User talk:Nemov/Archives/2024/April
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nemov. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
Hey man im josh (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 |
Congratulations! Music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for Vivaldi accessibility of his works! I reverted its revert. Would you seek clarification on WP:COMPOSERS? Rossini has the same situation. There seems to be a misunderstanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt I posted at MOS:INFOBOXES since MOS:FORCELINK was cited. Nemov (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Having seen the positive repsponse, what do think of reviving the Rossini discussion, and perhaps try a general clarification at WP:COMPOSERS that the typical format for classical composers which has been used for Bach, Beethoven and Mozart can safely be used? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- My experience with that project is that there's not enough participation to pursue it. They could refine their own infobox template, but there appears to be little interest when I've asked in the past. Rossini doesn't have an infobox right now and the regular actors will come out if the topic is pushed further which is also a time sink. Anyway, it doesn't appear this FORCELINK argument will stand up to any type of independent scrutiny. Nemov (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at Vivaldi - and Rossini "who" doesn't have an infobox because of that same reasoning that I fail to understand - I believe that we need to invest some time to make common sense prevail. If there really was a guideline against a link from a composer to their work it should be abolished or amended. But it isn't, - it's only misunderstood. {{infobox classical composer}} was drafted in 2008, and moved to mainspace in 2010, and has worked well for many composers for a long time. I don't know what we can do in order not to have two parallel discussions. The most constructive comment I've seen was by Michael Bednarek, but that was in the MOS discussion that SchroCat said to unwatch. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a narrow interpretation so I'm not sure it's worth the effort, but let's wait to see the consensus of the discussion. Nemov (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- You asked for someone to revert to the status quo, - I did it twice already, so don't think I should, although I am sure that it is the better version: helping to the works. I begin to wonder if we need arbitration clarification. Remembering how I was taken to enforcement, I promised myself that I would never do that to a colleague, but clarification is a different story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it. There's very little support for their interpretation of policy. The editor's actions are transparent. So based on previous history they'll just drag out this process as long as possible. Heck, they're probably even reading this (thanks for stopping by). It's all so very predictable... the dramatic "unwatch" followed by the prompt return several hours later. I attempted to give them an opportunity to work towards consensus, but it's clear they're not interested. Nemov (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- thinking of the birthday of a friend who showed me art such as this, and of Vami --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I uploaded vacation pics (from back home), at least the first day, - and remember Aribert Reimann. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Next day, around Porto da Cruz, on Bach's birthday. A bit of history: on this day in 2013, I suggested an infobox for him, a version that still listed some prominent names. Later we found the better solution: a link to the list of compositions which is more neutral and less prone to some editor's preferences. It has served Bach and Beethoven well since 2015. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I listen to Bach's St John Passion today, - 300 years after it was first performed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Two days later in time, a different music, - Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it. There's very little support for their interpretation of policy. The editor's actions are transparent. So based on previous history they'll just drag out this process as long as possible. Heck, they're probably even reading this (thanks for stopping by). It's all so very predictable... the dramatic "unwatch" followed by the prompt return several hours later. I attempted to give them an opportunity to work towards consensus, but it's clear they're not interested. Nemov (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- You asked for someone to revert to the status quo, - I did it twice already, so don't think I should, although I am sure that it is the better version: helping to the works. I begin to wonder if we need arbitration clarification. Remembering how I was taken to enforcement, I promised myself that I would never do that to a colleague, but clarification is a different story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a narrow interpretation so I'm not sure it's worth the effort, but let's wait to see the consensus of the discussion. Nemov (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Having seen the positive repsponse, what do think of reviving the Rossini discussion, and perhaps try a general clarification at WP:COMPOSERS that the typical format for classical composers which has been used for Bach, Beethoven and Mozart can safely be used? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
List of composer's works in an infobox
 | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
In the discussion that began for Vivaldi you wrote a nice summary, "There's clearly no consensus so far that these links prohibit INFOBOXPURPOSE. These links appear to have support from the community, but perhaps there could be some clarification about their specific use in a future RFC." Vivaldi is unchanged, and a new removal of a works list happened for Aaron Copland, today. It tells me that while the links have support from the community, they have not from some editors. What can we do? I hate edit warring, but I'd also hate to see Copland without a link to the list to his works on 6 April when one of these works will be TFA. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't gone back to add the links for Vivaldi because the editor in question has shown a consistent need to battleground over the topic and is unlikely to stop. Same with the editor who made the change to Copland.
- That said, there is no policy basis for removing those links. There was a clear consensus that those likes are fine for inclusion. Another editor is working on creating some guidance on that topic, but is waiting for the other infobox discussion to end. Nemov (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- So you and I don't want to fight for the same good reasons, and then what? - I was on vacation and enjoyed not even looking. The MoS discussion is just sad, but in the end: who cares what the MoS says. Not the community as we have seen for Mozart and others. The list of works discussion, however, should have a more prominent summary, to fight off the next attempts to remove valuable information. I worked on Kafka, and it prepared me quite well for some features of the infobox "wars", but the idea to separate a composer from their creations tops it all in terms of kafkaesque. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Links to related articles is a pretty common feature in infoboxes so it shouldn't be difficult to create some guidance on how they're used. Hopefully, it can be done without too much drama. Nemov (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. How do you like the compromise in the composer's infobox? - How do you like the statue (look up places) - I was undecided so show three versions ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like an improvement! Nemov (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's an improvement compared to nothing. I believe that it misses any indication that the works are compositions, which could be cured by making the pipe "more compositions", or have a parameter "occupation", listing "composer, critic, writer, teacher, pianist, conductor". But I have no energy left to argue, - I have three recent death articles on their way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- One elegant way of handling this can be viewed at Laurence Olivier which features a series box. Obviously, this can't be used in every situation, but there's probably a few articles with works where this would be useful. Nemov (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- (Olivier: that reminds me of the darkest time I experienced on Wikipedia, when an admin who protected the article because of edit warring over the hidden notice was desopped as "involved", and I was interrogated by AE because I had dared to ask the question if really the principal authors should decide, and made 3 comments in the discussion while I was restricted to 2. The admin left, and then died. I still miss my friend. We've come a long way since, and one of the hardliners moving forward to a compromise is again a step.) - I don't think such series navboxes would work for many. Bach has such monsters but I'm not too happy. - The statue is of Hildegard of Bingen, and as it happens, her Physica is on the Main page today, and Marian Anderson as my top story (by NBC, 1939), and below (on my talk) three people with raised arms, - and the place is the cherry blossom in Frauenstein. And Anderson's talk has such a nice infobox question and answer, from 2020 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- relief: the last of six RD articles in one week is now on the Main page - yesterday a great recital with many anti-war songs by Jewish composers whose music was banned by the Nazis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- The RD articles were followed by two birthdays in a row, and I prefer those (see my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- today a sad task - memory of Andrew Davis - turned into entertainment (yt at the bottom of his article, actually both) - I had no time yet to check how many of the composers mentioned (most of them in the recordings section) have an infobox, and how many not, and why not? -- the latest pictures capture extreme weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- (I checked later: not to many with easy access, because many British ...) - today you can look at the last three stories or "music" on my talk: the same topics, Youth Symphony Orchestra of Ukraine, Samuel Kummer and (pictured) one row of 8 double basses and another of 5 bassists ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- One elegant way of handling this can be viewed at Laurence Olivier which features a series box. Obviously, this can't be used in every situation, but there's probably a few articles with works where this would be useful. Nemov (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's an improvement compared to nothing. I believe that it misses any indication that the works are compositions, which could be cured by making the pipe "more compositions", or have a parameter "occupation", listing "composer, critic, writer, teacher, pianist, conductor". But I have no energy left to argue, - I have three recent death articles on their way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like an improvement! Nemov (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. How do you like the compromise in the composer's infobox? - How do you like the statue (look up places) - I was undecided so show three versions ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Links to related articles is a pretty common feature in infoboxes so it shouldn't be difficult to create some guidance on how they're used. Hopefully, it can be done without too much drama. Nemov (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- So you and I don't want to fight for the same good reasons, and then what? - I was on vacation and enjoyed not even looking. The MoS discussion is just sad, but in the end: who cares what the MoS says. Not the community as we have seen for Mozart and others. The list of works discussion, however, should have a more prominent summary, to fight off the next attempts to remove valuable information. I worked on Kafka, and it prepared me quite well for some features of the infobox "wars", but the idea to separate a composer from their creations tops it all in terms of kafkaesque. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)