User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 11

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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/Archive_11.

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kleinzach. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

I've responded to your concerns on the talk page of the article and would appreciate your comments. Pairadox (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Diletta Rizzo Marin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diletta Rizzo Marin. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,
You listed Pizarro as a character in Karl V. He's not listed in Groves or the vocal score; is this possibly the name of the chancelor or the Alarcon I cant track down? Sparafucil (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a long time since I worked on this. Grove doesn't give a complete cast list (or at least not in my 1992 print version). If Pizarro is not listed in the score then he should be taken out. Was there more than one version? Maybe there is an explanation but I doubt if this character is important anyway. (If in doubt put 'main roles' rather than 'roles'.)

The cast list now has a number of irregular line spaces. Why is that? As suggested before, it is preferable to edit in a sandbox and post when the editing is finished. -- Kleinzach (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take him out then. The line spaces group the various characters- Imperial court, French & Turkish courts, protestants- are they appear in Personnen. Sparafucil (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no point in grouping roles unless there's an explanation, otherwise it confuses the reader. Also please remember we have an established format for role tables. - Kleinzach (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:OperaWIP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Opera categories (thin) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kleinzach! You should have mentioned it sooner :)

How often do you want the "to do list" created? I've totally re-vamped the bot, so this only takes a couple minutes per project. So I can do it daily if you want.

Let me know on my talk page? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hunh. I didn't leave you a message, did I? Sorry about that!

On the 22nd (and every Friday), SatyrBot will update a set of sub-pages on the project. You can see the full list of "To-do" items at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/to do full list. In addition, the bot will create a random sampling of the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/To do list short. That's the one I would keep bookmarked, since the bot will update it every time.

Sorry I didn't leave you a note! Let me know if the bot messes up in any serious way. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Klienzach. No one has responded to my question about where Adina should go on the Rossini operas chart. I thought you might have some insight. The issue is the opera was composed nine years before it premiered. Do we go by the date of composition or the date of first performance?Nrswanson (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback. I went ahead and put it on the list under it's premiere date. I have no problem if someone chooses to use the other year though. I just wanted to do whatever was standard practice. I've never added an opera to one of the templates before.Nrswanson (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I added some info and a reference to vocal weight. I will try and get ahold of some other sources later to balance the article.Nrswanson (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have a project for you if you are willing. I notice that the countertenor page is of interest to you. Though I am not sure if you just did editing or are highly familiar with the subject. I am trying to get all of the different voice type articles to have a similar structure, format, and content. The female voice articles are already in unison and now I am working on the male voice articles. I am personally not very knowledgable about countertenors so I am not that comfortable working on that page. I was hoping you might be knowledgable in the area and could help. I was wondering if you would mind working on that article. It needs a list of roles and famous singers, preferably a list for each sub-type if possible. Let me know if you are willing. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see this, and I have placed a prod template on it myself! :) Signed, Nothing444 01:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See my answer. I urge you to follow the rules detailed by Frenchmen, look it up in the French Wikipedia, if you like. Kraxler (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See the answer by Académie française on this subject on the talk pages. And please argue the point in question, not your own opinions on me. Kraxler (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am being more careful and consistent with the spelling and linking of opera titles. I have revised most of the articles I have created, and the ones I have edited, however there might still be a few mistakes here and there, I am still new at this. I am not a professional writer nor a scholar, I do this for my own pleasure, and if the information I provide can be helpful to someone, the better!Marleau (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support getting a bot (hopefully we can ask SatyrTN again) to mark the non-stubs as Start. I think it would be a good idea if the wording on the Talk page specifically stated that this has been done by a bot, along the lines of the automatic stub markings that have already been done.

Talking of which, I noticed that you've been doing some good work destubbing articles, such as Paul Bunyan (operetta), which have been expanded - but the banner on the Talk page still has it as a stub. We'd therefore need the bot to replace Stub with Start in those cases (and we'd need to alert Opera Project members to alter the marking if they destub articles after the bot has done its thing).

Presumably the bot will automatically mark articles that are currently GAs and FAs as GA/FA class. That would, I assume, include articles where the Opera Project as such has had little or no input but which has our banner. The one that springs to mind is Talk:Her Majesty's Theatre, where I added some operatic stuff to what was already there (Ssilvers was heavily involved, but not really on operatic matters). But what about articles where another project has awarded a class other than Start? We came upon some of those in the Wagner exercise. It would seem to me to be polite to replicate any already-awarded class, unless there is more than one and they aren't the same. We didn't do that for Talk:Wieland Wagner, awarded a B by the Biography project and a Start by us, but then we weren't a bot, and I think that's the only one - for the other Wagner Project articles that I've just looked at (all or nearly all) we gave the same rating as the other project, or they gave the same rating as us, e.g. Talk:Winifred Wagner, Talk:Richard Wagner.

I sort of assume that if/when manual assessment starts, a rating on the Importance scale will also be given. Maybe we should also get the bot to give all articles a rating of low (or high?!?) importance.

I'll be happy to negotiate with SatyrTN again if you like (when we've come to an agreement, of course, and presumably after notifying Project members and/or having a discussion on the Project talk page). --GuillaumeTell (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's generally been my approach. The exceptions are where the composer is so major that it would be better to have a representative sample (e.g. Scarlatti and Spontini), where we only have a handful of operas missing from their complete works (e.g. Busoni) or where I know a couple of opera recordings exist and we can have viable articles on them (e.g. Mondonville). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, although I think we have enough to fill several Composers of the Month here and perhaps should think about which combinations of composers to offer. Note that the topic headings I've provided ("Italian Baroque" etc.) are by no means hard and fast. I simply did it for my own convenience because it was better than using alphabetical order. We can find other ways of selecting operas for CotM which will engage the project members. I think one of the major problems we've had in the past is that if people aren't interested in that month's composer/topic area they just don't contribute at all. By offering a "pick 'n' mix" selection of operas maybe we can get all our members to do a little bit each month. --Folantin (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you can lead a horse to water but...I suppose the important thing with these "one-hit wonders" is ensuring the regulars who actually do help out at CotM each get something they want to do. In the meantime, can we assume that Charpentier and Campra will be the Composers of the Month for April? If so, I'll start setting up the page. --Folantin (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added what I think may be viable Charpentier and Campra entries in the Opera Corpus. --Folantin (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"How about (premiere) dating the individual operas in the list?" Yes, that might be worth doing. It would present us with another set of possibilities for selecting each month's list. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to respond to this earlier, but I simply didn't have the time. I was quite shocked at your harrasment accusation.

1. Admittetly I responded to each keep !vote, but that doesn't fall under the harrass defention. Harassment is understood as the continuous actions against one person. I didn't have any long give and takes with one person (except User:Geo Swan of course, but he's different as will be explained).
2. User:Geo Swan has done the same exact thing - respnded to every single keep !vote. Some diffs: [1] [2]. Why is what I am doing harassment but what he is doing okay?
3. Moreover, responding at an afd doesn't even mean that the original !voter even sees the response. Most !votes are just drive-by WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT's. They don't even bother checking for any respnses or questions to their votes. There just there so that when they want to be an admin they have the afd experience. So its one thing to respond at each vote, but another think to go to each disagreeing voters talkpage and harass them there. I never chased anyone down to their talk page regarding their vote. On the other hand, User:Geo Swan tracked down each disagreeing voter at their talk page. Some diffs:[3], [4], [5], [6],

[7], [8], [9]. That is harassment!--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to discuss this on my user page and I will now archive your message. --Kleinzach (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Regarding this edit that you made, I want to bring to your attention the guidance that, in most cases, "an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory".

Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This has been discussed at length in the past. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories, in particular the so-called Secondary categorization rule. I could go into more detail but I'm just off to the airport . . . .Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah... I was aware that the rule was applied to ethnicity categories, such as subcats Category:African Americans, but was not sure whether a similar consensus existed for music categories. Thank you for clarifying. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. At the Opera Project we have been trying to work towards a clearer and more logical singer category structure but it will take a little time. Of the three elements, (vocal) range, genre and nationality, only range is accurately categorized and this creates issues which we have to overcome. -- Kleinzach (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed that the category tree for singers and musicians, despite being one of the best developed and most complete, is not always consistent. So, I wish you and everyone else working on the problem the best of luck. By the way, I closed this discussion (it was actually the discussion that led me to your edit to George Shirley) as "keep", given the apparent lack of consensus to merge. However, looking at the comments by User:Grcampbell and User:Kbdank71, I think there would be more support for a merge if it was done as part of a general overhaul of the relevant category structure, which is what I understand you're working on. Again, best of luck, and have a safe trip, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just finished the navigation template. Let me know if you need anymore help - Jay (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Some parts of Wikipedia are a bit like Lord of the Flies. I fear provoking them, and calling attention to what we have done right. We have a nice little consensus established, and for the most part it has held, but it's those hordes of kids -- they are not subject matter experts; they are widget-makers at best, and taggers and rubberstampers and let's-put-this-widget-on-everythingers -- well, you know what I mean. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to take a look. Either add it to my talk page or email me, Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've given my thoughts at the WP:CM page. Basically I think WP:CM should be either pan-classical music or just stay away from biographies. The point is that WP:CM supposedly does not cover composers as they are in WP:Composers. But...many conductors were composers as were many classical musicians (violinists, pianists etc.) By saying WP:CM covers conductors, what should really happen is that WP:Composers should also be covered by WP:CM otherwise the project's reach is very haphazard and arbitrary. I would be delighted to hear your reply. I have no issue with conductors falling under WP:CM - my issue is just that if they do, so should every classical musicians and composer. Centy – reply• contribs – 01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kleinzach,

Again, many thanks for your comments and advice.

I think I have got the hang of it now, and will come back later with a better contribution to the Jenny Lind page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeandebeaumont (talk • contribs) 14:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kleinzach. Please go ahead! Anything which brings simplicity and makes it easier to get the refs clearly in is richly to be welcomed! BTW I was defending your Opera Project rules about capitalization of the opera titles to someone the other day (even though I remain sceptical myself...) Has your compendious Boris Godunov contributor written a Khovantschina yet? (red suggests not) That would be useful. I was going to try to write up Josef Tichatschek the other day but am missing the critical 2nd vol of my Newman's Life of Wagner (covering the Tannhauser period) and I could only get scraps of info. Perhaps our friend Marleau could set the ball rolling? best wishes to you, Eebahgum (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I know the list. I wrote half of it with you when you were first putting it together and I was still called Dr Steven Plunkett! Now I have an alias (see my userpage) and everything goes to Eebahgum instead, it's nice not to put oneself forward so much and I hated being known by my name every time I disagreed with someone. 'It is no secret', as the song goes, but it is disappearing under a quiet sediment of more recent work in my present manifestation. Simone, i morti ti salutano!, (as Fiesco says in the last act. I saw Christoff sing it at CG 35 years ago). Eebahgum (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I am not a joiner of Wikiprojects, or indeed of any sort of group or society, in cyberworlds or in the outer analogue sphere, though I overlap with several. Many of 'my' singers (I mean only, the ones I edit most about) are not primarily operatic. However the project has my wholehearted support and I would accept honorary associate status if offered (!) as a token of working in accord and in parallel with its principles. Please excuse my individualism: I require the personal illusion that I conform by choice rather than by belonging to anything. Eebahgum (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Kleinzach. I've put up a peace proposal on the Classical Music Project talk page and would be curious to know what you think. Cheers, Opus33 (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kleinzach, during a few hours of boredom and desperate procrastination, I finished off Anja Harteros, translated Badisches Staatstheater Karlsruhe, and got started on Wiener Staatsoper - although I do think that some of the information I have managed to bring across from that is thoroughly unnecessary. Would you mind taking a look? I'm not back long term, but thought I'd let you know about these new ones. Thanks, Cricketgirl (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Peter Seiffert. Cricketgirl (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, Vienna State Opera has now got a translation of everything that's in the German article, above what was already there (look at a diff from a few days ago to see its original state). It's severely in need of some re-ordering, but I'm going to have to leave that to you because I went home and got busy (both fortunately and unfortunately), so I think I am reverting to my previous state of inactivity, but I do tend to check my messages so if you have queries (I have left a lot of pictures commented out, and a few queries about translation where I'm not totally sure of the meaning), just let me know. Hope all is well with you. Best, Cricketgirl (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd leave the tag there because the article is so desperately in need of restructing... but if you want, please go ahead and remove it. Cricketgirl (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on Vienna State Opera - I did a bit more (and some more translation - I discovered that I missed a chunk!) and now I think it is a pretty good article! Cricketgirl (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also something else for you: Carltheater, Ringtheater and Maria Reining. I really should stop avoiding my revision... Best, Cricketgirl (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. I'm sorry I left you so much work to do on Carltheater! I'm curious though - in your edit summary of the message you left on my talk page, you wrote "Thanks for expanding Coccia" - what does Coccia mean? Best, Cricketgirl (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand! Thanks for the message - I'll let you know when I have some more for you! Best, Cricketgirl (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, while I was looking for more translation to do, I looked at the list of singers missing articles on WP Wagner (on the main WP page, not on the subpage) - and a lot of them don't have German articles either - just wondering if you were aware of that. The ones that do (Betz, Voelker, Hill, Bohnen, Bockelmann) I will be working on. Best, Cricketgirl (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that User:Marleu's references were incomplete, so that the publishers looked as if they were the authors, there were no dates for the books, etc. I just converted three of his most-used titles into full bibliographical source listings, with the proper authors, dates, publishers, full titles, place of publication etc, and substituted them in the 'sources' section wherever he had cited these items. The previous sources as given were inaccurate and inadequate. It was an hour's work and I went through all his singers. Sorry if the format wasn't exactly what you wanted, but at least the correct information is now there so that you can reformat again if you like with the right data to begin with. This is not 'references', this is 'Sources' or 'Literature' or wherever the names of the works are supposed to be given accurately and in full. So far as I know, Marleau doesn't use inline references at all, but at least now if he does it will be to sources which are properly listed ;-). Eebahgum (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Had another glance at your example. Okay, I see the format you are using. That's fine. Actually I haven't added ANY references to Marleau's work on Operas, all were on singers. I realise many of the singers fall within the Opera Project and so probably use the same formatting. Sorry I didn't get this before. But the point is I wasn't just 'formatting' in that sense, I was putting in correct data as opposed to muddled shorthand for a source which was there before. I was quite sure I was doing everyone a favour, and I still think it was useful, but I now see I could have saved work by doing it your way instead of mine, or better still by leaving it for someone else to do entirely. I am afraid I will have to leave the final task of conversion to someone else, as one threefold trawl through the complete Marleau oeuvre was enough for me. I am going back to my moutons. If I do any more upgrades like this for Opera Project, I'll be sure to use your preferred format in that zone. Hope that suits! Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's kind, and I'm grateful for your comment. I tend to try to adapt myself to my surroundings, while remembering the basic rules: occasionally I bend them for the sake of making less disruptive interventions to existing materials (but that was not intended in this case)! Eebahgum (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

While I am not a partisan in the Classical music infobox wars, I would like to warn that when they are automatically removed nonduplicated information (such as birth and death information) may also get lost. I don't know whether there's anything you can do to your bot to guard against this, but thought I would mention the issue. For example here the place of birth was lost. Maybe it should have been in the text of the article in the first place, but the world is not perfect :) Cheers. Grover cleveland (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would appriciate your perspective on these deletion discussions. Thank you. Nrswanson (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I did that. But as a music person your opinion would be valid. Nobody else talking (besides me) seems to know as much about music as you do.Nrswanson (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.Nrswanson (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all the stuff on the opera project--Daftism (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kl., Thanks for noticing my efforts on Tichatschek. I have also had a go at the above singer, if you're interested or want to add your labels etc. The Alex NewArtBot doesn't seem to have noticed either of them, but that happens quite a lot I find. Best wishes! Eebahgum (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. Re your image of Niemann. The trouble with that picture (which I think probably IS of the singer) is that it has also been used (in websites outside WP) as an image of the famous 19th chemist Albert Niemann, who isolated cocaine. The picture you have put in was in fact uploaded (I believe) in order to illustrate an article on the cocaine man, which has since been deleted for copyright reasons (the article, not the image). There is a third Albert Niemann that I know of, son of the singer, who was the paediatrician who isolated Niemann-Pick disease. HOWEVER... as I say I think this IS the singer, but a reference of some kind to confirm would be useful/apt/expedient...Eebahgum (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I bet there are a few muddles of that kind about though!! bw Eebahgum (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)