User talk:Kleinzach

Opéra comique

A tag has been placed on Opéra comique, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Flapperistic (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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 • 22

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]

Historic Swedish singers/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]

First, I am using published/printed sources as well as Wikipedia - the main ones including Oxford and Grove. Second, I did not call you a liar on any occasion. (I don't know whether you know this, but AFAIK is an abbreviation for 'As far as I know'.) I also used the word 'gibberish' advisedly for things that would be unintelligible to a reader of this, English-language, wikipedia. That's what 'gibberish' means - words that can't be understood.

Moreover I've spent quite a lot of time correcting misinformation, misspellings, bad English etc. in these articles and I'd be grateful if you'd do me the courtesy of giving me some recognition for the rather onerous work I've done on them. I can assure you I would have preferred to have spent the time elsewhere. --Klein zach 09:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for your explanations. Of course your edits are also valuble (I find it is vain to ask for recognition; I do not recieve this myself nor do I expect it), but if you wish to spend this time doign something else, then of course you are free to do so - wikipedia has many stubs and articles which needs attention, spelling, corrections, wording, and which will continue to be edited and have more information added to them for many years before they can be considered complete. I have taken the time to look things up and add them, and although my edits may lack links etc, they can be easily linked by those interested - even by myself, when I have better time. There really is no hurry, and this can be corrected by any one who reads them and noticed this. Thanks. --85.226.42.129 (talk) 15:55, 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]

I'm having some issues with my code and I'm not sure what's not working with it. Figures. §hep ^Talk 00:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this related to Template:Composers? We've been having problems with this. I've asked Alanbly about this, see below under Re: Template:Composers. --Klein zach 00:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The biogrpahy project likes to set their templates on pages all funky like:

{{WPBIO
|living=yes
|class=Whatever
|etc. etc.
}}

and for some reason I can't pull the class out of it, it shouldn't be that hard...somethings not right (but it's definitely on my end). §hep ^Talk 00:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but we decided to just ignore the Biography Project ratings because they are unreliable, see above 14 January. --Klein zach 00:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know. The way they're setup, it can't read what banner the assessment is in. I can't catch multi-lines and I don't want to skip an article because I can't read the assessment. To the program right now a Stub-Class BIO might as well be a Start-Class OPERA if it's in the above setup. §hep ^Talk 00:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can you think of another approach to reduce Category:Unassessed Composers articles? If we can get the number to say less than 100 we can do them by hand. --Klein zach 00:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tryin' my best. My brain can only do so much. §hep ^Talk 01:54, 21 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]

I've been mostly out of action for the whole of last week - wireless networking problems involving lots of time-wasting on helplines and having to drag a lot of heavy kit around the flat to work out where best to re-site it. Anyway, I also got bogged down in Flotow (including thinking "why am I doing this? - is anybody actually interested in it?"). Once I'm in a stable position, I'll start again and do Handel, but only along the lines indicated above, and will then select lists according to the amount of interest that I have in them. --GuillaumeTell 19:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I find these lists equally interesting, perhaps motivated by a general feeling that modern Anglo audiences don't really understand that they are only looking at the tip of the iceberg and have a distorted view of what opera is like - particularly in the late 18th century. So these lists have value for opera history rather than practical info for opera goers. Re the ugly Handel shenanigans. I'm happier when I don't have to spend three-quarters of my time defending the list from jealous, bitter would be 'owners'. Anyway do work on whichever list interests you - there are so many. --Klein zach 23:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s Template:S-s


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]

Composer banners switched to show are now displaying not one but two TOCs! See Talk:Colinet de Lannoy. --Klein zach 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visit this page, please

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Commemorative_Coin_Controversy

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Commemorative_Coins_Controversy. FWIW -- maybe not much -- I personally like the coin images; it's just that they are non-free and don't belong in most of the places they've been used. (I think you could make a case for them if there are no other easily-available images; but by their very nature -- they commemorate very famous people -- that is unlikely.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Contemporary music

Hello Klein, sorry I never responded to your message. My academic life has entered a new stage, and I’m now all but dormant on Wikipedia. I’m not sure how the scope of Contemporary Music could be narrowed. Basically the problem is that editors who work in this field are not willing to collaborate on projects (improving Contemporary classical music for instance). It may simply be that people don’t check the project page. If this is the case a monthly newsletter might help. . . I’m glad to see there has been some discussion about the future of the project at least. I’ll do what I can. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a frustrating situation. There really is a need for a niche project to undertake articles abut contemporary music that fall between the cracks of the Composers, Opera and Classical Music projects, but the present setup doesn't have the clear sense of purpose that the other projects have. Are you willing to support some radical changes aimed at reviving the project? --Klein zach 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Callas

Hi, I just wanted to clarify my edit on Maria Callas and say that I was not vandalizing but trying to make the tone more neutral. You will notice that in featured articles of even the greatest musicians they never talk about their great talent but instead quote music authorities or say something like "opera historians generally consider _____ to be a leading soprano of the 1940s". I noticed that no article on an opera singer has ever been featured and I can't help but wonder if it is because opera fans love our favorite singers so much that we can't help but be biased. Unsigned/74.176.152.70

Mr/Ms 74.176.152.70: I suggest signing on and getting an account. That will establish you as a bona fide editor here. Regarding your edit, I think it rather dumbed down a reasonable sentence: "Her remarkable musical and dramatic talents led to her being hailed as La Divina.". Looks OK to me. What was the problem? --Klein zach 00:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mainly I changed it because remarkable is not a measurable word. It's opinion and I was under the impression that Wikipedia articles are not supposed to include opinion. Obviously, I don't know a great deal about Wikipedia and I am aware that there is a multitude of rules that I am unfamiliar with, but that was just the impression I had from some of the rules that I have read. I personally am an ardent fan of Callas, but obviously Wikipedia is not my personal blog so I wouldn't insert similarly toned statements into an article. I'm disappointed that you think that I dumbed down the article. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just telling you my opinion based on what I've read.

If MC was not remarkable she wouldn't have an article in WP. Seriously if you going to take the word 'remarkable' out of every article, you've got a lot of work ahead of you. Please sign, indent and join WP!--Klein zach 00:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo redirect Ruslan and Ludmila

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ruslan and Ludmila, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ruslan and Ludmila is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ruslan and Ludmila, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Please, leave this your message if you not agreeing with me. Cheers. — Al3xil ✉ 09:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any problem. However I'm confused about Ludmila/Lyudmila. Can you explain which is preferred on WP? Maybe we should change the spelling for the opera and the film? --Klein zach 04:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know about the correct spelling of Ludmila/Lyudmila (I changed the second variant as a redirect to the poem). Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian says that the second variant is correct, but the poem title in Old Russian orthography and the first title can be more established. May be you should leave your opinion about it in Talk:Ruslan and Ludmila#Ludmila vs. Lyudmila. — Al3xil ✉ 18:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've done that. As I explain, Lyudmila is the spelling in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. --Klein zach 03:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Slayer MfD

It turns out that it needed another pipe and the page name like this and is now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Slayer (2nd nomination). That is not the most obvious thing, I had to check a previous 2nd nomination to see how, so I updated the instructions at the MfD page. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. --Klein zach 04:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]