User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Ziehrer response

Hmm, I'm not too sure about merging the articles: if you look at Johann Strauss II's composition list, for example, you can see that his works all have their own articles -- that goes for a lot of other composers as well. I think that unless it's really a problem or something to have individual articles, it would be best to leave them as they are. Best regards, ♪TempoDiValse♪ 01:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right about the stubs being a waste of time for the reader -- I did not think of that. The only references I could find for the compositions were record jackets of CDs, which doesn't amount to much, so I can't expand the articles. Yes, it would be better to merge the articles into one. Could you do that? I'm not exactly sure how to do it. Best regards! ♪TempoDiValse♪ 02:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have made a wikitable for the article and will continue to add more works to the list. As for the move, feel free to go ahead and move it back. I wasn't completely sure whether to include Ziehrer's first name or not, and wasn't completely sure what WP protocol was on it. Best, ♪TempoDiValse♪ 01:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see that. Thanks, I changed it now. ♪TempoDiValse♪ 03:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your help, and happy editing! ♪TempoDiValse♪ 00:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Voice range categories

Ohh I see what you mean. I got your note before I made another one. Sorry about that. Tribal44 (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Tribal44

Japanese opera

Hello Kleinzach: Thank you for reviewing the information on the Shunkinshō page. Your expert eye is apprecited as I know you are involved with the Opera Project. I recently translated an article for another Japanese opera, Yūzuru (opera). Would you also look over that and see if any changes need to be made. Thank you, Hrdinský (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've made some small technical edits to Yūzuru (opera). Your articles are very good. If you want to do some more, there are quite a few red-linked Japanese operas linked on The opera corpus, see the Kazuko Hara, Minoru Miki, Shigeaki Saegusa, Kosaku Yamada entries etc. --Kleinzach 04:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Elliott Carter

Hello again. In about one month, Elliott Carter will celebrate his 100th birthday. Is there something the WikiProject Composers can do to commemorate his centennial? Since it may be difficult to elevate the article to featured article status, are there other options besides a DYK nomination? Hrdinský (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is one possibility. It could go on Portal:Classical music. I's suggest putting a note here. Best. --Kleinzach 10:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Edoardo Catemario

I've left this page on the list of music projects needing immediate attention a few weeks ago, but nothing seemed to happen. Could you resolve a content dispute on this page. Subject of article wrote a page about himself, and he seems to be notable so I haven't proposed deletion, but we can't agree on what should go on the page. Since you presumably know about this sort of thing, can you help?

Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and edit. No great problems I think. Will get back to this next week. Best. --Kleinzach 11:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've now put some cmments on the page and done a brief edit. --Kleinzach 05:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Jules Garcin

Hi. This is to explain that although composers don't have bio-infoboxes, neither do violinists etc. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes. Thanks for your understanding on this.--Kleinzach 05:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

To ascertain a consensus about using info boxes on instrumentalists, we should have more time to see what that consensus truly stipulates.

At the moment the guidelines don't reflect a major consensus against info boxes for violinists, they reflect the consensus on Composers Project and the Opera Project.See Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes.

So if you don't mind, I would rather like to see info box for Garcin and other violinists.

There are existing info boxes for other "historic" violinists, that were done by others and nobody seemed to mind them.

Thank you for your understandingMilliot (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Please take this up with the project. All the classical music projects have the same policy. I suggest you write to Composers Project which has just discussed this matter. Thank you. --Kleinzach 10:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I see you have reverted this page again. - so I don't wish to continue a dialogue here. --Kleinzach 10:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I Support info boxes. I truly believe that infoboxes, in addition to the lead paragraph, are valuable and useful for people not familiar with the subject. They can glance at the infobox, read the lead, and decide for themselves whether the rest of the article is worth reading or not. It seems to me that as far as this argument of yea or nea..... I totally agree with Andy Mabbett there is, still, clearly no consensus on this issue. The claim on the project page is bogus. On top of that, Jules Garcin was a violinist/conductor (first and foremost), and there are still many infoboxes on existing "historic" violinists articles. I have created the article on Jules Garcin, I feel it provides the look of a real Encyclopedia (with an info box). Many find that informative info boxes add rather than detract . Milliot (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

felsenstein/regietheater

Hi Kleinzach,

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I'm not resolving a question/edit in the appropriate fashion. A few days ago, I edited the entry on Walter Felsenstein. I changed "exponent of Regietheater" to "source of inspiration for Regietheater," and deleted the explanation of the term (figuring that a link would be better than trying to explain such a contentious word in one clause). As I understand the history, Felsenstein's innovations predate common usage of the word Regietheater (though they do overlap a bit in the early 1970s). By any name, his production values do not suppress or undermine the importance of the music. In a lecture delivered in 1963, for example, Felsenstein declares that "the heart of music theater is to turn music-making and singing on the stage into a communication that is convincing, truthful, and utterly essential. All problems of the drama and of staging are secondary to this."* It would be hard to reconcile this statement with the given definition of Regietheater. Also, Friedrich and Kupfer (more demonstrable proponents of Regietheater) do not so much develop Felsenstein's work as incorporate his ideas into their own (thus "source of inspiration" rather than "exponent").

Let me know your thoughts.

69.3.129.47 (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Method and Attitude", in The Music Theater of Walter Felsenstein. Translated and Edited by Peter Paul Fuchs (New York: W.W. Norton, 1975), p. 15.

Thanks. Will have a look next week. Best. --Kleinzach 01:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. Also, take a look at this article (there is a link on the German Wiki entry on Walter Felsenstein):

• „Das Leben durch die Kunst verbessern“, Berliner Zeitung, 30. Mai 2001, „Über den Regisseur und Theaterleiter Walter Felsenstein, der heute 100 Jahre alt geworden wäre.“

Written by a former dramaturg at the Komische Oper, the article addresses the relationship between Felsenstein and Regietheater: "Walter Felsenstein fühlte sich nicht als Erfinder eines "Regietheaters", in dem der Regisseur machen kann, was er will. Felsenstein wollte der Sachwalter von dramatischen Komponisten sein, deren Intentionen in der alltäglichen Theaterroutine keinen Platz mehr fanden. Die Partitur wurde zur Grundlage aller szenischen Arbeit." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.110.42 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've had a look at this. (I had a bit of difficulty remembering the details.) You obviously understand this subject well. I would suggest that (1) you sign on to WP and get a username so people will know who you are and trust your edits, (2) you edit Walter Felsenstein as you think appropriate - and give references.

After that I wonder if you might (3) have a look at Regietheater to see if this can be improved. Historically this article has been a problem (in a way that Walter Felsenstein has not). If it's improved and enlarged in its scope I think that will obviate problems with the articles on individual directors - setting them in a clear context. Best regards. --Kleinzach 05:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't have time right now, but I will sign up and take another look at these pages in the near future.

67.101.110.42 (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

felsenstein/regietheater

Hi Kleinzach,

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I'm not resolving a question/edit in the appropriate fashion. A few days ago, I edited the entry on Walter Felsenstein. I changed "exponent of Regietheater" to "source of inspiration for Regietheater," and deleted the explanation of the term (figuring that a link would be better than trying to explain such a contentious word in one clause). As I understand the history, Felsenstein's innovations predate common usage of the word Regietheater (though they do overlap a bit in the early 1970s). By any name, his production values do not suppress or undermine the importance of the music. In a lecture delivered in 1963, for example, Felsenstein declares that "the heart of music theater is to turn music-making and singing on the stage into a communication that is convincing, truthful, and utterly essential. All problems of the drama and of staging are secondary to this."* It would be hard to reconcile this statement with the given definition of Regietheater. Also, Friedrich and Kupfer (more demonstrable proponents of Regietheater) do not so much develop Felsenstein's work as incorporate his ideas into their own (thus "source of inspiration" rather than "exponent").

Let me know your thoughts.

69.3.129.47 (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Method and Attitude", in The Music Theater of Walter Felsenstein. Translated and Edited by Peter Paul Fuchs (New York: W.W. Norton, 1975), p. 15.

Thanks. Will have a look next week. Best. --Kleinzach 01:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. Also, take a look at this article (there is a link on the German Wiki entry on Walter Felsenstein):

• „Das Leben durch die Kunst verbessern“, Berliner Zeitung, 30. Mai 2001, „Über den Regisseur und Theaterleiter Walter Felsenstein, der heute 100 Jahre alt geworden wäre.“

Written by a former dramaturg at the Komische Oper, the article addresses the relationship between Felsenstein and Regietheater: "Walter Felsenstein fühlte sich nicht als Erfinder eines "Regietheaters", in dem der Regisseur machen kann, was er will. Felsenstein wollte der Sachwalter von dramatischen Komponisten sein, deren Intentionen in der alltäglichen Theaterroutine keinen Platz mehr fanden. Die Partitur wurde zur Grundlage aller szenischen Arbeit." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.110.42 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've had a look at this. (I had a bit of difficulty remembering the details.) You obviously understand this subject well. I would suggest that (1) you sign on to WP and get a username so people will know who you are and trust your edits, (2) you edit Walter Felsenstein as you think appropriate - and give references.

After that I wonder if you might (3) have a look at Regietheater to see if this can be improved. Historically this article has been a problem (in a way that Walter Felsenstein has not). If it's improved and enlarged in its scope I think that will obviate problems with the articles on individual directors - setting them in a clear context. Best regards. --Kleinzach 05:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't have time right now, but I will sign up and take another look at these pages in the near future.

67.101.110.42 (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Italics on a musical list page?

Please see Talk:List_of_compositions_by_George_Frideric_Handel#Italics_on_a_musical_list_page?.  HWV 258  02:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied. --Kleinzach 05:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Botwork

I looked through a sampling of the edits the bot made (it got it to letter I). Most of them seem to have B assessments from Biography, which is probably fine for our purposes. Magic♪piano 00:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

De-boxing biography articles

Your anti-infoboxing has been brought to Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Individual_wikiprojects_are_deleting_infoboxes_from_articles. I'm curious, too - why Milton Adolphus is deprived of a box, specifically? NVO (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Please refer your question to the projects that have guidelines on biographical infoboxes. (There are no guidelines on infoboxes per se.) These are Composers, Opera Project and Classical music. The guidelines are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Lead section, Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Infoboxes, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music#Biographical_infoboxes with links to previous, exhaustive centralized discussions. I am a member of the classical music projects but please note that I do not, of course, represent them. Thank you. --Kleinzach 09:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

What to do with interesting information found on a personal websiite?

I've been busily collecting reference material to expand the BLP I'm working on, and I've had very good luck.

One item in particular, though, I don't know what to do with. It's material found on a personal blog, where the blogger interviews my subject and discusses important things not discussed elsewhere.

It's the first todo item under "incorporate suggestions." on my User page.

I wouldn't ask this if I didn't think this material is of interest to the public, the academics, and to posterity. Should I just mention it in External Links? Should I mention the topics of discussion found there? Must I wait for a journalist to ask these questions on behalf of a publication before they can be mentioned?

Please let me know if there's somewhere else I should ask this question. I was very glad to find so many references in proper sources... I will have to expand the biography to use them all. Thanks for your help! Reechard (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this Sarah Cahill (pianist)? IMO it's fine to include information from a blog and probably best to put in 'External links'. As a blog is subject to change, it's a good idea to give an access date (as with any website). If you want to note some specific information from the blog in connection with your main text, I think it's perfectly OK to make an inline citation - again making it clear that it is a blog and the date you accessed it. So no problems I think. Best of luck. --Kleinzach 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Excellent, I can do that, I've done inline citations before. Good to know I can do this esp. if there's something not found elsewhere. Already, looking for sourced information I came across early versions of this very BLP duplicated entirely (NationMaster.com) ! I can hope that someone will follow up in future and get more important information "on the record." I gather my subject is active commissioning new works to be premiered in the near future, and given the people involved, it's a unusual situation - I'm confident these events will be interesting to posterity, just as I'm confident Cahill is more than notable enough for a BLP. Thanks again for your help! Reechard (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping to arrange for a photo of my BLP subject, want to use a placeholder to make it easier

I tried long ago to use a press PR photo for my subject, and I know that is not allowed. I've read about the image placeholder discussion that took place earlier this year. I understand that things are not settled.

However, I'd like to use the image placeholder for a brief period only, to make is easy for the photographer (or "a" photographer) to add the photo.

It will not be a general long-standing request for a photo from the community. I expect it to take no longer than a week or two, after which I can remove the placeholder.

I don't want to raise any alarm, or spark an argument, so I thought I'd check with you to see if I can do this and not appear to be ignorant of the outstanding controversy.

As always, thanks for your consideration! Reechard (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really don't think this is a good idea. In any case there are seldom any responses to that placeholder message. Why not write directly to Sarah Cahill directly? I'm sure she will delighted to hear that you re working on her WP page and I'd very surprised if she didn't give you some photos. You can then clear them with the necessary WP notices. It shouldn't be a problem. --Kleinzach 09:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear. She knows about the WP page and is well aware that I'm looking for a photo and has informed me she will follow up on this. I just thought it would make it easier for a non-wiki-savvy person to navigate.Reechard (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Disinfoboxes

I recently wrote an essay on Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes if you are interested. Feel free to contribute to it or provide me with some feedback. Cheers.Nrswanson (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Two points. (1) I'd keep image placeholders out of the essay. That's a separate issue. (2) As I've constantly emphasized we should concentrate our objections on biographical infoboxes. The pro-boxers always repeat the (untrue) charge that those who are against the use of biographical boxes are against all boxes. Not so. --Kleinzach 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Mozart wikiproject?

Hello Kleinzach, I replied on my own talk page. Opus33 (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Edoardo Catemario part II

You might want to have a look at Talk:Edoardo Catemario. What is the next stage in the dispute process anyway? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand what he is angry about? I'm having difficulty remembering this one. As for giving this an airing, I guess we could take it to the Classical music project but I'm not sure what exactly is the problem here and what there is to say about it. --Kleinzach 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

He originally posted the article about himself in a self-promotional manner. I responded by cutting some of the most promotional phrases and shortening or removing the lists of what he's achieved. He then said I'd cut the article too much, so I said I'd mark it for the attention of the Wikiproject classical music, and eventually left the message with you. Anyway, it sounded like you broadly upheld my editing, and that seems to be what he's unhappy about it. My hunch is that he thought he would have control over his own article, and didn't read the link I provided to WP:LUC.

A third opinion from someone else from Wikiproject classical music seems to be the best move at the moment. If that doesn't settle it, I'm tempted to suggest an AfD as a formality. Hope this makes sense. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with all that - except the Afd. I think it's better to avoid any unnecessary drama - and as far as I can see he is notable. Would you like to explain the issue on the Classical music project? I will add my comments. Best. --Kleinzach 00:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll avoid the AfD option for now. I don't have time to give an account to WikiProject Classical music right now, so feel free to proceed without me. (I might act this evening otherwise.) I'd prefer it if I kept out of this as much as possible, as I was only acting in new page patrolling capacity. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get the whole scenario so I'd prefer it if you take the lead. Is that OK? --Kleinzach 09:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it now looks like someone else has intervened anyway. Since that editor appeared to know what he/she is doing, I'm happy to leave it like it is now. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Manual talkback

A new user you helped answered on their talkpage here: User talk:Belle5410. You might want to reply to them. Regards SoWhy 12:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mozart family Grand Tour

For your information, this article is now at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rameau list

The "opéras comiques" were from the early days of the genre. They were simply plays with a few songs thrown in. Not much is known about the extent of Rameau's work on these pieces; he may have collaborated with others and AFAIK some of them (e.g. Le procureur dupe) are believed to be dubious attributions. Most of the music to these works is lost anyway. My copy of Grove's French Baroque Masters lists them separately from Rameau's operas proper. By common consensus, his first real opera is Hippolyte et Aricie.

We should keep the list on the Rameau biography page since it divides the works in a different way (by genre rather than date), which I find useful. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd still rather keep those separate from the operas proper. It's an important distinction. I'd also keep the complete list of works on the Rameau biography page. It simply doesn't make sense to list his harpsichord pieces, cantatas etc. there and force casual readers to click on the link if they want to see the stage works. --Folantin (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the "opéras-ballets" and "actes de ballet" are bona fide operas (just with more dance music than the other genres). On the other hand, the so-called "opéras comiques" are merely plays with a few songs now and then. Schubert's Rosamunde would count as more of an "opera" than any of these works. --Folantin (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If you give readers the impression that L'endriague was Rameau's first opera rather than Hippolyte then you are seriously misleading them. This is the same issue as infoboxes: factual accuracy is more important than technical convenience. --Folantin (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This method does not work for Rameau. "Sortability" takes second place to accuracy. --Folantin (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The version I saw this morning would certainly mislead the casual reader. It gave the impression that L'endriague was Rameau's first opera rather than Hippolyte. I see no reason why we have to lump in the incidental music with the operas proper. Rameau is one of the composers I've done the most work on and I plan to do more in the new year. I don't want to see my efforts undermined for the sake of technical gadgetry. I don't see that there is anything more to discuss. --Folantin (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

List of operas by Adam

Oh, I am sorry, I did not realize that there had been consensus reached on the subject. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)