new argument: Wikipedia is not a directory. Fanoftheworld (talk)

If a reader wants a list of authorized dealers, they should seek out the S&S webpage, not the Wikipedia article. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you now have a third argument.

A list of Steinway dealers is not at any of Steinway's websites, so what you say doesn't help the reader at all. But do you also think that we could remove for example that Steinway was founded in 1853 - that can be found on all Steinway's websites????? It is your very own opinion that the reader should go to a companies website, because the 2 guideline pages you have been talking about does not support your claim - but mine. Fanoftheworld (talk)

- If press releases should been used as references then remove only the press releases, not all the references. Fanoftheworld (talk)

They all appeared to be press releases rather than genuine news coverage from reliable, third-party sources. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a lie. See for example: Article by "New York University - Leonard N. Stern School of Business", adjunct professor David Liebeskind.. Fanoftheworld (talk)

That reference is still present and was never deleted. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay you haven't moved them all as you said before. That's fine. Fanoftheworld (talk)

- If there are problems with the Horowitz image from Commons, it is a discussion to do at Commons, not at the Wikipedia. If Commons has the image, it can be used at Wikipedia. Fanoftheworld (talk)

Done. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

But you have removed the image from the article before it is removed from Commons. You have to respect that images on Commons can be used in articles at Wikipedia. The image can therefore legally be used in the article until it is removed from Commons. Fanoftheworld (talk)

The image is a blatant copyright violation and should be deleted soon. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You can be right about that, but you still have to follow the practice about deleting Common images. Fanoftheworld (talk)

- I think it will be more correct to have the pronouncement of the company's name, and not just some of the company's name - that's a little strange. Often people can pronounce "& Sons", but remember that they often also can pronounce "Steinway". Therefore the pronouncement is a typical encyclopaidia thing - and it is the pronouncement of the whole company's name. Fanoftheworld (talk)

See WP:PRON. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Be specific. Link to the section, not just a whole page. Fanoftheworld (talk)

The pronunciation of "and" and "sons" does not need to be disambiguated. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And in which of the guideline's section do you read that? Fanoftheworld (talk)

- What is wrong with citations to Wikipedia? Fanoftheworld (talk)

Wikipedia is a self-published source and thus not reliable for verification. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The citations are clearly to give the reader more information - a principle very often used in scientific literature. It's clearly, because of the "See also..." and that there is at least one reference, and not just only the "See also...". Fanoftheworld (talk)

And Wikipedia has its own manual of style that differs from scientific literature. Don't use the reference section to refer to other parts of the article or other Wikipedia articles. In the latter case, use a {{seealso}} section header or provide a See also appendix. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Then you shouldn't remove the "See also..." from the article. If you wanted to do something you should clearly have changed the "See also..." to {{seealso}} or a see also appendix. Fanoftheworld (talk)

The introduction

• Steinway is handmade. Why is that removed? Fanoftheworld (talk)

Reinserted. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Steinway's showrooms includes Steinway Halls. Why writing "... including its showrooms and the Steinway Halls."? Fanoftheworld (talk)

Unclear what your question is. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

As said, a Steinway Hall is a showroom. Therefore "showrooms and the Steinway Halls" are very misleading. Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Why removing: "...with its own foundries, post office and parks in what is now..."? Fanoftheworld (talk)

Undue emphasis for the lead. These specifics can be described in the body. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Why removing: "Today the company still follows these principles."? Fanoftheworld (talk)
• Why removing: "...The company has, since its founding in 1853, worked to improve the construction of pianos"? Fanoftheworld (talk)

Unencyclopedic, advertising-like tone. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The two statements are facts and therefore not unencyclopedic or advertising-like tone. It is correct that the company still follows these principles. And it is correct that the company has, since its founding in 1853, worked to improve the construction of pianos - that was the whole idea about founding Steinway & Sons. Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Why removing: "Steinway is currently considered by many as one of the world's premier manufacturers of high-quality pianos."? Fanoftheworld (talk)

Weasel and peacock words. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the solar-system

Why removing: "The system pumps solar-heated water into an 80-ton double-effect absorption chiller that serves as a heat exchanger. The chiller removes the superheated water and leaves cool air for dehumidifying. Lower humidity in the factory provides a more stable environment, with no moisture to threaten the construction of the pianos. In winter, the system will convert water to steam to heat the factory."? Fanoftheworld (talk)

This is an article about a piano manufacturing company, not the machines that it uses in its factory. Undue weight. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

ArkivMusic.com

Why removing the section about ArkivMusic.com? Fanoftheworld (talk)

Still present in the history section. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why removing the image with the logo of ArkivMusic.com? Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Licensed products

"Other licensed products" is a misleading headline. The section is about the only licensed products, and not about other licensed products. Fanoftheworld (talk)

Steinway is known for pianos. There are non-piano products labeled Steinway. These are other licensed products besides pianos. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A headline shall be short and precise. To write "Other" is clearly just stuffing and unnecessary. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Price records

The name of the section about price records should be "Price records". The section is only about price records, and the many other notable pianos by Steinway isn't mentioned. "Price records" is a more precise name for the section. Fanoftheworld (talk)

The pianos are notable for the prices they fetched. I am sure that these prices will be exceeded some day, but the particular pianos themselves remain notable. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If the section's name should be "Notable pianos" it will be a misleading section. Steinway has many many more notable pianos. Some of these notable pianos are mentioned around in the article (but there are many more).

Correct, that it is possible that these records can be broken, but at that time it can be changed.

As the sections name and text are, it seems that there are only 3 notable pianos, and they are all notable because of their prices. Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The documentary film "Note by Note: The Making of Steinway L1037"

The section should be called "The documentary film..." because the words "Note by Note: The Making of Steinway L1037" doesn't tell the reader that it is a section about a documentary film. And it is more precisely with "The documentary film...". Fanoftheworld (talk)

Including both seems to be too self-referential. We could alternatively get rid of the section and simply include a link to the film under See Also. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A headline shall be short and precise but it shall also be informative. When the reader sees the table of contents in the article's beginning, he will not understand what this section is about. "The documentary film..." has to be added. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff audio clip

There's a mistake in the caption of the Rachmaninoff audio clip (where he plays Liszt's HR No. 2). It was not recorded on a concert grand, but - believe it or not - on an upright. IIRC, the recording was made at Edison's studio and no grand was available.THD3 (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do YOU have one saying that it was recorded on an Steinway grand??? --Karljoos (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If one will have something changed it is appropriate to have a reference.

I have not found any references supporting your claim, but even so I have removed the audio clip to keep the credibility of the article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for the source, I think it was in the liner notes for Rachmaninoff's complete recordings on RCA. IIRC, the earliest recordings were made by Edison and later licensed to RCA. The recording was accoustic (i.e., playing into a horn and not a microphone) and the piano was an upright. Edison, who was somewhat deaf, didn't care for Rachmaninoff's "banging". Why not keep the clip, but just remove "Concert Grand" from the text? I'll update the source as soon as I've located it.THD3 (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've located an online source. Since the audio clip was removed, I'm putting the link here: musiclassical.podomatic.com The quote in question: "Rachmaninoff began making recordings for Thomas Edison in 1919, recording on an upright piano that the inventor admitted was not very good." Edison thought Rachmaninoff was a "pounder."THD3 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this, even though it is obviously a very poor source. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. This was the best source I could find on the Internet. It is also in the liner notes for Rachmaninoff's complete recordings on RCA/BMG, but obviously that's not on the 'net.THD3 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the section "Components"

What about adding subsections in the section "Components"? It is a very large section and it is difficult to get an overview. Fanoftheworld (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Piano banks

The section "Piano banks" is moved. Piano Banks are owned by Steinway and should therefore not be in a section about Steinway's affiliates. Fanoftheworld (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Overly promotional

Nobody asked my opinion about this but I think the article has recently been pushed in an overly promotional direction. Hey, I like Steinway pianos, but if this article looks too much like "hooray for us" then the reader you are aiming for will not respond positively. Simple and elegant will do the trick. Just sayin'... Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is these sources from third-partys promotional?:

• Atlantic Monthly article by Michael Lenehan on the making of a Steinway & Sons concert grand piano, 1982
• NBC News story on history of Steinway & Sons
• Steinway & Sons Collection at the La Guardia and Wagner Archives in New York
• Film by Luxe.TV about Steinway & Sons
• Film by Luxe.TV about Steinway & Sons and the audio systems Steinway Lyngdorf
• Video: John William's arrangement "Air and Simple Gifts" for Barack Obama's Presidential Inauguration, featuring Itzhak Perlman, Yo-Yo Ma, Gabriela Montero on the Steinway & Sons grand piano, and Anthony McGill
• This page is used as a reference but that doesn't cause a deletion. And by the way, this page/front-page are, as I know, not used as a reference: ArkivMusic.com

Some of the external links are removed acording to your preference. But I still think that the third-party sources should be. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

+ *NBC News story on history of Steinway & Sons

Exactly. This article loomks like promotional material, and the main source of references are websites/publications created by Steinway. I really do suspect that one of the editors works for Steinway & Sons Ltd. I like Steinway pianos, and my wife owns one (and also a Fazioli) and I have a Boston in my studio. Making changes to this article would not make sound Steinway and Sons less important, the changes would make a good, objective and encyclopedic article, free from self-promotion, advertising-like content etc. --Karljoos (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It is very easy to find third-party sources that support the article and its claims. Feel free to add these third-party sources, instead of using your time to criticise. Just my advice. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the article is clearly not promotional material. For example: more than the last third of the section "Steinway Artists" is critical comments on Steinway. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Fanoftheworld: Don't reconfigure my talk entry to put your response in before my question. To answer your question about why the sources are promotional... have you seen WP:ELNO and WP:ELYES? Having a very few links is superior to having a long list. About the sources themselves: I think the articles that are in magazines and news should be used as references to support article text or not used at all. The youtube videos are too rah-rah. The presidential inauguration played a recording of the musicians over the massive, extended sound system, and over the airwaves, as it was too cold for their instruments to sound good. As it stands, the video is a play acted out by very skilled musicians trying not to cringe as they listen to each others's out-of-tune instruments.

The ArkivMusic link was my mistake. I didn't realize it is now a Steinway brand. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for bad layout. I see you are a little touchy when you not only change the layout back, but that you also have to mention the layout. But once again my apologies.

I do not see any acceptable reasons for deleting third-party sources, and I do not see any aceptable reasons for deleting images which are acceptable regaring copyright. The only reason I see, is personal preferences. Regarding the pages WP:ELNO and WP:ELYES you have to be way more specific - which of the paragraphs do you mean support your claim? Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the presidential inauguration concert is also pre-recorded on a Steinway concert grand piano. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, touchy is my middle name. o_O ...At MOS:IMAGES it has some guidelines applicable here. "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." This will happen if there are too many images, which was the case before I deleted four of them. There are still some instances of this, depending on your screen resolution and window size.

At WP:ELNO, at "Links normally to be avoided", it says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject... one should avoid... Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research"." To me, this includes videos that are thinly veiled promotional material; the Luxe.TV stuff on youtube, for instance.

As for the inauguration, showing the video misrepresents the piano, as the audio and video were recorded separately, and the performance that is being watched isn't the one being listened to. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we can come to a solution. Many of the images are deleted (including the little video I had made about Steinway's letters). I have re-added the picture with the pedals - if one isn't familiar with the piano, then pictures can be usefull.

Some of the external links (third-party articles and videos) are still in the article. It is acceptable to have third-party videos as well as third-party articles. And some people prefer to get to know the history about Steinway by watching videos than by reading articles (including this Wikipedia article about Steinway). The videos are good to have included in the section "External links".

Regarding the inauguration concert (which is removed from the section), it is not a critical thing for the piano that the music was pre-recorded. Shortly after the concert Yo-Yo Ma announced that the music was pre-recorded (See the article Air and Simple Gifts), so it is not a secret. The music was pre-recorded because of the difficulties for the instruments to keep in tune (because of very cold wheater). But let's face it, the piano is definitely the smallest reason for the pre-recording, if the piano is any reason at all. No doubt that it is the other three instruments which are most sensitive to cold wheater.

The inauguration concert is relevant for the article about Steinway because it was a Steinway piano that was choosed for this inauguration concert. It is also relevant because many millions of people have heard and seen a Steinway concert grand piano - that is noteworthy. That the concert was pre-recorded is, as I see it, because of the other three instruments, and that is actually not a critical thing - like you can not play cello under the sea, you can not play cello in very cold wheater. That's just how it is.

I think that how the Steinway article is now, is a good solution. There is a little give and take for both of us - and that is how the Wikipedia works. Fanoftheworld (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

<==Okay, Fanoftheworld, you seem to be treating my third opinion views as a row of tin cans that you can shoot down one by one. Alexrexpvt didn't ask for a third opinion because of a little healthy "give and take", he asked because you insist on reshaping the article to make it into a preening advertisement. I most emphatically do not see the need for the external links I deleted, except for the ArkivMusic one that I put back in, and I don't see the need for the photos that I removed. The brass pedals photo is out because it accompanied a very small section flanked by other, more important images. The youtube videos are unverifiable. The Obama inaugural performance has a fatal disjunct between what is being watched and what is being heard. If you want a photo of the inauguration, fine, but not a video. I'm remaking the article one more time, adding in a "See also" heading with Steinway brands, and reducing again the number of photos, for instance, I'm taking out the supposed soundboard photo as it shows the harp, not the soundboard. If you keep reverting, I'm kicking this problem upstairs. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to kicking your problem upstairs. Your problem is that you think that your opinions are the only correct opinions. You haven't been aple to find guidelines, which clearly support your opinions, and therefore your opinions are your very own personal opinions - for example: "I most emphatically do not see the need for the external links I deleted ... and I don't see the need for the photos that I removed.". Well, I have the opposite view, and that is something you have to accept, like I accepted your view. A good and for both satisfying solution would be, what I called a little give and take - like the mediator above call it.

I have been forthcoming and we found a compromise, but you want to have the article all your own way. Remember that your third opinion views not necessarily are the only correct way to edit the article. Let me say it the same way that you have said it to me: "Okay, Fanoftheworld --> Binksternet, you seem to be treating my third opinion views as a row of tin cans that you can shoot down one by one".

Furthermore you have suddenly removed a picture of the inauguration ceremony, and you have also added a "See also" section with links to articles with Steinway licensed products. These links to Steinway lincensed products are mentioned at the page Steinway, so there is no reason for adding these links also in the article Steinway & Sons - that's only promotional. Furthermore you have added links to other piano companies like Bösendorfer, which has nothing to do with the Steinway article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I observe that Binksternet has no comments. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC regarding promotional content and tone

One editor, Fanoftheworld, has been unwilling to submit to a requested third party opinion from User:Binksternet regarding an overly promotional tone in the article. The article has been subject to reversions because of content disputes about how many photos are displayed and which ones, whether promotional videos should be included, and what kinds of external links should be listed. Fanoftheworld appears to be a Steinway publicist, as most of the edits made by him or her are Steinway-related ones, or are inquiries about adding promotional text to company infoboxes in the form of company "Vision". I'd like to see if RFC gives any satisfaction for the other editors who have been trying to get a more neutral tone into the article. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Completely agree. This user seems to be very passionate and knowledgeable about Steinway & Sons products, history etc but has not been able to give the article a neutral tone and provide independent sources. Let's hope this user will decide to continue contributing, but in a serious, objective and encyclopedic way. --Karljoos (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know what this RFC is requesting consensus or comment on and I don't want to put Fanoftheworld on trial. The article appears to have substantially improved since Fanoftheworld started editing, but the article exhibits a decidedly promotional tone. I myself came by on a 3O request and worked hard to establish the neutrality of the content over the objections and reversions. I would encourage Fanoftheworld to defer to the judgments of the many other editors on the appropriate tone and content of the article rather than engaging in contentious editing. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with what Madcoverboy has written. It's a good article, but has a promotional tone that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I suggest asking the question, "If I were reading about a company (say Xerox) on Encyclopedia Britannica, would the same tone strike me as odd?" The article needs to be edited to make it less promotional. LK (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Patents: how many?

Why do we have the imprecision of "more than 125 patents"? Can't we count them and put a single number up? Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Steinway has always worked, and still does, on improving the construction of pianos, therefore the number of patents will raise as time goes. I don't think that Steinway registeres as many patents today as they did for some years ago, but still, the number will raise over time. Therefore I think it would be most precisely if we don't write an exact number of patents, because suddenly that number will be wrong – and we can not be sure that someone will correct it. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's easy enough to name the exact number now, and raise it if a future patent is added. Alternately, we can say that it reached 125 or whatever in 2008. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I just counted 122 of them. Did I not count correctly? "Steinway Patents". Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I have never counted them, I have just read on some websites that there are more than 125 registered Steinway patents.

Sometimes there can be a little difference between the American http://www.steinway.com and the German http://www.steinway.de - probably by mistake. Maybe the patents listed on the German website should be counted also. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Crown Jewel Collection

This paragraph needs some encyclopedic context or it should be deleted as raw promotion. When did the Crown Jewel Collection program begin? How many orders has it taken? Anybody famous have a Crown Jewel? And so on... without this kind of expansion, the paragraph has little value. Binksternet (talk) 03:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange that the names of the models isn't mentioned on the American Steinway website. See the German website ([[2]]) with the names mentioned in both German and English. By the way, according to this website, The Steinway Crown Jewel Collection began in 1999. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes I made, discussed one by one

I'd like to discuss each important change I made to the article in the last day, and my reasoning, so that other editors who don't agree with one or more of them will understand why I made the change.

• Removed a lot of redundant wikilinks. One link in an article is usually enough, not counting images and infoboxes where links are encouraged. A second link in the article text can sometimes be helpful, so a few are left in where it seemed appropriate.
• Delete "To make the finest pianos in the world". I see no source for Steinweg ever saying this sentence. Instead I find a page by Sanders Piano about Kawai, and a New York Times article from 1877 about Joseph P. Hale, another piano maker.

The quotation is a little wrong - it is not exactly what he said. His dedication was: "To build the best piano possible.". (Reference: Ratcliffe, Ronald V. Steinway. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, p. 39). Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So bring that in somewhere else in the article; don't tie it together with the three principles. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Took out a bunch of links to other places within this same article, like [[Steinway & Sons#Price records|See below]], [[Steinway & Sons#Piano brands|Essex]] and [[Steinway & Sons#Piano brands|Boston]]. These are unnecessary. I took out all of the [[Steinway & Sons#Steinway Artists|Steinway Artist]] wikilinks as they also refer to internal headings. Now "Steinway Artist" appears without a link in every instance.

In a very large article like Steinway & Sons I think it would be good to provide that service to the reader, that he/she easely could find out what a "Steinway Artist" is. It is not sure that he/she is going to read the whole article, and it is not sure that he/she is reading the table of contents. Furthermore, I don't think these links violate the guidelines.

These links give an unneeded emphasis on the words that are linked. The emphasis adds weight to a concept ('Boston', 'Essex', 'Steinway Artist') that does not deserve the weight--there are no articles written about these concepts. I hate internal article links. I think they confuse the reader. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In the lead "The world's most expensive grand piano and upright piano are built by Steinway" has no references, therefore it will be necessary to add references, or better: a "See below" link, so the reader can read more in the section regaring this.

The correct way is to use the reference twice; one for the lead section and one for the main text. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(It is acceptable to have "See below" and "See above" links, because I learned this on the Wikipedia help desk). Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the practice has been misused in this article. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A named reference can be used instead. Something like <ref name=SteinwayPatents>[http://www.steinway.com/technical/patents.shtml "Steinway Patents"], ''Steinway & Sons Official Website''. Accessed April 16, 2009.</ref> can be placed at the patents section, and <ref name=SteinwayPatents/> can be placed at each of the locations where a patent needs a reference. See WP:REFNAME for more information. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Moved some sentences about "Steinway-Haus" and smaller showrooms into their own paragraph. It just made better sense to see the concept appear only once, rather than split between two paragraphs. It was jarring to read again about them when they showed up a second time.
• Deleted "...finding their place in many concert halls, schools, and private homes across the world." An obvious statement, unsourced and not needed.
• Deleted "...which became popular among the rich and famous." unsourced, not needed.
• Deleted "...sell for vast sums of money..." because of its imprecision. I changed it to "These pianos today command high prices in auctions around the world" and I put a fact tag in. A reference should placed there.
• I made player piano an obvious link, rather than hiding it with a pipe link that looked like "reproducing pianos". This is much clearer to the reader.

Good idea. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• About Grotrian-Steinweg legal issues, I deleted "which were eventually finalized" because no place in the article talks about that, and no reference supports the statement. We need a legal issues paragraph, as the Grotrian-Steinweg friction is mentioned only in passing, and leaves the reader wondering what that was about.

I don't understand why to remove this... Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Grotrian-Steinweg legal issues have no reference. You can't say they were finalized without one. In fact, I think the legal problem is of interest to the reader and I think it needs some small amount of expansion. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• About the 500,000th piano, I deleted "...making a milestone in the history of musical instruments." This part of the sentence was unclear as to what constituted a 'milestone' and was unsupported by a reference.
• About Steinway Academy, I deleted "Participants, which pass the course, receive a diploma and the right to call them Steinway trained technicians." This is too obvious, and, if said, too promotional, as there is little comparison between a college diploma that takes about four years to earn and a piano tuner diploma that takes two weeks.

Piano technicians come from all over the world. It is very difficult to become participant and to past the intensive course. To attend the course it is basic to have a diploma as piano technician. Furthermore, it is related to a high prestige to be a Steinway trained technician, and Steinway trained technicians promote them a lot as "Steinway trained technician". By the way, for tuning the piano many Steinway piano owners' choose Steinway trained technicians only. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it enough that the people who pass the two-week class are then in demand? The certificate they get (not worthy of the word 'diploma') is a simple business one. There is no corresponding college application of credits, etc. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean by "Isn't it enough that the people who pass the two-week class are then in demand?"...

I don't see that the other things you write are reasons for deleting the information. It is relevant that they can call them Steinway trained technicians. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence "Participants, which pass the course, receive a diploma and the right to call them Steinway trained technicians" because it seemed to me to be too obvious, and unnecessary. The sentence was also poorly constructed. It should have been "Participants who pass the course receive a certificate and the right to call themselves Steinway-trained technicians." I deleted it instead of correcting the English. It seemed too promotional. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted the sentence "The 125th anniversary of Steinway's factory in Hamburg was marked by a large-scale festival of music, held on April 17, 2005." It was completely redundant, and appeared to be left over from before the event was expanded into its own paragraph.
• I changed "solar-powered rooftop system" to "solar-powered rooftop air conditioning and dehumidification system", for clarity, as the system is not about rooftops, it's about air quality. I used the term HVAC later in the paragraph.
• I deleted the video of the inaugural performance, as discussed above. To reiterate, the video shows one performance while the sound of another performance is given to the viewer. A photo of the event would be fine, or an audio file by itself, with explanatory text saying that the cold weather prevented the actual performance audio from being used for broadcast. Putting the moving image together with the audio is misrepresentation of the piano's capabilities.

The video is a historical event with a Steinway concert grand piano D-274 being used. It is relevant for the Steinway article - millions of people all around the world heard and saw a Steinway piano. That the sound was pre-recorded is not something that we should hide for the reader, that is why a link to Air and Simple Gifts was right under the picture. Air and Simple Gifts tells that the sound was pre-recorded. An encyclopedia should be objective and not hide some informations. That the sound was pre-recorded is not the important thing in this case, the important thing is, that the piano used for the US president inauguration was built by Steinway.

Put the moving image in the Air and Simple Gifts article, not here. Here, it is enough to mention the performance. Having that video here is not about Steinway & Sons; it's about the piece, the place, the musicians. At the inaugural, nobody announced which instruments the musicians were playing in the cold, or which instruments they played in the studio recording. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance for what you write. But whatever. I have no further comments about this. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The moving image is not puted together with the audio - the film clip is a recording of the concert as people saw and heard it.

Wherever that video appears, the text introducing it must say that the experience included live visual performance tied to canned audio performance. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. But whatever. I have no further comments about this. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(It is acceptable to have hidden links to film clips on YouTube.com different places in an article, because I read that on the Wikipedia help desk). Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This video is not about Steinway. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the video with a Steinway concert grand piano model D-274 in the section about Steinway piano models is relevant. But whatever. I have no further comments about this. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• About the Crown Jewel Collection... I went to the website indicated and found that the list of pianos was nothing like what was presented in the article. Nothing about the models named malachite, topaz or ruby. I took out all the model names. The list of woods I saw didn't include amber wood, so that came out. Beyond those glaring problems, I noticed that the paragraph had no encyclopedic value, so I left a hidden note asking for some.

Strange that the names of the models, and amber wood, isn't mentioned on the American Steinway website. See the German website ([[3]]) with the names (and "amber wood"; Deutsch: "Amberbaum") mentioned in both German and English. By the way, according to this website, The Steinway Crown Jewel Collection began in 1999.

Steinway's brochure "Steinway & Sons - The Steinway Crown Jewel Collection" is a much better place to find information than Steinway's websites. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So bring in the history of the Crown Jewel line. Make it encyclopedic. Use whatever references are best. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding placement of the Steinway Halls, I deleted the peacock phrase "such cultural centers around the world as". Listing the cities is enough—the reader can plainly see that they are major cities.
• I removed an entire paragraph about the Los Angeles piano bank. I don't see why it should be talked about separately from the New York one or the Berlin one, or any other. All the things that the L.A. shop does are the same things that other banks do, with adjustments for local activity.
• Moved two images to the right side: the tall and skinny piano keyboard image 'faces' right, so I put it on the left side, per MOS:IMAGES. Same with Billy Joel's photo.
• Deleted a second photo of Lang Lang. One of him is enough for the article.

The two pictures of Lang Lang are completely different and from two different events. Like one can write a person's name more than ones in the same article, I think that one also can add more than one picture of a person. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there are already too many photos in the article. Pick your favorite Lang Lang photo, only one. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Steinway Artist"... I took out some of the artists listed, the ones that weren't immediately obvious in the linked reference. We don't need an exhaustive list here, just a sample.

I think that seven "immortals" and seven living artists will be appropriate, for example because of Blüthner#Notable Blüthner artists. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We aren't talking about Bluthner, we're talking about this article. Too many examples dulls the reader's brain. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To know how things work on Wikipedia, you have to look in the guidelines (the theory) and at other Wikipedia articles (the practice). The Blüthner article is an example on how we do on Wikipedia - it is not only the Blüthner article, which supports my claim. Remember that several other piano articles is more relevant than your personal opinion. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the [[Blüthner] article, go over there and change it. I'm not a piano article editor, I'm a third opinion editor on this article. Me, I hate lists of examples that have more than a handful of entries. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

On several other pages it is acceptable with more examples than just 9. Therefore it is also acceptable in the Steinway article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What happens to this line of logic if the other page changes? Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If this line will change in a large part of the english Wikipedia, then the "normal" number of examples will change. All the other articles, including Steinway & Sons, must change their number of examples according to the new line. Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Immortals"... I took out Richard Wagner as his presence has been challenged by Karljoos and we have enough men listed there to satisfy the casual reader. I don't see the value of adding a fact tag versus taking Wagner out until such time as his status as Steinway Immortal can be established. A fact tag will place in question the whole sentence, and weaken the impact.

The challenge by Karljoos is only because of he got peeved, even though I was kind to answer his rude question as always, see Talk:Steinway & Sons#Steinway Artists. "Richard Wagner" has the same reference as all the other artists so to remove only "Richard Wagner" is unserious. By the way, about "Richard Wagner" there is one reference more on Wikipedia than all the other artists, see: Talk:Steinway & Sons#Steinway Artists). Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference supplied for all the 'Immortals' is a thin one. It is formed by Steinway, and it is in Steinway's interest to list as many immortal pianists as possible. I don't like the reference and the concept, and I think listing these dead artists who can't defend themselves should have a higher standard than a webpage from Steinway. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Richard Wagner" has the same reference as all the other artists so to remove only "Richard Wagner" is unserious. By the way, about "Richard Wagner" there is one reference more on Wikipedia than all the other artists, see: Talk:Steinway & Sons#Steinway Artists).

"I don't like the reference and the concept..." = not relevant what you think.

"... I think listing these dead artists who can't defend themselves should have a higher standard than a webpage from Steinway" = dead artists are still defended (often by family or property owners).

"... I think listing these dead artists who can't defend themselves should have a higher standard than a webpage from Steinway" = instead of deleting some of the names, then find the references you might think are needed or use the "citation needed". That's how we do on Wikipedia. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all the immortals share the same reference, one that was compiled by Steinway, a company that stands to benefit from including more famous people. I can certainly tag them all with a template asking for a better reference. What other reference is there? Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A reference could be maybe: Steinway & Sons - 150 Years, p. 78-106. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

At www.books.google.com, that book is listed with the note "includes advertising material". Here's the link. Is this an appropriate reference, per WP:RS? Another book choice to use for support of which 'immortals' are listed is People and Pianos by Theodore E. Steinway. This book mentions Paderewski, Rachmaninoff, Siloti, Samaroff, Auer, Gershwin, Friedman, Stock, Hubermann and Toscanini in one section, then has a photograph gallery of Godowsky, Lhévinne, Bloomfield-Zeisler, Busoni, Puccini, Mahler, Strauss and Elgar. Page 112 of that book (inaccessible from google books) has a list of immortals. Regarding the inclusion of Wagner, the book illustrates on page 49 a painting by Harry Townsend of "Richard Wagner at his Steinway", showing a piano that Steinway gave him in 1876 at the first Bayreuth opening. However, this article from the SunSentinel says that the artists were paid to give their endorsement. Seems likely that this fact would skew the results in favor of Steinway. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Steinway & Sons - 150 Years has advertisements between the articles. P. 78-106 is an article regarding Steinway Artists, and there is no advertisements here. So p. 78-106 is a good reference, also according to the WP:RS.

The book People and Pianos by Theodore E. Steinway could probably be added also. The painting of Richard Wagner at his Steinway is a little famous.

Regarding the SunSentinel, I have never heard about that Steinway should have paid any pianists for playing their pianos. I have read in magazines and books, which were independent, that none of the living or dead Steinway Artists have received payment for being Steinway Artists. The artists' advantage is that they get promotion because they are connected with the prestigious name Steinway, and that the artists get Steinway pianos for concerts/recordings and the best Steinway-trained technicians. Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted mention of auction house Fleetwood Owen in London. I saw no reason to list them, as they have no article, and the focus of the sentence was on George Michael, John Lennon and the piano.

The name of the auction house is mentioned because some people like to know, which auction houses things are bought at. Furthermore, when the name of the auction house is mentioned regarding the grand piano sold at auction, if think that the name of the auction house regarding the upright piano (also sold at auction) also could be mentioned. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It just seemed like too much detail to me. Whatever works. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is enough to say the prize rearched. If a proper reference is included, the interested reader can find out the name of the audtion house. Otherwise I think it is not neccesary. --Karljoos (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Fanoftheworld (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• In 1855... I deleted the part after Gold Medal, the phrase reading "for excellent quality". 'Gold Medal' is quite enough, and there's no source for the added phrase.

Maybe the reader would like to know what the gold medal was for.

There is a source for the added phrase: Lyra - 2/07, p. 3.

Notice that "for excellent quality" was in quotation marks. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

So, use the reference. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Already done. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I added a 'See also' section, with other piano maker articles of interest to the reader, and other Steinway-branded products that have their own articles. The first part is a simple gift to the curious reader, the second part makes it unnecessary to have a long list of External links showing Steinway-branded products.

The list of other piano brands ("to the curious reader") has no place in an article about Steinway. "American Piano Company (Ampico)" is already mentioned in the article, so that is just overlinking. The other piano brands have nothing to do with the Steinway article. Furthermore, List of piano makers and List of piano brand names make the list irrelevant. If the list should be on Wikipedia it could be added to the article Piano.

In many other articles, I see competitors listed in the See also section. Typically, anything of interest to the reader which is not included in the article can be inserted via "See also". Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange, that you only will talk about other articles, when they support your claims...

You don't mention any examples that support you claim...

The "See also" sections you are talking about are probably because there are no pages like List of piano makers and List of piano brand names. These two pages make the list of other piano brands ("to the curious reader") completely irrelevant. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The subsection about Steinway brands is irrelevant, because of Steinway (disambiguation). If there should be links to Steinway brands, there should also be links to Steinway family members and links to points in New York City regarding Steinway. And then there would be a "See also" section completely like Steinway (disambiguation). Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want Steinway brands linked like this, it's fine with me. Just don't put them back in via External links. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the external links should not get back in the Steinway article after I have created articles for these products.

As I just said, the "See also" section is completely irrelevant. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then, let's take the whole section out. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I deleted a lot of 'External links':
  • http://www.steinway.lagcc.cuny.edu/ was taken out because, after redirecting to http://www.steinway.lagcc.cuny.edu/steinwaycol/ , it dumps the reader to a search page. No encyclopedic content on that page. I'm sure it gets better once the reader navigates further into the site, but search links aren't appropriate for external links.

If the link to the professional project "La Guardia and Wagner Archives" is deleted, then the link to the amateur(?) website [4], in the article Bösendorfer, must be deleted too.

And maybe more external links should be deleted in the article Bösendorfer.

It looks like my presumption, about some users being judging the Steinway article very hard, maybe turns out to be correct. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about any article except this one. You are free to go edit the other article. This article is being judged very strictly because you took too many liberties. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Other articles are much more relevant than what you are talking about and what you are thinking.

No, the Steinway article is being judged harder than other piano articles, because you and some few other users are feeding on yourselves. It seems to become a sport for you to change the Steinway article. You and some few other users make no critical comments to other piano articles with much much more seriously problems. It looks like you guys are hunting me and the Steinway article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not a piano article surfer; my plate is full enough with this third opinion task that I volunteered for blindly and with my usual interests. This page is definitely getting a very hard look for one single reason: you made it too promotional. Stop looking for external causes. And feel free to go change the other articles that you think require paring down. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To know how things work on Wikipedia, you have to look in the guidelines (the theory) and on other Wikipedia articles (the practice). It is not correct to insist of a higher standard of the Steinway article than other articles. Remember that several other articles is more relevant than a users personal opinion. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is appropriate to insist on a high standard in an article that has been subject to edit wars. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • http://web.archive.org/web/20071225153930/http://www.sherwinbeach.com/lenehan/K2571.htm Atlantic Monthly article by Michael Lenehan. This was taken out per WP:ELNO because its content "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." Lenehan's writing is very clear; the good parts of it should be brought into the article and Lenehan used as a reference, not as an external link.
  • http://www.icue.com/portal/site/iCue/flatview/?cuecard=310 Video: NBC News story. This was removed because it is a puff piece by the Today show which is 'news lite', not hard-hitting news with investigative courage and conviction. It's too promotional.
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBNtmwWaiYM Video: Luxe.TV story on history of Steinway & Sons. This a fawning promotional work. Out it goes.
  • http://www.notebynotethemovie.com/ Official website of the documentary film "Note by Note: The Making of Steinway L1037"... This was removed because it is already discussed and there is a link to the main article about it.
  • http://garritan.com/steinway.html Official website of The Authorized Steinway Virtual Concert Grand Piano... This was removed because there is now a 'See also' link to the main article about it.
  • http://www.steinwaylyngdorf.com/ Official website of the audio systems Steinway Lyngdorf... This was removed because there is now a 'See also' link to the main article about it.
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz4XDU9NTp4 Video: Luxe.TV story on history of Steinway & Sons and the audio systems Steinway Lyngdorf... Removed because there is another article where it would go but more importantly, because it is a paid promotional piece.

Why is it a "... paid promotional piece"? Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

To sell pianos? I give up. Why? Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You claim that it is a promotional piece. Why is it a "... paid promotional piece"? Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying the the whole video is an advertisement paid for by Steinway. We don't run ads here on Wikipedia, unless the article is about the advertisement itself. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You claim that the "promotional piece" is paid. What support your claim about that it is paid? Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Gut feeling, formed from watching the piece. Sorry for not having access to Steinway's books. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.steinwaywatches.com/ Official website of Steinway & Sons Luxury Swiss Watches... This was removed because there is now a 'See also' link to the main article about it.

I hope that settles some questions which are bound to come up. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding some of Binksternet's changes that was not mentioned above:

• Regarding the removement of the image [[File:Piano soundboard.jpg|thumb|left|The [[sounding board|soundboard]] is below the strings and the gold painted cast-iron plate (2005).]]: The soundboard can be seen on the image, and furthermore the bridges and strings can also be seen. In other words: the image is regarding three subsections ("Soundboard", "Bridges" and "Strings"), and it is therefore very relevant for the article.

The image is not labeled, and the soundboard is almost fully obscured. A better, more instructive image would be an exploded view drawing showing the various parts, or a photograph of each part before full assembly. As such, the improved image(s) would be far more appropriate over at the piano page, to talk about piano construction in general. What I deleted was another, redundant image of a Steinway piano in an article that had too many of them. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The picture is of a Steinway grand piano. The pianos design is clearly Steinway made, and the Steinway logo can be seen on the plate.

The picture is of a Steinway grand piano, and therefore it is relevant for the section about the components in Steinway grand pianos. It might also be relevant for the article about pianos, but it can still stay in the Steinway article.

The picture is regarding no less than three subsections ("Soundboard", "Bridges" and "Strings"), which are a lot of text. If you have problems on your own computer, you could remove the picture to the subsection about strings. The Steinway strings are clearly seen at the picture. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is not Piano technology; unless there is a compelling difference between Steinway pianos and other pianos, one that is made clear by the image, then your photo is simply another one that shows what a generic piano is, and what parts it is made of. Not needed. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In the Steinway article there are no pictures of the inside of a Steinway piano.

The picture is relevant. If it is placed in the section about strings there should be no problem regarding the layout. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, a photo of the strings would be good there. Would you like to trade the presence of that photo with File:Steinway & Sons piano on stage.jpg this one? Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Steinway & Sons piano on stage.jpg is probably the best picture of a Steinway grand piano on Wikipedia, so I don't think it should be deleted. But I can remove it to the section "Components". That would give a much better layout. Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the removement of the image [[File:D274.jpg|thumb|right|The three solid brass pedals of a Steinway grand piano (2005).]] : The size of the subsection "Pedals" is big enough to have a picture, (se for example the article: Blüthner). It is difficult for people who don't have knowledge about pianos to understand a section of components - therefore this image (among the others) will help the reader understanding. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to surf over to the Blüthner article to see what they've done. I know from my viewing of this article that there were too many images going down the left and right sides, and that they were forcing headlines and text to be squeezed into the middle. This problem is somewhat better now that I've deleted a bunch of photos, but it is not fully addressed. Some of the left-justified images are still pushing headline text away from the left side. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"... redundant image of a Steinway piano in an article that had too many of them.": The picture is not only of a Steinway grand piano but it is a picture of the three Steinway pedals, which the subsection is all about.

"I'm not even going to surf over to the Blüthner article to see what they've done.", I know, that is maybe one of the reasons for your little knowledge about the piano articles on Wikipedia. And once again: Blüthner is an example.

"Some of the left-justified images are still pushing headline text away from the left side.": That is not necessarily a problem - images shall not always be removed just because of headlines layout. Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A guideline from Wikipedia:Layout#Images says "Generally, if there are so many images in a section that they strip down into the next section at 1024x768 screen resolution, that probably means either that the section is too short, or that there are too many images." This is problem is a greater concern with left-justified images that crowd sections headings away from the left side. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read the section about pedals once again, and I think that readers can understand the section without the picture. So okay then. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the corrections of the style of the language: The style of the language is definitely improved by Binksternet many places in the article. Good job. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Steinway Victory?

Despite the Creative Commons caption, is this actually a Steinway Victory? It doesn't look much like the one at the bottom left of this page, which is lacking non-military refinements like ornamental candle holders, twin turned pillars supporting each side of the keyboard and edging detail under the keyboard. I can't make out the name in the middle of the keyboard lid even at full magnification; but it doesn't look much like the logo in the article's infobox. The description on the original source simply describes it as a piano. Jll (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the logo: The logo in the infobox is Steinway's newest design of their logo. Their are many older designs - for example: http://www.carlingfordmusic.com.au/images/Steinway_02_thumb.jpg. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The piano in the photo is not a Steinway, and especially not a Victory model. The logo is completely unlike anything Steinway ever produced. I think it might be a Pfeiffer, or a French copy of a Pfeiffer, as in this image. I'm taking the photo out of the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Now it is my turn to ask for proof: What proofs that the piano is not a Steinway? Binksternet's comment above is just his very own opinion as usual and some guessing. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Steinway logo can't be clearly see on the photo. Maybe an expert eye could say if it is one or not... even then a source is neccesary. --Karljoos 19:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"The piano in the photo is not a Steinway, and especially not a Victory model. The logo is completely unlike anything Steinway ever produced." - proof needed. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Proof is need for inclusion, not exclusion. I zoomed in to the piano logo and saw that it could not possibly read "Steinway & Sons." Now you must prove that it is, and good luck. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

- Regarding the logo: The logo in the infobox is Steinway's newest design of their logo. Their are many older designs - for example: http://www.carlingfordmusic.com.au/images/Steinway_02_thumb.jpg. I don't believe that Binksternet knows all the old designs of Steinway logos.

- Binksternet wrote: "The piano in the photo is not a Steinway, and especially not a Victory model. The logo is completely unlike anything Steinway ever produced." - proof is still needed for that comment - or is the comment a lie... Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No proof that it's a Steinway, no photo in article. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is not even possible to see the Steinway logo in the picture! --Karljoos 22:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The picture is no longer in the article so stop talking about that.

Regarding Binksternet's comment. He wrote: "The piano in the photo is not a Steinway, and especially not a Victory model. The logo is completely unlike anything Steinway ever produced." How does Binksternet know that, for example that "The logo is completely unlike anything Steinway ever produced."? Proof is still needed for Binksternet's comment - or is his comment a lie... Fanoftheworld (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely NOT Steinway & Sons

←For your benefit, I've zoomed in and applied a sharpening filter to the logo. It's still fuzzy, but it is plain to see that the logo has nothing whatsoever to do with Steinway; the first word is four or five characters long, no more. Now the onus is on you to prove otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The most important issue for WP:Verifiability is that the description on the original source cited in Creative Commons doesn't say it is a Steinway Victory. So what is the reliability of the description as a Steinway Victory? Both the logo and the other picture could be used to question the description if there was any reason to think it was reliable in the first place. Jll (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you for your post, Jll. --Karljoos (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Again: The picture is no longer in the article so stop talking about that.

Regarding Binksternet's comment. He wrote: "The piano in the photo is not a Steinway, and especially not a Victory model. The logo is completely unlike anything Steinway ever produced." How does Binksternet know that "The logo is completely unlike anything Steinway ever produced."? Proof is still needed for Binksternet's comment. To say that "The logo is completely unlike anything Steinway ever produced.", you need to know all the many designs of the Steinway logos.

(Regarding "... the first word is four or five characters long, no more.": I can inform that some of the old Steinway logos has "Piano Maker" included. "Piano" is 5 characters, so that doesn't prove anything). Fanoftheworld (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with this thread. I have said all that I wanted to say about the supposed Victory piano photo. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have talked about the photo again and again and again, but clearly you can not prove "The logo is completely unlike anything Steinway ever produced.". Such a statement invites questions. It's only experts who can say that about a company that is more than 150 years old. If it is said by an average user on Wikipedia it can only be a guess. Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Rachmaninov picture

A picture of Rachmaninov is deleted with the reason that the section has too many photos, and a link to MOS:IMAGES is added. I need an explaination for the deletion of the picture. That the section has too many pictures is just an opinion. Fanoftheworld (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The specific sentence at MOS:IMAGES that applies here is "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other." Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

When using 1024x768 screen resolution there is no sandwiching text between two images that face each other. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

That's my resolution as well. I have thumbnails set to 180px wide; with that setting, the Rachmaninoff photo and the Billy Joel photo sandwich text between them. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet's change. The section was too crowded with photos. Jll (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a picture of Rachmaninov next to a Steinway does not add anything substantial to the article and same goes for the picture of the inauguration ceremony for US President Barack Obama and Billy Joel’s picture. The pianos are something accessories in these pictures, which are more focused on the persons than on the piano. Also, in some of the pictures it is not even possible to see the pianos properly!!! What’s the point of these pictures? One way to see it is “well, it is a grand piano by Steinway right there hiding behind Perlman and Ma” and the other one is “well, Steinway pianos are so great that look who plays them”. The first one is pointless and the second one is purely commercial. I suggest that only pictures of Steinway pianos (a representation of some models) and pictures where the piano is central to the picture and it is possible to see clearly that the piano is a Steinway are included in the article. Thank you. --Karljoos (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the photo is of poor quality and resolution. Rachmaninoff's face is over lit and the picture in general is fuzzy. Therefore, I vote that we delete the photo from the page.THD3 (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be very happy to see the two other pictures which Karljoos has proposed go too, as too many pictures of this type skew the neutrality of the article by making it appear to be packed with celebrity endorsements. Jll (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The section named "Steinway Artists" is about Steinway Artists so it is appropriate to have pictures of Steinway Artists in the section.

According to some administrators comments so far, there is no "sandwich effect" (empty space) in the section when the three images are used. What Binksternet has said above must therefore be a problem on his computer and not on Wikipedia.

I think that the photo is very good for this section, because of the good quality among other things. Fanoftheworld (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The "sandwich effect" is text flanked by images on the left and on the right. The problem is not one of empty space.

The image does not have "good quality"; the bright areas are too bright and washed out. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. I vote we delete all photos that are not clearly about the object of this article. The picture of Langlang in China is pointless since we can't see well the piano, the picture with Perlman/Montero/Ma picture is even more pointless since the piano can't be seen at all (!!), in the Billy Joel picture we know he is playing but we can't really see the piano and in the Randy Newman picture the logo can't really be seen. --Karljoos (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Kj. I think the photographs that include a Steinway Artist are okay because they give the sense of who is playing and where, and when. Just like I wouldn't mind seeing a photo of a particular race car driver in an article about a race car, or a particular jockey in a thoroughbred horse article. Binksternet (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As Binksternet I don't think it is pointless with these pictures with Steinway Artists. There is a large section regarding Steinway Artists, so I think it is appropriate to have pictures of Steinway Artists playing. Some of the pictures with Steinway Artists are also regarding Steinway's history, which are explained right under these images - these images represent whole 2 things: Steinway Artist and Steinway history. Not many images on Wikipedia represent whole 2 things. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

UK Subsidiaries in Infobox

As far as I can see the UK operation is listed at Companies House as Steinway & Sons, not Steinway & Sons London, and is a branch of the US parent rather than a separate company. I also don't see a Steinway Hall London in the registry. Have a look at the Companies House website, select "WebCHeck", enter Steinway in the Company Name box and then click "search". The service is only available 7am-midnight UK time so you might have to pick your moment. Jll (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the two UK subsidiaries. Note that I haven't checked, e.g. that the German subsidiaries exist, as I need to get some work done :-( Jll (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

German subsidiaries

The German registry lists the following companies with Steinway in their name (I was trying to confirm the existance of Steinway Haus <place> companies):

• Steinway & Sons
• Steinway-Haus Düsseldorf GmbH
• Steinway-Haus München GmbH

Go to the home page and click on "Normale Suche". Put Steinway in the "Firma oder Schlagwörter" box and click "Suchen". Nothing about Hamburg or Berlin, although the Düsseldorf one is registered with the Hamburg registry office. Of course this simple search does not not say anything about any relationship between the Steinway-Haus companies and Steinway & Sons. Jll (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the Steinway-Haus companies. The Hamburg and Berlin ones don't actually seem to exist. Without some source it is just speculation that the München (and Düsseldorf) companies are subsidiaries of Steinway & Sons - it might be owned by its parent Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc or owned by some other entity or part-owned by several entities etc. Feel free to add them back if you can find a source. Jll (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

New picture of Rachmaninoff

- I have asked the administrators what they think regarding the three pictures in the Steinway Artists section. They think it looks fine ("The images are well spaced...", "Opinions differ, which is why this should be a user preferences setting.", "It looks okay to me..."). One had a little comment regarding the picture of Rachmaninoff - he is looking away from the text. Therefore I have uploaded a new picture of Rachmaninoff looking a little into the middle of the page, so that problem is solved.
- Regarding the "sandwich effect" there is only a little of that when using the 1024x768 screen resolution (according to Wikipedia:Layout#Images), and the images are well spaced. I have looked at featured articles, and "Featured content represents the best that Wikipedia has to offer.". In the featured article 7 World Trade Center's very first section after the lead there is "sandwich effect". In the featured article Angkor Wat's section "Decoration" there is "sandwich effect". In the featured article Prince's Palace of Monaco's section "19th century" there is "sandwich effect". These articles are just some few examples I quickly found. When "sandwich effect" is okay in featured articles it is definitely also okay in a normal article as Steinway & Sons. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Fanoftheworld looks at other articles instead of looking to the manual of style. This page will hold strictly to WP:MOS guidelines. This page IS NOT a featured article, it is an article on probation after excessive promotional activity.

The new Rachmaninoff photo is different in what way? Binksternet (talk) 11:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Once again, Fanoftheworld looks at other articles instead of looking to the manual of style.": Featured articles are of course above the guidelines. Like law, the judges (practice) are above the rules (theory). I see that you are not familiar to law...

"This page IS NOT a featured article..." and therefore is it clearly not acceptable to overkill this article - you are trying to make a standard, which is higher than the standard of featured articles. As I said above: "When "sandwich effect" is okay in featured articles it is definitely also okay in a normal article as Steinway & Sons.".

"The new Rachmaninoff photo is different in what way?": Look at the other photo on Sergei Rachmaninoff. Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The sandwich effect is okay when the various editors involved in building an article can come to an agreement about a non-standard arrangement. Simple as that—it's up to the people. The standard that this article must meet is more strictly aligned with the guidelines given at WP:MOS than the permissiveness allowed by a group of editors who all agree on what it is that will make an article look its best. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that Sergei is no longer looking away from the text, this photo of Rachmaninoff is of poor quality. The face is bleached out and overexposed, and the photo is low resolution. I am removing the photo from the page. If Fanoftheworld insists on keeping it, we can submit for arbitration.THD3 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

- "poor" quality according to what? "Poor" seems to be a too strong word in this case. I don't believe that a reason to delete this picture is because of the quality. The quality is not "poor".

- Remember that this picture from before 1945 is one of the old pictures on Wikipedia, so of course the quality is not as the quality of pictures today. If it should be removed just because of "poor" quality, then many pictures on Wikipedia should be removed. I don't think many users would agree on that. (For example many, or possible all, pictures in Sergei Rachmaninoff).

- And let's face it, this discussion about "poor" quality is just another excuse to try to get the picture removed. Fanoftheworld (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The pictures on the Rachmaninoff page, while not up to the standards of HD digital photography, are of better quality than the photo you uploaded. First of all, your photo file is small, so there is little detail in the picture. Second, the face is overlit, hazy, and lacks definition. You could try finding a higher resolution version of that picture, which would improve the detail, and you could improve the appearance by pumping up the contrast.THD3 (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

- Please, see this picture [[File:Rach10.jpg]] in the first section named Life.

- But I don't think it is worth wasting time on this discussion. The quality of the picture is not that "poor" that the picture has to be removed. Fanoftheworld (talk) 14:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines for this article will be stricter because of the continued presence of an insistent editor who has been blocked for edit warring. If the guidelines are relaxed this editor will, I expect, push again toward the article being too promotional. The guideline for images will be followed here. Featured Article editors are able to reach consensus regarding the sizes and selection of the images in their articles. We aren't able to reach consensus, so guidelines become hard rules.

The age of the image has little to do with the blown out quality of its lightest areas. Just sayin'...

FanoftheWorld, you have previously insisted on other images because of their high quality, so pointing out the low quality of this one is a pertinent argument.

FanoftheWorld, you apparently went to other forums to get support for your image ideas here. That's fine, but those editors aren't here now taking part in reaching consensus. Those administrators and helpful editors are like your mother; you ask her when your father says NO. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on previous comments by Binksternet and myself, I am removing the Rachmaninoff photo from this page. Adequate justification has been provided. Fanoftheworld, if you have a problem with this, submit a request for arbitration. If you continually reinsert the photo, or make edit that are promotional to Steinway, I will submit a request that you be blocked. We've been playing this game long enough.THD3 (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"We've been playing this game long enough.", I agree. And do you know why we have been playing this game so long... because none of you have been able to write what supports the claim of the picture beeing of "poor" quality, and that the so-called "poor" quality entails that it should be deleted. I have even asked the administrators about the demands for quality of images. So far I have received no comments at all. So I do not believe that the claim about deleting "poor" quality images is valid. Actually, I think it is a lie, and that it is just another excuse to try to get the image removed. I still need something that supports the claim of removing the image because of an opinion about "poor" quality.

(To Binksternet, When I say that the image is of good quality, I don't mean the size, resolution and other technical stuff, I mean good quality because of what is on the picture. Rachmaninoff nicely seated at a Steinway grand piano). Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The image is now of a better quality than before, so the problem is solved. The discussion about "poor quality" can finally be closed. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Nobody here complained about the borders of the image. You cropped the borders, but you didn't do anything about the blown out whites. You can't fix a new problem 'B' while the main problem 'A' stays untouched. The poor image quality has not changed relative to problem 'A'. The discussion continues. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you uploaded yet a third version, one with greater pixel width and more detail. Still, you haven't addressed the lack of detail shown on the man's face which is too light, too white. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"...the lack of detail shown on the man's face which is too light, too white." is your very own opinion, and is not a reason for deleting the image from the article. I don't see why to continue the discussion when the quality of the image now is very acceptable for Wikipedia. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The picture is still a bit bleached out. I've downloaded it and will try to improve the contrast so we can see his face better. Also, the picture apears to be flipped (i.e., left is right and right is left) so I will address that as well.THD3 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"I've downloaded it and will try to improve the contrast...", fine with me.

Why do you think it is "...flipped (i.e., left is right and right is left)...". I don't think that the library has flipped the picture. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is flipped. When looking at this picture [[Rachmaninoff - Steinway grand piano.jpg]] you see that the notes on the piano are not flipped - the G-clef and F-clef are to the left. This picture and the picture in the Steinway article are probably taken almost at the same time. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. When I initially looked at the photo, I saw his name written in reverse on the bottom, and the lack of a handkerchief pocket in his suit coat. It was commonplace in this days for photographers to write on the back of the negative, producing the reverse effect. When I looked at the photo again, I saw the lower B-flat on the piano, and remembered that not all suit coat's had hanky pockets then. Still working on the lighting and contrast. The senar.ru site also has some pictures of Rachmaninoff at the piano with the logo more visible, but I don't know if they're free use. Fanoftheworld , do you think I should crop the photo slightly to remove the writing at the bottom, or leave as is?THD3 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should crop the picture to make a straight border. When you crop the picture some of the picture will necessarily be deleted. The best result will be to delete as little as possible. Regarding the white text below, could you brush some black over it? I think that too much of the picture will be removed if you crop over the text. Fanoftheworld (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Replaced with higher contrast and higher resolution photo (though it's not obvious in the thumbnail). Not perfect, but it's the best I could do.THD3 (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

<==All of this effort to improve the quality of the Rachmaninoff photo still doesn't answer the greatest problem I had with it: that there are too many photos in the Artists section, and two of the photos are sandwiching text. The maximum the section can handle at 1024 x 768, without extra images dragging down too far into the next section or sandwiching text between two images, is just two images, unless the selected images are wider than they are tall, in which case their thumbnails will show up as shorter images. The various comments and solutions addressing image quality have been a secondary issue to me. There has never been a restriction against poor-quality images on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet's firs excuse to try to get the picture removed was that it wasn't proved that the piano in the picture was a Steinway.

Binksternet's second excuse to try to get the picture removed was that there where too many pictures.

Binksternet's third excuse to try to get the picture removed was that the quality of the picture was what he called "poor".

None of these excuses are relevant any longer, cf. above.

What will Binksternet's fourth excuse be - that Rachmaninoff was too ugly a person to have pictures of him on Wikipedia... Fanoftheworld (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You make it sound like I don't want this photo in the article. I am neutral about the photo, but I have challenged a great many things in this article. I challenged many photos, including the ones where the piano wasn't proven to be a Steinway. The sandwiching of text in the Artists section has always been an issue, and still is. The initial poor quality of the photo was something I noted as a contradiction within your own set of arguments, but the poor quality was not something that made me think the photo should be removed. I don't care whether you remove Billy Joel or Randy Newman or Rachmaninoff, but one of them needs to get out of the article or move to a different location. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Fanoftheworld, after working on the Rachmaninoff photo and doing some research, I don't have a problem with having it in the article, and am satisfied the piano in the photo is, in fact, a Steinway. However, I agree with Binksternet that there are too many photos in this section - it simply makes the section look cluttered. This is an aesthetic concern and Wiki's guidelines are open to interpretation. I would also point out, Fanoftheworld, that Binksternet's and my questioning of your edits is more than warranted given your editing history, which appears to be pointed toward promoting Steinway products.THD3 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

THD3, regarding the "sandwich effect" Binksternet, who brought it up, used this to support his claim:

1024x768 screen resolution (according to Wikipedia:Layout#Images).

It does not look "cluttered" when using the 1024x768 screen resolution. I agree to some administrators that "The images are well spaced...", "Opinions differ, which is why this should be a user preferences setting.", "It looks okay to me...".

- There is a little "sandwich effect", but I have looked at featured articles, and "Featured content represents the best that Wikipedia has to offer.". In the featured article 7 World Trade Center's very first section after the lead there is "sandwich effect". In the featured article Angkor Wat's section "Decoration" there is "sandwich effect". In the featured article Prince's Palace of Monaco's section "19th century" there is "sandwich effect". These articles are just some few examples I quickly found. When "sandwich effect" is okay in featured articles it is definitely also okay in a normal article as Steinway & Sons.

- "... appears to be pointed toward promoting Steinway products.". I don't see that to add positive or neutral things to an article is necessarily the same as promoting the subject of the article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

315 pixel width on logo

I removed the 315px parameter setting the initial logo to a width that is larger than the manual of style recommends. I restored it to 300px. From MOS:IMAGES: "images should generally be no more than 300 pixels wide" and "Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels". From WP:IBT: "Standard suggested width of 300 pixels or 25 ems (300px or 25em in CSS)." From WP:LAYOUT: "An image should not overwhelm the screen; 300px may be considered a limit, as this is approximately half Wikipedia's text space's width on a 800x600 screen." Binksternet (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no, I insist. Binksternet (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"images should generally be no more than 300 pixels wide" and "Lead images, which should usually be no larger than 300 pixels". Why do you think I use a image just 15px larger than the normal... That is because of the bad layout (regaring headquarters and number of locations) when just using 300px. Therefore the generally and usually shall not be done here. Fanoftheworld (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

On my computer, the layout looks fine with logo at 300px. My screen is set at 1280x800px. THD3 (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with screen resolution.

After your edit, the logo is at 315px. When the logo is at 300px the infobox is smaller and therefore the layout of the text (regaring headquarters and number of locations) in the infobox is bad. Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the logo to 300px size. It looks fine, and the locations fit on one line each.THD3 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't you see, that "Germany" (regarding Headquarters) is in the second line and that the reference (regarding Number of locations) is in the second line? Fanoftheworld (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me try to fix that at 300px. If not, we can go to 315px.THD3 (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have placed the New York and Hamburg locations on separate lines, and removed the "and." Since each subsidiary has its own line, this seems logical for headquarters also. I have also deleted the number of "locations" (dealers, really). This is mentioned elsewhere in the article. THD3 (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It is normal that things in infoboxes also are mentioned in articles. Fanoftheworld (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever font is my computer's default looks just fine under a 300-wide image—no problem with crowding or wraparound to the next line. My screen is 1024 x 768 and I don't have any kind of accessibility (larger size) fonts enabled. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Im bored of stupid edit wars over 315/300 pixel width. B and F are now on WP:1RR parole for this article, and your last reverts count. I won't bother watch, but I'm sure you'll both report each other to my talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge your setting of 1RR. Thanks for coming to play in our wading pool. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Im bored of stupid edit wars over 315/300 pixel width.", I agree, and I think that the change of 315px to 300px (just 15px) made by Binksternet is another example on how much some users are hunting me and are trying to overkill the Steinway article!! There was a good reason for having the image a little bigger than the usual - and it was just 15px bigger.

I am also bored of these stupid edit wars and that is why I have not changed the 300px back to 315px since THD3's comment "Let me try to fix that at 300px. If not, we can go to 315px.THD3 14:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)".

To repeat an important point: I think that the change of 315px to 300px (just 15px) made by Binksternet is another example on how much some users are hunting me and trying to overkill the Steinway article. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying my own position: I didn't see any kind of infobox text problem with a 300px width on the logo, so I resisted a non-standard increase in size which could be interpreted as a wish to have the Steinway infobox slightly more impressive than other articles. I think the text problem, whatever it is (I still haven't seen it), can be adjusted to satisfaction within the limits of 300 pixels. Binksternet (talk) 01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Subsidiaries

Fanoftheworld, what is the relationship between the various subsidiaries (like the one in Westport, CT) with Steinway. I know that Steinway owns part of ArchivMusik, does Steinway also own these other locations?THD3 (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Few of the dealers of Steinway pianos are owned by Steinway. I have added some of these Steinway owned dealers to the infobox. Fanoftheworld (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well. We should also delete the non-owned Steinway dealers.THD3 (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added a note to the German subsidiaries in the section above. Jll (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Why removing Steinway's subsidiaries in Germany from the infobox? Fanoftheworld (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion under German subsidiaries. I've checked Westport, Paramus, and Miami (technically, it's in Coral Gables, a suburb of Miami). They all seem to check out as Steinway owned, so I'll leave them in.THD3 (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What is Steinway & Sons?

What sort of entity is Steinway & Sons? "Manufacturer" doesn't really define it. e.g. the second para talks about a merger with Selmer Company, which is presumably when Selmer Industries, Inc. purchased Steinway Musical Properties, Inc. Later the article talks about Steinway announcing the acquisition of ArkivMusic - which is again about Steinway Musical Instruments. But if the article is about Steinway Musical Instruments then why does it ignore other instruments that the corporation makes? If it is just about the piano division then why does it talk about ArkivMusic? By "Steinway & Sons" is the article referring to:

• Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc., owners of Conn-Selmer, ArkivMusic and (under its former name) purchaser of Steinway Musical Properties, Inc? [5]
• Steinway Musical Instruments, Inc.'s piano division, called Steinway & Sons, and based in Long Island City, NY? [6]
• Something else, for example this corporation, or products marketed under the Steinway & Sons trademark? Jll (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Right now it's about "Steinway & Sons, as if it had remained only a piano business." ...but with some tiny additions and clarifications. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Employees

Is there any place where we could find something more precise than "Employees: More than 2,300"? Thank you --Karljoos (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Horowitz/Kreisleriana file

The file of Horowitz playing Schumann's Kreisleriana claims to be a recording from prior to 1923. This is absolutely impossible. Horowitz didn't make any recordings until 1928 (with the exception of a few piano rolls made in 1926). He recorded Kreisleriana twice: in 1969 for Columbia (now Sony) and in 1985 for Deutsche Grammophon. This is the latter recording. Retaining this file, for which Universal Classics (parent company of DG) holds the copyright, exposes Wikipedia to legal action. I am removing the file from the page.THD3 (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Most expensive" in lead section

The lead section should summarize the article, in brief. Because the lead section needs to be brief, much content is not included. I don't feel that the price records of Steinway are important enough to include in the lead. Steinway price records are trivia, especially since single pianos are selected out of many thousands of other that are not the most expensive. The "most expensive piano" as listed here is not one of Steinway's regularly-produced model lines. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I took out that sentence again. As trivia, it does not suit the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Karljoos (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So do I.THD3 (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope that other users (who so far hasn't been writing on the Steinway article) will give their opinion too, so there will be a third opinion. Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing text that is not needed

Several times now, I have removed text with it getting restored. Here is the text I think is unnecessary:

• "...this process yields a rim of strength and tonal quality.<ref>Piano Buyer's Guide, p. 10.</ref>" This sentence is not descriptive enough. The process before the patent also yielded a rim of strength and tonal quality! What kind of strength difference is there? What kind of different tonal quality was the result?
• "For example: Steinway Artist Katia Labèque and Steinway Artist Marielle Labèque played a concert in the city named Randers, Denmark, the grand pianos they played were not Steinway grand pianos." This bit of footnote text should either be incorporated into the main text or deleted. I don't see how its presence as footnote text helps the understanding of the Steinway Artist program.
• "For example: Ms. Tal recorded works by Schubert on another brand than Steinway before she joined Steinway's ensemble roster with her duo partner, Andreas Groethuysen, in 1997, and she still performs on other brands than Steinway periodically." Same with this footnote text. Delete: unneeded. By the way, who the hell is Ms. Tal? Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

reacts strongly

"Steinway reacts strongly to any of its Artists being seen to endorse publicly another brand of piano". What is meant by Steinway reacts strongly? I agree that Steinway reacts, but strongly? Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To me, "strongly" in this context means quickly and decisively. Trucking a piano away so that a performer can't use it is a strong response. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Steinway reacts strongly to any of the Steinway Artists being seen to endorse publicly another brand of piano.". What support this claim about the over 1,500 Steinway Artists - some few examples (all from the same reference) does not. Fanoftheworld (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that Steinway has reacted when "their" artists endorse other pianos, it is sourced and should be on the article. But calling the reaction "strong" does not seem neccesary. I think that as it is now is OK. --Karljoos (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)