Talk:Milan Conservatory

Title

The lede gives English (Milan Conservatory) and Italian (Conservatorio di musica “Giuseppe Verdi” di Milano) versions of the name.

The article itself has a hybrid French (!)-English title (Music Conservatoire "Giuseppe Verdi", Milan).

The official website calls it the Conservatorio di Milan, which translates to Milan Conservatory.

I'm very much in favour of moving the article to Milan Conservatory. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Which I've now boldly done. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And I have boldly redone; someone undid the redirect. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

Many biographical articles across the encyclopedia and reference works external to wikipedia use the naming convention Conservatorio Giuseppe Verdi as the name of the Milan Conservatory. As such, it's a likely search term and should be bolded in the lead even if it is not the current name of the institution. The article should be updated anyway to cover the history of the institution and its various names. I note that this is standard practice for articles wikipedia wide where a person, organization, building, etc. has gone by many names to bold the various names in the lead.4meter4 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Bolding

Hi @User:4meter4, I didn't want to continue the edit war, so I thought I would start a discussion with you instead. I'm not aware of a standard where former names (and native names) are bolded in the lede. Can you point me to either the section of the MOS that mentions both instances, or a solid precedent that demonstrates them? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku I had already started a discussion right above this one... There are literally tens of thousands of articles of varying kinds across the encyclopedia that follow this practice. I am surprised you haven't noticed as it is very widespread. Picking a few at random would be Broadway Theatre (53rd Street) and Lyric Theatre (New York City, 1998) (for an example of past names), The Tales of Hoffmann (for an example of native name), Shelley Winters (for an example of past name), and Spiny toad (for an example of multiple common names and the scientific foreign language name). Basically any searchable title (which includes former names, foreign names, common names, etc.) can and should be bolded because they can all be possible search terms for the reader looking for a particular topic. I also note that the main reference work used in the article doesn't use the name "Milan Conservatory"; which points to a need for including past names in the lead as published sources use both past and present names in English and Italian (ie Italian names for the school in English language sources), and biographical entries on composers and other musicians most often use the historic names of the institution at the time they were connected to it. Given the interlinking aspect of the encyclopedia it helps to have all potential names in the lead for topical clarity and to aid in navigation. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I also want to note that this whole issue came up when I discovered the former redirect Conservatorio Giuseppe Verdi which was to this page. However the Milan Conservatory page did not address the title and explain the redirect which violates Wikipedia:Redirect policy. Further, in digging, I discovered half of the incoming links were to the wrong school and created an article on the Turin Conservatory as a result. Now that it is a dab page we need to address the old title because of the link to this page from the Conservatorio Giuseppe Verdi dab page. Also numerous biographical articles linking to this page use the title "Conservatorio Giuseppe Verdi" in their text. Best.4meter4 (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@User:4meter4, thanks for the thorough explanation—it makes sense to me now. Just for clarification, I wasn't disputing the inclusion of former or native names in the lede, merely their bolding, but I understand your rationale. Cheers! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Giuseppe Verdi

Hi @Mbshu:, I reverted your mention of Giuseppe Verdi for the reason that as a throwaway mention (without even providing a link to Verdi's page), the information offers little value. I encourage you to create a separate section and expand on the topic if you feel it is worth describing on this page—I happen to think it is! As a side note, the fact that something is mentioned on another language wiki is not a good enough reason to include content on enwiki, unless it is properly referenced. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Ahoy! It is not just some other language but the most relevant one for the subject matter, and it provides detailed reference including Verdi's own writing. But anyway, I added a reference in English and restored my contribution. Trust that suffices. Mbshu (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mbshu:, it does not suffice, as you have merely restored your preferred version of the article, one I had reverted. Please see what I wrote in my comment above, regarding a throwaway mention of Verdi (couldn't you at least link him?) and creating a separate section on the topic within the article. Additionally, it's all well and good that the Italian wiki provides references supporting your claim, but it isn't my responsibility to go look them up and provide them here—it is yours. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Right after your initial note, I responded to our objection that another language Wiki is not a sufficient source: I added a footnote with an external reference (Britannica). I do think this evidence suffices; it seems that you overlooked it. - I did not link the Wiki page on Verdi because I took it for granted that, as usual, this was done in the article at the first occasion where the name was mentioned. As this is not the case, I can of course add the link. - Personally I do not think that the matter requires a separate section / further expansionhere as this is not the article about Verdi; in my eyes, the fact as such (the institution that once refused to admit him now banks on the glory of his name) is sufficient here. - So? Mbshu (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I personally think the fact is encyclopedic and worth including. The conservatory was for a period named for Verdi, so the fact that it refused Verdi admittance is interesting, encyclopedic, and should be included. I restored the version by Mbshu. 4meter4 (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mbshu:, I did not overlook anything, but your edit was sloppy, and the content was improperly formatted. I've now fixed it—please learn from it instead of obstinately insisting you are correct.

@4meter4:, nobody is arguing that the information isn't worth including. I simply insisted that the manner in which it was introduced was inadequate—a position by which I stand. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: If you want people to learn from you, try to treat them with respect instead of condescension. Mbshu (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mbshu:, I treated you with respect from the outset, explaining in my edit summaries why I was reverting your edits, and starting a talk page discussion on the topic. You responded by reverting back, so arguably, you are the one who set the negative tone of this exchange. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku I'm sure it was not your intention, but it does come off as combative when you revert another editor's good faith edits to the article; particularly when WP:BURDEN was met by the adding of a reliable source by Mbshu. I agree that the use of bare urls is not ideal, and that the content could have been better incorporated into the overall article with expanded context. However, those are editorial issues that are best fixed through proactive editing in article space rather than content reversion. When you see a problem like that it is best to just fix it yourself by fixing the bare url and finding a suitable place to put the information, or by adding appropriate tags and starting a talk page discussion without removing the content in article space. The only reason to remove the content is if it were not encyclopedic, engaged with WP:Original research or some sort of WP:NPOV/WP:NOT issue, or if the content were not verifiable to reliable materials. None of those situations applied in this context. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4:, your point has validity, but don't forget that I didn't simply revert Mbshu's edit—I also started this discussion in order to encourage them to do better than simply drop a decontextualized and poorly presented comment about Verdi. I think that goes a ways towards reducing any combativeness that the editor could interpret from my actions, or at least it should. They didn't heed my suggestion but instead reverted back, and I think that as long as we're chastising each other for poor editorial decisions or uncollegial behaviour, that should not be ignored.

I also want to quibble with your decision to restore Mbshu's edit, despite the fact that it was of rather poor quality. Surely, as a proponent of proactive editing, you could have done something to improve their edit instead of restoring it in its original presentation, no? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I could have. I had other editing priorities at the moment, and wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. I restored it because I support the content, and felt that its inclusion was an improvement even if not ideally structured. I still believe that. Regardless, WP:CONSENSUS would seem to indicate that all three of us support the inclusion of the material, and the problem has been largely resolved in the current version of the article. However, I personally think it would be better to expand the history of the conservatory and place that content in context to when the school was renamed for Verdi rather than having a separate subsection titled for Verdi which seems odd. At some point I will get around to expanding this page with a historical overview, but I have many projects on my to do list so it may be long in the future from now. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4:, while I understand your choice, now that you've explained it, I think WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is a weak argument for restoring a bad edit and subsequently chiding another editor for not being proactive. Regardless, I think we can put that behind us. I fully agree that that the article's history section should be expanded and the content about Verdi added to it. Perhaps if @Mbshu: would be so kind as to chime in to a discussion their actions precipitated, and who themselves mentioned the Italian wiki more than once, we could figure out an expedient manner in which to jointly improve the page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

No. After this experience, I am out. Mbshu (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mbshu:, you seem rather thin-skinned for someone who is otherwise keen to edit-war 🤷‍♂️ Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)