User talk:Kleinzach: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:46, 20 February 2009

Please put new topics at the bottom! If you ask a question here — I'll generally reply to it here. Thanks!

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kleinzach.

* Click here to leave me a new message

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21

Another way to reach me is to send an email!

Stub sorting proposal

Hi, it doesn't look like my proposal is going anywhere, I think partly because my intent was not understood and also because some people seem to be very protective over the whole stub thing. I'll just let it drop for now as it cannot be implemented with the current system anyway. I mostly wanted to test the water and see what kind of objections that would get. I'm a little worried we seem to have people who think it's a good idea to perform the same tasks multiple times. Not just categorization but rating articles too. It's even more worrying that people flat out fail to recognize the same tasks are being performed multiple times.

I'll make sure to revive this if we ever get better category queries, until then, I think the only way forward is to campaign for that to happen or get the work done, though given the main issue would be server load, an outsider is limited in what they can do.

There is also a separate and more fundamental problem with categories: they are hierachical in nature, a relationship that cannot be handled well in database queries. For instance someone categorized in "american people" (but not in "people") cannot be readily queried as "people" at the database level even though "american people" is a subcategory of "people". There are ways around that, but again server load would be an issue. Equendil Talk 02:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of operas by Adam (and other lists)

That's exactly what I've been doing. The first opera listed in Grove wasn't on the list, so I added it, the second one had the wrong theatre and a string of librettists not in the Grove list (I've left them in pro tem, but the Scribe article doesn't mention this work), the third had an incorrect title, and there are three or four operas preceding it in Grove that need to be added. Oh, and the genre link to vaudeville wasn't quite as bad as the Lucidor link in the Strauss list, but ... well, you take a look. So it looks like a long job.

If in doubt, I'd trust Grove. --Klein zach 06:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I was wondering whether to include the Critical Edition numbers (I/viii, etc.) shown in Grove in a "CE" column for Rossini, and also what to do about Ciro in Babilonia which was written first but premiered fourth or fifth - a "Completed" column would duplicate all the premiere years except for this one, but it would locate it accurately. --GuillaumeTell 02:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly in favour of including the CE numbers.

Re the 'Ciro' question, this is a question that comes up repeatedly in one form or another. IMO we are basically using premiere order in most, if not all the tables, so we should follow this. If there are a lot of anomalies in a table we can put in a Notes column for them, but if there are only one or two we can just stick in a note in parentheses in another column (title or premiere?). You'll see I've done this sometimes. (BTW I've removed the Completion column completely from List of operas by Spontini and List of operettas by Ziehrer.)

OK - premiere, probably. --GuillaumeTell 18:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should have a 'To do' style cleanup list for the articles? --Klein zach 07:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a standard list, such as "Check all lists against Grove", "Split premiere date and venue into two columns", "Rearrange columns into standard order"? Or table-specific things? I didn't discover the Adam problems until I started working on the list. --GuillaumeTell 18:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe article by article? Listing things that have to be done and then signing off (strike through?) when the table has been checked? So we might have an entry like: List of operas by Splendini: divide premiere dates and places, add librettists, add sort tags to titles. Would that work? --Klein zach 01:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds OK. I can certainly do one for Adam! Would such lists be located somewhere central or on the Talk page of each list?

I'd prefer somewhere central (see below). --Klein zach 00:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And talking of Adam, I'm quite busy with Real life at present, so I have this feeling that it's going to take ages to get anywhere near finishing his operas, let alone getting on to composers that I'm actually interested in or creating new lists. I can either

just go straight to Gluck, Rossini et al and then get back to the alpha list, or
do a quick List vs Grove survey for each list and note the To Do things, or
start building new lists of prolific but important composers (i.e. not people like Gassmann!) such as Britten, Verdi, Donizetti, Puccini, Janacek, Prokofiev, Dvorak, Smetana, Bellini .... or, of course,

I've done Bellini, see Vincenzo_Bellini#Operas. There are other lists, though usually in a poorer state, in other biographies.--Klein zach 00:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mix 'n match among the above

--GuillaumeTell 17:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Thank you for the informative link to 'Real life'!) Maybe it's more important to be organized than fast with this? These tables are a big step forward from what existed before, but it will take time to get them all up to a unified standard. I think we might do an article by article 'To do' list first. That will also be useful for Michael if he wants to work on this. So is that OK, and should we put the 'To do' list at User:GuillaumeTell/Lists of operas by composer spreadsheet or make a new page? --Klein zach 00:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing. I'm wondering whether we should use 'Place' rather than 'Venue' since we are always listing the city? What do you think? --Klein zach 01:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Place/Theatre'? In case people creating other lists just put the city even when the theatre is known? I'm certainly not wedded to 'Venue', which sounds like a pop concert, but Place just seems rather bald, and, after the Dark Ages of opera, most of the theatres will be known. 'City' isn't a runner, as places like Aldeburgh aren't cities. --GuillaumeTell 17:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Place/Theatre' then? At least it's clear and unambiguous.--Klein zach 00:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of operas by Pacini

I'm getting close to working on the List of operas by Pacini; do you want me to combine the four tables into one? Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this one is that I've only done the genre column for the first table. Were you intending to do the genres for the following tables or do you want me to do them? It's a big one of course . . . --Klein zach 13:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending on adding the genres, but I can add an empty column for the time being, if you want. Join all four? Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I may not get the genres done for a while (with the ongoing Brecht distractions etc.). I also need to do the 'To do list' for all of these. Are you going to split the premiere dates and places for Pacini? --Klein zach 13:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always split premiere dates & places when I encounter them. I'm currently working on Piccinni and I expect to finish that early tonight. After that I'll reorder Hasse which I unexplicably forgot, and then attack Pacini which might take 2 or 3 days (I need to look at something else occasionally to keep me amused). Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To do list

I've started a 'To do' list at User:Kleinzach/Lists of operas. Please annotate, strikeout etc. --Klein zach 14:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of compositions by Simon Mayr

I have nominated List of compositions by Simon Mayr, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions by Simon Mayr. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. THF (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate-Soldier German synopsis

I would suggest putting, under "Synopsis", a subheader (triple "===") titled as "German variation" for that plot. Under that subheader, either summarize the total plot, or just note the differences. Because wiki-spoiler tags were outlawed, many people have learned to expect plot-details to be revealed under "Synopsis", so I would keep all plot details within that overall section, in case someone was planning to attend the opera for the first time, without spoiling the ending. Because the German Wikipedia is the 2nd largest, there is a growing interest in the German variations of many topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Interview

Greetings, Kleinzach! Lately, I've being conducting WikiProject Reports for the Signpost. After much deliberation, I have settled upon WP:MUSIC for my next report, and I feel you would be the most appropriate member to interview. Are you interested? If so, just leave a message either here or on my talk page. If not, would you mind recommending another member of the project whom you believe to be qualified? Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would be happy to do this. (I assume you mean WP:WP MUSIC rather than WP:MUSIC which is a redirect, rather eccentrically!, to a notability page). Anyway, as you will know, the Music Project is an umbrella for some 50-odd individual music-related projects. My own involvement has been in four or five of the classical music groups (as well as Music itself). Perhaps you might also like to interview someone with a broad interest in Jazz and popular music? If so I will have a look and come back with some possible names. Best. --Klein zach 01:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware that WP Music is an umbrella project, and that's part of the reason I chose it. Everything else that I've interviewed so far has been fairly specialized. I hadn't considered multiplicity of music interests; I chose you because you seem to be the most actively involved in discussions at the WP Music talk page. I leave it up to you: If you think someone with more diverse interests would be more appropriate, suggestions would be appreciated. If not, the offer stll stands. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misread your original message thinking you wanted two of us - must have been too early in the morning! - anyway I'd be very happy to do the interview. --Klein zach 03:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'll be posting questions (usually 2–3 at a time) for you here. Obviously, you respond by posting answers directly beneath the corresponding question. Don't worry about formatting, I'll clean it up before it gets published. I strongly recommend that you add the page to your watchlist, as that makes it much easier than if I were to have to add messages here every time. Also, it'll be several weeks before it's my turn to publish again (Garden is doing the next interview), so take as much time as you need. Thanks again! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 08:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I've added the page to my watchlist. --Klein zach 23:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we finished now? I see you haven't added any new questions for a few days now. Best. --Klein zach 07:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted the last question, after that one we'll be done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Assessment on article

I have posted La Transfiguration de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ on the "requesting assessment" list for more than a month and there is still no any result. And I see that those bots keep on assessing "no class" articles. Are these show efficiency or otherwise I have something to be mistaken? Addaick (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your message. I've given the article a nominal assessment. Is that OK? The Composers Project is doing full assessments at B-class level but Contemporary music isn't even doing that. BTW I think the capitalization should be 'La transfiguration de notre seigneur Jésus-Christ'. Are you working on other articles? Are you interested in translating into Chinese? If so I may have some ideas. Best. --Klein zach 23:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rating, that's fine. Well, if you look for my contributions, they are mainly minor edits and "Jesus Transfiguration" is my first ever major contribution. Yes, I have thinked for translating into Chinese because the Chinese version at present is really awful and very lack of information:just a few lines about Mahler symphonies and even red links in some Beethoven works. I haven't taken my mind because it is reaaly a long-term committment and very hard job.And few months later I have to take my CE exam(An important exam in Hong Kong which judges whether you can enter form 6,ie. class 12, by your standard, classes),so I didn't have much time to get working.

What ideas do you have that you mentioned? Addaick (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the Composers Project is more active than Classical Music - and basically working to a higher standard - so I was going to suggest translating one or two composers' biographies - but maybe you should take care of your exams first! Best wishes. P.S. I used to live in HK. --Klein zach 01:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. I notice you have some relationships with Asia after my reply yesterday. Are you a native of what? Addaick (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britain, but I've lived more than half my life in Asia. --Klein zach 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

opera lists

Hi, wondering why the operas of a large number of composers are sequestered into separate articles from the lists of their other works. Tony (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a whole series of reasons. Normal WP splitting practice for one. Most of these pages would be enormous if they were combined with the lists of compositions - they are very large anyway. They are also very different in form from the other lists, However, having said that, there are of course many cases where the lists of operas remain with lists of compositions (see Joseph-Nicolas-Pancrace_Royer#Operas as an example of a yet-to-be-split page). Also having the (developed) lists as a series helps standardization etc. --Klein zach 23:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions

Hello Kleinzach. I have noticed the questions you had on the pages of Jeanette Wässelius, Caroline Frederikke Müller and Inga Åberg. I do not have much knowledge in the subject of opera itself, but I have translated the titles in question from Swedish to English. Perhaps this will help someone with knowledge about operas to identify them. The opera performed in Stockholm at this period was really mostly the same ones as was performed in Paris and Germany, so perhaps a translation of the titles could help. I have also read the book cited for these articles, and was able to answer some of the other questions you had. I hope I have been of some help! --85.226.45.229 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also done this for Henriette Widerberg, Marie Louise Marcadet, Christina Rahm and Elisabeth Forsselius.--85.226.45.229 (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry not to have replied before now. Information given in Wikipedia needs to be verified. In these cases we need a positive identification of the works cited, this means knowing the names of the composers as well as the works and the names of the roles. This is why I suggest we ask an expert on the subject to check the details. We need someone who can definitely identify the works and give the correct titles and names, otherwise the articles are of limited use in the English Wikipedia and the unverified information should be deleted. --Klein zach 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I Understand your point. I fully agree with you that the composers should be added to this article. However. The parts she made, and the operas listed, are not unverified. Her parts are verified, and the productions she participated in are verified. It is verifed, that she played the part of X in the production XX. This information is fully and completely verified by the cited book by Nordensvan, which is cited as a reference for the article. What is not verified, is the composer for the production. This should of course be added, and it is important that it is. I think it would be a misstake to delete the parts she made, because the composers of them are unknown. By doing so, we remove (referenced) information which will I am sure be developed eventually. The parts and the operas are verified, after all; she is verifed to have played a part named X in a production named X. This information is not unverified, but rather uncomplete. The articles of wikipedia will always be updated eventually. After all, articles are being expanded all the time, and more and more information are always added to them, and the information in them are developed. It is all to be found in the book by Nordensvan.--85.226.41.66 (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information has to be correct. That is the most important thing. There is a simple point here. If the composer is not identified then we don't know what the work is. If we don't know what work is being referred to then the information does not belong in an encyclopedia which is concerned with correct facts.

The second point is that this is the English Wikipedia not the Swedish Wikipedia, so we can't have names that are Swedish translations of foreign language works. These simply are incomprehensible to English language readers, they are unable to decode these names so they are meaningful.

If you are concerned about these articles and want them to be published in the English Wikipedia, I think the way forward would be to contact an expert on opera in Sweden to edit them and make corrections so the articles are up to the standard of other ones here. (If you are living in Sweden then you might contact your national opera about this.) --Klein zach 23:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand wath your are saying completely. I realise that anyone interested in the productions would find it very unsatisfying not knowing the composers to these works. But, the fact reamins, that even if the composers are unknown, thereby making the parts unplacable, it does not change the fact that these people did "the part x in the opera named X", as I have said. This are correct and verified facts, even if they are uncomplete. The information is correct, even if it is uncomplete. As to the Swedish titles, I have know translated them to English, so that problem is no solwed, as you have yourself now seen. And, (this goes without saying of course!), that even if it is decided to delete the correct and referenced information about the parts they made (albeit uncomplete), naturally the rest of the articles, and the articles themselwes, is in no danger of being deleted entirely (!). As I said, I understand your point, and I am sure the information you reqcuire will be added to the articles eventually, as this is how wikipedia work - there is no time limit. And of course, the articles have a great value aside from those intrested in the operatic aspects of them. My best of luck to your editing! --85.226.47.151 (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This problem doesn't exist with our coverage of opera in Italy, France, Germany, England etc. Records exist which make it easy to identify the operas. What is the problem with these Swedish references? Why is it impossible to make proper identifications? I don't understand. Have you talked to someone who knows about the history of opera in Sweden? Would this be the best thing to do? --Klein zach 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hink there is any problem with the references at all. There really is no other problem then that the person who put the parts in these articles, obviously forgot to make the information complete. As I have said, I have read the book by Nordensvan cited for these articles, and it answers all the questions you have. Unfortunately, I was more interested in the history, not in the works, so I did no pay attention to those things, and i have now returned the book to the library. All your questions can be answered very simply, if a Swedish person looked them up in this book (which, I am sorry to say, does not seem to have been translated to English, otherwise, you could have done so yourself). But perhaps it will take some time before anyone does this. And, of course, I can add something which may contribute; in 1825, the royal theatre in Stockholm burned down; I believe the building contained the papers of both the theatre and the opera, and a lot of papermaterial about the period before 1825 was destroyed. Therefore, a lot of information from before 1825 is uncomplete. --85.226.47.151 (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. My understanding is that you are not able to do any more work on these pages. Is that correct? If so I will try to solve the problems by myself with other Wikipedia editors. --Klein zach 00:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may borrow this book again and fill in the missing information, though I can not say if, and when, I have the time to do so. But, as I said above, the archives of the opera and the theatre was both housed in the building of the royal theatre, which burnt down in 1825, so it is very possible that not all of your questions can be answered even by that book, (which is otherwise an excellent reference for Swedish opera history). I hope you understand. I wish you good luck with this, as I do consider these articles important.--85.226.47.151 (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added several missing composers and writers to the articles above. All from the book by Nordensvan. I hope this was of some help!--85.226.47.151 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note; many of these works are listed only under their Swedish titles in the programs, and therefore, I can only write them here. Their titles may (such as in the case of Tulipano) have been completely different in the original work. Therefore, the translations may sometimes seem to be of works which never existed. Be assured that they did, but can be hard to identify because of these reasons. As I have said before; the archives of the opera and the theatre burnt in 1825, and therefore, one is forced to rely upon less thorough sources then those may have been. The fire of the archives in 1825, is an important fact to consider when it comes to Swedish opera- and theatre history before 1825. As these articles is about people active before 1825, this is a problem worth being aware of. Just to keep you informed. --85.226.47.151 (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the operas can't be identified then they can't be included in the articles. We don't want gibberish there. The bottom line is this: no Swedish titles for non-Swedish works. --Klein zach 10:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is no reason to be rude? I do respect the rules, but this is hardly "gibberish". Please do not be rude. The fire of 1825 is respected in the history books as a reason to why information before 1825 can not be as detailed. This is not nonsense. The roles, the works, the names and the parts are still verified, although sometimes uncomplete. I have no reason to lie about anything, and it is insulting to call me a liar. Again; we will get nowhere with rudeness. --85.226.47.151 (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read what I wrote. There is no rudeness. This is the English Wikipedia. Please respect that. We use Swedish for Swedish references. Swedish names for non-Swedish references are meaningless, absolutely meaningless, to our readers. Nor has anyone accused you of lying.

On the other hand you have made many mistakes. It would be better if you put content on your user page, cleaned it up and put in wikilinks and only after that put it on article pages. It's extremely time consuming doing this all for you, especially when the same corrections have to be repeated on multiple pages. It would be quite easy for you to correct the spellings, links and original titles if you would take the trouble. The information is all available here on Wikipedia pages. Just follow the links to Gluck, Dalayrac, Paer, Sacchini, Cherubini, Gluck, Boieldieu etc. and you can find the correct titles of the operas etc. Make the effort, have some pride in the quality of your work and its proper presentation. --Klein zach 14:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention to answer this, but to your own benefit; you should perhaps be more careful as to how you phrase yourself. You once commented one of my edits with (quote): "AFAIK there is no such work"; to call my edit "a fake", (in this case, simply because you could not confirm this from wikipedia, which has no more information than what is added to it and may lack complete coverage of many things) is of course to call me a liar. To call my edits "Ghibberish", as you did above, is of course rude. Wether my edits are uncomplete or not, I will give myself credit for having maked them better than what they were before - wikipedia is, after all, depending on continuous editing, and articles can be edited for years. Please be more careful in your wording. Perhaps you should "assume good faith" more. Good luck in your work here. Thank you. --85.226.42.129 (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Red links "Legitimate red links should not be resolved by simply removing the bracket. If a red link is within the context of the article, and it is a topic with the potential to eventually be a neutral, verifiable and encyclopedic article, then the link should be kept. Such links do not have an expiration date, beyond which they must be "fixed". Red links should be removed only if they point to articles that are unlikely ever to be created" Robert.Allen (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Red links should be removed if they point to articles that are unlikely ever to be created. On the other hand if you are creating articles in the near future please feel free to put in red links. Good day. --Klein zach 12:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is probably a minor issue for you and you are really busy and do a ton of stuff for the Wikipedia, but I guess I was wondering when you removed the red links for Antony Beaumont, on the same day I created them and was creating the article, why you did not explain the reason for removing them. I went back and re-added the links after I finished creating the article and discovered you had removed them. It didn't seem like it was a link for which an article would never be created. Perhaps there was already a link higher up on that page. I did not check, but you didn't give that as a reason for removing it.

No problem - I saw afterwards you started an article. In general we don't usually link authors of references, that's why I originally removed it. --Klein zach 04:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This leads me to a related issue: having more than one link to a particular page in one article. Links are great because they indicate at that spot that more information is available on that particular topic. I don't believe it is policy, but I favor leaving in extra links when these occur in different sections. It may not be helpful to remove extra links, because a reader (or editor) may not be aware that such a link exists, and might not think to look for one, in particular if he/she arrived at that spot by a jump (either through an external link with #subheading format or by clicking an item in the TOC) . Because many articles are getting longer, the first link is harder to find or even see, and when changes in articles are made, sometimes links may be lost when text is deleted, or they may be moved up or down. It is time-consuming to go through and check the link, especially if the item is mentioned many times, and often moving the link is not done. Another example: the Antony Beaumont books are used as references more than once, and in more than one article. So one might copy the reference containing the link from one Wikipedia article to another and the link comes along with the reference. It saves time in editing not to have to figure out whether to add it or remove it. One can just leave it in. (Something just occurred to me: is there a bot that goes through articles and removes extra links? Obviously I would not be in favor of such a bot.) Thanks for your time and thoughts. Robert.Allen (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree. WP:MOSLINKS would be the best place to discuss this. --Klein zach 04:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the issue of number of wikilinks in an article, check out WP:OVERLINK. Basically, don't do it every time, but doing it a second time well down into the article is fine. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I found this, which is relevant, a bit higher up at WP:Manual of Style (links)#General principles

Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own.)

So repeating a link in a new section is OK. Good. Note that repeated linking of the same item in a table is actually preferred, if it's in a different row. I would add to this: repeated linking in citations is also desirable, since citations should also stand on their own (and be easily moved to new pages with links intact). Something like this:

Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section. (Table entries and citations are an exception to this; each row of a table and each citation should be able to stand on its own.)

I'm thinking here of a link to, for example, a page about an author for the reference or a link to a publisher. Another example would be a link to a record company in a recording citation, which again might be copied to another page which cites the same recording. Can someone like me make such a change to this section? Or should I first put it as a suggestion on the Talk page for WP:Manual of Style (links)#General principles? Robert.Allen (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (links). The guidelines there could do with some refinement and it would mean that you have the MoS behind you if someone thinks your edits are controversial. Good luck! --Klein zach 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I'll try to write something up for the talk page. (I've copied what I need from this discussion, if you would like to delete it.) Robert.Allen (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camelia Voin

Greetings This is an answer to your comment on Camelia Voin article. I understand how the average riders may misinterpret the word “student” as diminishing someone’s accomplishments/notability. Therefore, I deleted the article mentioning it. However, I strongly disagree that an artist is less notable if pursuing a doctoral degree. There are many notable opera singers who do not have a formal education. Should they become less notable should they now pursue an academic degree? Contrary, an artist who is also a scholar should receive more recognition. I have to draw you attention to the fact that Camelia Voin is a doctoral student, not a High School or College student. As described by Wikipedia, there are two distinct types of doctorate: a professional doctoral where professionals can not practice they trade until they finish they studies (medicine, law), and academic doctorate (which is the case of Ms. Voin) where already accomplished professionals (artists, educators, theologians) are reaching the highest level of formal studies and are engaged in research. Thank you for your input. Best regardsProfessorgheorghe (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch. The problem with this article is whether or not it meets WP standards for notability. If you can show notability, demonstrated by engagements with leading companies and reviews in bona fide national media, that will be fine, otherwise having an article on WP may be regarded as premature in the case of this young artist. Regards. --Klein zach 06:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot run

I've completed the 50 edit trial. I started just by parsing the parameters from other templates. Of the 134 articles scanned 50 were assessed as start by another project and assessed by the bot, 15 had no assessments on the page, 64 contained assessments other than Start, and 5 had no class parameter on the page (ie {{Composers}}). I manually checked every edit before I OK'ed them so there shouldn't be any problems. Results at Special:Contributions/ShepBot. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back and I've checked the auto-ranked articles. All clean, no problems. I see that all of them have already been rated as start by other projects, so I assume that that is how the bot script was written, right? If so, can we finish the bot run on that basis? Best. --Klein zach 07:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I started with banners that already had start class, which would help me keep out most of the false positives when I get to running on the other batch (ones without any class). I'll finish the bot run on your basis of just parameter scraping, then report back. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I assume we will do a second bot run later for the ones without other project ratings. --Klein zach 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Yes of course! Sorry I haven't dropped by, my program is on the fritz after an update and I'm trying to get a stable version. Exams are finshed finally, so I should be able to get everything back in shape soon. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much finished assessing. 1500+ edits made. What should I do if there is more than one assessment? Select the highest or leave it unassessed? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If there are different assessments by different projects we can leave the article unassessed for 'human' ranking. --Klein zach 02:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I found a few articles that contain a stub template and will auto-stub them. After that I should be done. §hep • ^Talk 02:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we still have about 850-odd unassessed articles. I been through about 20 of these and I've found that almost all of them have wrong/out of date 'stub' ratings from the Biography Project. Perhaps we could ignore the Biography banners and rate all of these as 'Start' unless there is a stub tag on the article page?--Klein zach 02:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That could be possible. Should I also ignore other classes or just stub? I'm going to be off in about 10 minutes, 3 exams tomorrow and I should porbably study a bit, but I should be able to look at this in depth tomorrow evening. §hep • ^Talk 02:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just ignore Biography stubs - I think that will account for most of them. Good luck with your exams. --Klein zach 02:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we resume our work on this? --Klein zach 08:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knew I was forgetting something, I really need to get some sort of new reminder system. Yes, I'll look into it. §hep • ^Talk 21:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List checks

I should have some time for it this week, starting this afternoon. --GuillaumeTell 11:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started this evening, and Gassmann took me over an hour - have a look. I'll try to make a point of doing at least one or two a day.--GuillaumeTell 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent. If you have a moment could you have a look at List of operas by Flotow? This was a (rare) case where I didn't trust Grove. --Klein zach 23:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do that tomorrow - of course our time zones are rather out of synch. --GuillaumeTell 00:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having finished with Gluck, I thought that I'd mention what I'm doing (and by implication what I'm not doing!). I'm checking against the list in Grove Opera to see if any operas have been omitted from the list. I'm casting an eye briefly over the 1st performance dates in case Grove has better information, but I'm not checking all the dates against Grove. I'm adding links to theatres with WP entries (quite a lot of those). I'm checking the sorting of all columns - I was relieved to find that when a theatre name is piped, the entries are sorted by what appears in the public display rather than by the actual links. That's all, except if I spot a typo. I'll deal with Flotow later today. --GuillaumeTell 15:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's very thorough. I think this division of labour is working well. --Klein zach 01:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you may be interested in my 'interview' here. --Klein zach 00:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I didn't realise that you'd moved up a level, as it were. --GuillaumeTell 15:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

About copyright

We are sole copyright owner of the material, so their is no conflict about ownership.We will change some phases in the next couple of days, so it differenciate from the Niels Eje´s main biography at www.musicure.com, but the List of work and Discography is only factual information which can not be formulated differently.Bird4 (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you can rewrite it so it is substantially different that should be OK. Lists are not copyrightable so they shouldn't be a problem. Best. --Klein zach 12:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:Composers

Hi. I think you may remember working on this one. It's been changed recently and we've had a strange problem with the way the ratings /Comments assessments pages display. I wonder if you would have a moment to look at it? (We've taken off the protection to make this easier.)

I also wonder whether we might also add a (small-sized) text about assessments in the lower section of the box? If that's possibility I'll explain more. Best. --Klein zach 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't using the COMMENTS tag so I've added it. It also can "suggest" that comments be added by adding '|COMMENT_FORCE = yes' to the banner. Let me know if something else is needed. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks good. Three questions though:

1. We have a new category called 'Composers articles with comments'. Can we delete this? I don't think we want it.

2. The formatting of the Assessment within the banner has unravelled with the heading turning back into 'equals' signs, for example see Talk:Colinet de Lannoy with the banner switched to 'show'. I guess this is a Comments page problem rather than one with the banner, but do you have any idea how we can solve it?

3. The TOC of the Comments page is displayed on the article talk page, see Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart TOC section 11. I have now idea why this is. Maybe nothing to do with the banner, but I'd be grateful if you could have a look. (Some other strange effects have been seen recently, maybe due to the WPBannerMeta that was added. )

Thanks. --Klein zach 07:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Yes you can delete it if you like (it goes with the COMMENT_CAT param. (2) I have no Idea as it seems to work on some pages and not on others. I tried removing everything but the first heading and it still doesn't work so I can only presume it's an internal issue and should be reported at the meta template. (3) Same here, no clue. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Adam McCormick (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I couldn't find COMMENT_CAT, but anyway . . . (2), (3) I think I'd prefer to revert to your original, stable, no problem version as it existed in November, but how could we add comments to it? --Klein zach 08:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 148: / Line 148: @@
 ::On the other hand you have made many mistakes. It would be better if you put content on your user page, cleaned it up and put in wikilinks and only after ''that'' put it on article pages. It's extremely time consuming doing this all for you, especially when the same corrections have to be repeated on multiple pages. It would be quite easy for you to correct the spellings, links and original titles if you would take the trouble. The information is all available here on Wikipedia pages. Just follow the links to Gluck, Dalayrac, Paer, Sacchini, Cherubini, Gluck, Boieldieu etc. and you can find the correct titles of the operas etc. Make the effort, have some pride in the quality of your work and its proper presentation. --''[[User:Kleinzach|<span style="color:#FF4500;letter-spacing:2px;">Klein</span>]][[User talk:Kleinzach|<span style="padding:0px 0px 1px 2px;color:white; background-color:#ACE1AF;letter-spacing:2px;">zach</span>]]'' 14:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
+:I had no intention to answer this, but to your own benefit; you should perhaps be more careful as to how you phrase yourself. You once commented one of my edits with (quote): "AFAIK there is no such work"; to call my edit "a fake", (in this case, simply because you could not confirm this from wikipedia, which has no more information than what is added to it and may lack complete coverage of many things) is of course to call me a liar. To call my edits "Ghibberish", as you did above, is of course rude. Wether my edits are uncomplete or not, I will give myself credit for having maked them better than what they were before - wikipedia is, after all, depending on continuous editing, and articles can be edited for years. Please be more careful in your wording. Perhaps you should "assume good faith" more. Good luck in your work here. Thank you. --[[Special:Contributions/85.226.42.129|85.226.42.129]] ([[User talk:85.226.42.129|talk]]) 08:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 ==Red links==