This is a Wikipediauser 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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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_13.
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.
I just had a look at Image:Replace this image female.svg
's history and found something highly fishy. It seems that on 14 March 2008 user Tizio nominated the image for an AFD (non-speedy) but then Gerard immidiatly removed it saying speedy keep instead of allowing a discussion to occur. Gerard is also the creator of the current template. Should he really have made an AFD ruling on a page he created? Sounds like shady behavior.Nrswanson (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I am not even sure if it is worth getting into as long as the discussion moves forward in a propper manner. However, it makes me wary of David Gerard and his intentions.Nrswanson (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As I noted on my talk page, it looks to me like Will closed the IFD, with a reasonable rationale -- not David. I think Nrswanson is mistaken. -Pete (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
RFC as dispute
I've read the WP:RFC page, and while I think we're all used to RFCs on user behavior being considered disputes. But the RFC about new policies or guidelines seems to be a different category. If we stay in that forum, and make a clear nomination/intro that outlines the subject well, I think we'd be on solid ground. -Pete (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input and taking time to help, particularly in light of your immersion in the imbroglio over placeholder images. I do appreciate your assistance! Good question about the spelling of his name. I'm not absolutely sure, but I reasoned that the New York Times (ie) was probably correct, given that it has a reputation for editorial care; that its articles were contemporary with the subject and reflected "home town" coverage; and that the ie spelling comported with that in the 1903 book, which would have gone through a respected publishing house's editorial process. I'll make a note of that on the article's talk page. Drhoehl (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I made the move because Gueden appears to be a transliteration of Güden. Using Güden would be consistent with other pages on people with umlauts in their surnames like Karl Böhm instead of Karl Boehm. I hope this is ok with you. -Casadesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casadesus (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm very impressed with your facilitation of this discussion. I wanted to raise a concern, but didn't know where to put it - perhaps it needs a new heading?
(point) If this is 'pitched' at readers, potentially new editors, why is there a simplified upload form? Has the simplified version been ok'ed with the community? The regular instructions are familiar to regular uploaders, but baffling to newer contributors. I had always assumed this was deliberate, to stop casual vandalism and inadvertent copyright violations. The form requires the user to sign up anyway, and assumes that their first contribution would be to upload an image. I imagine nearly all new users start more modestly than that, it was some time before I ventured into it.
(general concern) While I am also a contributor to the site, it is as a reader that I most strongly object to these types of links. If this becomes accepted, I imagine it will be a very familiar sight, and we will soon see 'this article needs a navigation template' being placed in lieu of actual content. I don't object to stub notices and the like, they state that nobody thinks this is adequate (dislaimer), and can be removed with an hour or two of attention (easily removed).
It looks like people are wanting to suggest possible image replacements. Can we add a place for that on the debate page?Nrswanson (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well if someone proposes a new image and people start discussing it I am going to give feedback on it. I didn't want to start discussing new images but people started talking about changes so I figured it was inevitable. That was why I created the section.Nrswanson (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Felia Litvinne
My "Guide de l'opéra" list her without the accent, and it is also listed without the accent in the article Fonotipia Records and Germaine Lubin, so I redirected it so it could be link and found under both spelling. Is that OK or is it yet another NO-NO ! Marleau (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Kleinzach
I wanted to say I really appriciate you. Your handeling of the image placeholder discussion was/is masterfully done and thank you for the opera roles example on the theatre wiki page. That is really helpful.Broadweighbabe (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
'post
Do you think you could leave a note on their newsroom page? I'm not getting much response, can't tell if they're considering the story or not. Visible interest beyond my own might spur them into action...maybe? I dunno. Thanks, -Pete (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sissel is definitely a soprano, she just has a very broad vocal range and can sing mezzo notes. but her upper range is beyond that of any mezzo-soprano, and she is most comfortable in her upper range. very rarely does she sing mezzo notes or arias.
nah, it's ok like this, but I get what your saying. There are non-operatic tenors in the tenor category, for example. It is really just an indication, a group of artists, of a certain vocal range, not of a profession. ;-) OettingerCroat (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
PR image solicitation
I agree that there is no reason why PR people shouldn't want to freely licence a small number of high quality photos for use in Wikipedia articles. I think the problem is actually finding ways to ask them in sufficient numbers. Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images (where I see you've previously posted) was dedicated to this but unfortunately seems to be moribund. Two of its problems seem to be an overly bureaucratic process for requesting images and its reliance on editors making requests for their 'own' articles, which both led to a relatively small number of requests being sent out. I wonder if a better way to do this might be to organise on a per Wikiproject basis? Obviously it would work better for some subject areas than others, but it would allow more cooperation and I suspect get more work done. If you're interested, then User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission are probably worth reading. I'm going to comment on that Wikiproject's talk page - if you have any comments then I'd love to hear them. --Cherry blossom tree10:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for adding your name to our project membership list! Our goal is to make Wikipedia the the finest, most comprehensive resource of theatre topics available online. As a project member, you might like to introduce yourself on our talk page and maybe add the project membership userbox to your user page.
If you haven't done so already, please add our main project page to your watchlist and browse our page of useful templates. When you have a moment, please take some time to review our article structure guidelines for theatre articles, which give a handy guide to sections you should try to include in articles about theatre. If you would like suggestions about where to start, we've gathered a few suggestions in the Project to do list and in our tasklist.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the project talk page or on my talk page. Again, welcome and happy editing!
Hi- just want to let you know, I'm not really that concerned about where Genisock's latest proposal, or whatever it is/isn't, goes, or is called. I'd rather just drop the matter -- it's important that he have his say, and it's good information to have in the discussion somewhere, and I don't see any major harm in having it wherever he feels is appropriate. -Pete (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I know where you're coming from, but I think process arguments are actually a bigger turnoff to newcomers. We've made a lot of process decisions, Geni has made very few, in the end I don't think it hurts too much to let him have this one. Much worse for the credibility of the process for someone to feel like they were railroaded out of having their say, than to have a little disorder in the discussion. Anyway, do whatever you feel is appropriate, I just want to be clear that I wouldn't personally want to participate in overruling him or whatever on this point. As to the end date, I might support a tentative/target date, but as Geni says, it's over when it's over...if people show up late that have thoughts to add, I don't want to exclude them on the basis of a date that was determined before they came along. -Pete (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be different if there were someone besides Genisock who was consistently making a clear articulation of the reasons to keep. But there's not. So although some of his behavior may seem disruptive, he is in the position of "leading" his side of the discussion. There are others who agree with him, they are just not as consistent about defending their view. So I disagree about the "teacher's dilemma" -- I don't think it applies. I entirely believe that there's a defensible position for keeping the placeholders -- I just don't happen to agree with it. But giving it full and fair consideration is important to having a full and fair process. And I don't see any way of doing that without engaging Geni and giving him some voice in the process; nobody else has shown the dedication he has, of diligently defending the "pro-keep" side.
However, I think it's probably all moot now. I think these things have a way of naturally winding themselves down, and the kind of tactics you mention would be pretty transparent if employed. I'm just getting back from 3 days away from a computer, and see the discussion has not grown much; so right now, I think assigning a deadline is appropriate. I didn't before because (a) it was still going strong and it's tough to predict how long that will take, and (b) the signpost article. But right now, I think it has found its natural conclusion, and adding a deadline is more of a formality. I'll let you propose one, and unless I see some significant objection -- which I doubt -- will support anything you propose.
Thanks for your diligence throughout this process, and your constant attention to the "big picture." -Pete (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Despite its title, the Ashbrook & Powers reference has a section almost wholly on the Busoni opera, and appears factually a more than adequate reference to me (have you read it?) The Wong/Naxos version of the Suite is available as a download. Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I've given a web-link to the Wong/Naxos recording. I've changed the 'comparison' title back to 'plot', because that's what 99.5% of it is about. As for references, I don't have Grove etc, sorry (but then I don't have any volumes of Landau & Lifschitz either :-)) Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kleinzach! I appreciate your personal request. I will have a look and see if I can help. I'm sure that I can pitch in a bit, though I will have little, if any, time tomorrow. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk)00:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I did add that to the top after I noticed several people discussing within proposal 2 on how the image could be improved, which is slightly off-topic and clearly appropriate to the ideas for modification discussion which had already been moved to a subpage and may have been missed by new contributors to the discussion. DoubleBlue (Talk)04:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi and thanks for drawing my attention to all those buttons that were hiding in plain sight above the edit window. I've noticed there are also some interesting options below the window as well. No more memorizing asci to get those accents. This should make future edits a whole lot easier!--Casadesus (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Classical composers template
Hi there! I have reluctantly removed the classical composer infoboxes from all but two of the composers' pages. However, I just wanted you to be aware that popular music artists have biographical infoboxes like the one I created. And most other notable people, television shows, and even video games have infoboxes. Is there any way to make a proposal to change the guidelines? I was just trying to make Wikipedia a more helpful site by creating composer infoboxes. Marcus2 (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I will take a look. Sorry about my lack of participation today -- non-wiki life intervened, hardcore. I will catch up tomorrow, hope that has not set the process back too much! -Pete (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Placeholders
I don't know if you were aware of this, which I reverted, to be followed by a lot of now removed whingeing on my talk page, and then this. Better keep an eye out. at least disinfoboxes & placeholders are things we can agree on. Johnbod (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
DoubleBlue message
Please take this in the most friendly and respectful way possible as that is what I intend even if it's difficult to write it that way on an internet talk board: Would you please take some quiet, thoughtful time to re-read WP:PRACTICAL and consider its implications to our discussion? Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk)01:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I felt rather unhappy putting Budden in English music critics and wonder if there's be mileage in a better category? It might be a little messy, but people like Spike Hughes, Harewood, E Newman, Harold Rosenthal, Kobbé would all fit. Any thoughts? What might it be called? GuillaumeTell18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is that Opera writers (or Opera authors) sounds like librettists (or composers); Opera critics wouldn't include Budden, would it? I can see that something beginning with Opera would fit existing people categories, but not if it doesn't convey the correct sense. People who write about opera? Writers about opera?... --GuillaumeTell00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it may be that Opera critics is the best solution, though I tend to think of a critic as a person who reviews opera performances and says what (s)he thinks about them. On the other hand, I suppose that Budden's Verdi volumes do incorporate criticism and aren't so far away from literary criticism. What about the hierarchy? In view of opera being a performing art, I suggest that Opera critics should be a sub-cat of Category:Critics, along with Music critics, Film critics, et al. Then people like Ernest Newman can be put into both categories. --GuillaumeTell14:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a slightly longer version of what I put on Ondine. I don't agree (1) that Ashton "is now fading into obscurity" and would suggest that (2) while Henze is a key figure it is strictly speculation to say that he "can only become more prominent with time." It is also biased to say that "Ashton was just a choreographer" (emphasis added); what would you think if someone wrote, "Henze was just a composer"? Which is — most emphatically — not my opinion (I was a music major in college, sang for the BSO for a decade — and take professional level ballet class three to six times a week, though I've never worked as a dancer.) I doubt that we can agree on this and suggest that two seperate articles be retained, though the one should be renamed more simply Ondine (Ashton). — Robert Greer (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Opera assessment
Tie down your pigs! I think my code for project banner assessments is finally ready to go. There's just one caveat at the moment though: for various technical reasons (mainly because it's still in development and I anticipate having to keep stopping and starting the script, and don't want it to keep going back to the beginning of the list), I need to convert the banners from one template name to another, so that banners that have been converted are removed from the WhatLinksHere list. I want to use {{WikiProject Opera}}, as it's a redirect to {{Opera}} already, and as you can see from CAT:WPB it's also the most popular naming convention for wikiproject banners. In a nutshell, I want to convert the banners from {{Opera}} to {{WikiProject Opera|class=B|importance=}}. The existing template will still work fine, it just makes my life a hell of a lot easier when I have to keep stopping the script to error check. If you're ok with that caveat, I can start work immediately. Happy‑melon10:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
A whole lot of stuff arrived from you and from HappyMelon late last night when I was going to bed and/or earlier today when I was out or doing other things - pity about the UK/Japan time difference - and only now do I have time to reply. I'm starting again down here as the sequence up at the top is now old history. Before I forget, I'll be away from 2pm (my time) tomorrow (Sat) until about the same time on Monday - trip to Edinburgh for a friend's 60th birthday bash at Prestonfield House. Anyway, here are some replies:
Composers: it's not because they're in the opera composer cats - the bot is working through pages that have our banner, which seems to have been applied to some composers and not others (for example, the banner was added to Talk:Sergei Prokofiev by you on 14 April 2007!). Maybe we should ask for another bot run that starts at Category:Opera and works its way through all the cats once this one has finished. Personally, I don't think that articles about opera composers should be excluded from our project, especially those (Verdi, Puccini et al) who hardly composed anything else, but we don't want patchy coverage, do we? It should be all or none. Conductors aren't a problem (IMO) as hardly any of them conduct nothing but opera, plus we don't have a category for them.
Comments link: seems to have slipped through the net. I carried out a test by setting up a comments page for a very obscure librettist at Talk:Jules Verne/Comments, and no, nothing appears on the banner. I'll get on to HappyMelon about this - hopefully there's some switch in his Meta-Thing that will do this.
Start-rated articles: Yes, I think an alert to the troops is required. The aforementioned Verne article is rated B by others and that seems correct to me. Incidentally, this is where the Importance scale could be useful for us: JV is correctly rated as Top-importance by the Sci-Fi people, but would be Very Low Indeed for us.
Nothing seems to be happening, so I've asked HappyMelon for an update. Only c50 articles seem to have been done, and it appears that this was a trial run. It looks as if approval for further runs needs to be given but hasn't been asked for yet. BTW, my reference to the Importance scale above was not intended to imply that we should embrace it any time soon - it would obviously need discussion in due course - but it might help in determining priorities. --GuillaumeTell17:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to our third newsletter - we've got lots to get through this month so without further ado, let's crack on...
The Big Debate - Character Lists in Play Articles
For those of you who haven't headed over to our talk page recently - you've been missing out! Throughout the past month there's been great discussion about the issue of character lists in play articles. The aim is to form a standard presentation of character lists to be used on all play articles so if you'd like to make your voice heard on the issue then check out the talk page now.
Collaboration of The Month
Yet again this month's COTM has remained unchanged as no-one has nominated any articles to become the new incumbent. Quick - get yourself down to the COTM page and nominate an article for next month!
Assessment
The number of articles at the Assessment page are growing - if you're feeling a little lost and don't know where to begin to help us out, head on down to the Assessment page and give us a hand.
If you've been editing a theatre-related article recently and noticed another user helping you who also appears to have an interest for the subject of theatre, why not drop them a line and invite them over to the project?
HELP!
We're crying out for people to help us out wherever possible. We are currently looking for members to volunteer to give us a hand in several areas. If you can do any of the following, please drop us a line at the talk page:
Newsletter Editor(s) - Always fancied yourself as a bit of a journalist? Perhaps you could help us write this newsletter - it doesn't take long to compile. Maybe you'd like to help but can't commit on a regular basis? In that case, why not rally round a few other members of the project to help you out and take it in turns each month to compose the newsletter?
Mailmen/women - If writing the newsletter isn't your bag then maybe you could help in the distribution of this fine document? As our membership grows it becomes quite laborious to send it to everyone. It's only a quick task that needs doing once a month, and really is just a case of copying and pasting a template onto our members talk pages.
Portal editor(s) - It's come to our attention that the Theatre Portal hasn't been updated in a long time and we'd like to get someone, or a group of people to take charge of it and get it up to the standard of some of the great portals out there (e.g. the Comedy Portal, the Solar System Portal etc).
You have received this newsletter because your name is on the list of Participants on the WikiProject page. If this information is out of date and you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the Participants list and also click here to stop receiving the newsletter.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. To view previous editions of the newsletter, click here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let us know on the talk page.
Infobox betrayal (?)
Hello Kleinzach, Given our past, I feel slightly remorseful for having put an infobox on Joseph Haydn. But I think you'll agree it's a very modest one, including no trivia or distortions, and with luck it will not attract any. I think I'm with you on the general goals of avoiding nonsense and reader distractions, but in fact I was surprised at the extent it was possible to produce a BS-free infobox with the existing template. Your very truly, Opus33 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I commented on the WikiProject page about it. It's substantially different than the previous template and I can't really tell what the consensus is at the moment as to whether this is a good idea. I know the previous consensus was that it wasn't. --WoohookittyWoohoo!04:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, that might be the route to go. Maybe see if you guys can come to an agreement saying that if the consensus is to delete, that the template name should then be protected? It's an idea. --WoohookittyWoohoo!10:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be at cross-purposes here. AFAICS, there is no need to change the banner. All you have to do is create a comments page as above and a pointer to it will appear on the banner as if by magic. That's what SatyrTN arranged for us with the Wagner exercise and what HappyMelon has now also done[2] for the intended global erercise. Any comments made should clearly be labelled as from the Opera Project, because all banners link to the same Comments page. Hope this helps. If not, perhaps you could explain what you're talking about in words of one syllable so that I can understand it. --GuillaumeTell16:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Good, now we're on the same hymn-sheet! Part of my dialogue with HM about the comments page included him saying
"Viz comments, it is very easily possible to add the comment feature to WPBannerMeta banners using |COMMENTS=yes, but note that this is an all-or-nothing option: if comments do not exist for a page, the banner will display a note asking for editors to add them. If this is not what you want, I could code something up for you and hang it on |BOTTOM_TEXT= (or, since it seems like a good idea generally, add it to {{WPBannerMeta}} itself)."
I replied:
"On Comments, I'm really not happy with the all-or-nothing option with, in the absence of comments, the banner displaying a note asking editors to add their own comments (which I think is what's been implemented in the Yorkshire Project). Editors can comment on Talk pages; the Comments sub-page is for Assessors to justify their ranking and suggest improvements."
Hope you agree with that. See Talk:York Dungeon for an article without a Comments page that invites anyone who feels like it to add comments, which is what I was objecting to. The offer to add what I was asking for to WPBannerMeta looked good, but what he's actually done for now was put the appropriate code into Template:WikiProject Opera. That produced the result that you can see on the Prokofiev Talk page.
More generally, I've discovered that Melonbot is fairly new and is currently operating in test mode. Since our requirements are a bit off-centre, a trial run of 125 articles from WP:DISCWORLD was authorised and has now finally been done. When the Bot-approvers OK that - which I hope will mean that Melonbot itself will be approved - I think that HM can devote such time as he has to doing the rest of our articles and then running through Category:Opera and all its sub-cats to put the banner and default assessment onto articles that don't have it at present. Sometimes WP bureaucracy makes me grind my teeth, but one can see that some caution is required before letting new bots loose on great swathes of articles. --GuillaumeTell10:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
