Talk:Stuart & Sons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article: pretty bad for a number of reasons. Is someone going to fix it? Tony (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The infobox is a real problem. Rainbow1000, do you have an interest in the company, either as employee, friend or relative? The image uploaded and added today lacks proper documentation. Who, where, when, for example. Tony (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Can authoritative sources be found for the technical descriptions and claims, please? Newpapers? Even a professional newsletter would be better than the blog. I've removed one pic, but there are still too many for an article of this size, and I am suspicious about the documentation at the Commons. It needs to be fixed before the remaining images can be considered for retention. Tony (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Rainbow1000: are you "Chris" (CJM) at the blog that is cited again and again. Are you, in fact, citing yourself? Please see my query on your talk page about your claim at the Commons that the images are your own work. Perhaps they are, but it would be good to clear up the matter—they look like professional marketing photographs. Tony (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cites added. Happy now or is more needed? Thoglette (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Stuart and Sons article[edit]

This article Stuart & Sons should be merged with the Stuart and sons article. Damon Mah (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree—merge away. Note also that a previous article Stuart and Sons was moved to Stuart & Sons by Rainbow1000 (see here, also discussion above) the day before Rainbow1000 created Stuart and sons (see here). There seems to be something suspicious going on.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes; why on earth are there two articles? Tony (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
SEO ? -- (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Why hasn't someone played Scriabin's sixth sonata on one of these?[edit]

It has a written D8, which AFAIK is only possible on a Stuart & Sons 102-key piano. Double sharp (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Also Scriabin's Op. 39 No. 4 has a G0, but that can be done on Bösendorfer 225s and Imperials as well. Double sharp (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)