User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 31

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia.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_31.

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 25

←

→

Operettas: are there any?

I have to say I don't follow your remarks under Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 30#Category:French-language operettas. I can perhaps understand the issue between "French-language" and just "French". What I don't follow is your implicit assertion that there aren't any French operettas, which I understand from you insistence that everything remain folded into one "opera" category. I'm having trouble reconciling this with the treatment of Offenbach under operetta. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why ask me this and then oppose the Cfd without waiting for my reply? What is the point?

The basic issue is overcategorization. The details are technical. I don't have time to discuss them here. There are lots of articles on WP that explain the various types of operetta. How about reading them and then coming back and asking me whatever questions you have? There is no assertion that "there aren't any French operettas", no "insistence that everything remain folded into one "opera" category". Your words not mine. However operetta is a genre of opera - and there are different kinds of operetta. --Klein zach 22:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Travesti

Hi Zach, Silvers has switched Travesty to redirect to Victorian burlesque, which seems appropriate; American burlesque is not called "travesty". I think Travesti should remain an article about the transgender identity; that's what the majority of the incoming links refer to and a Google Books search reveals that it is also the most common use of the term. There is a hatnote on that article linking to En travesti. Do you feel that any changes should be made?

Neelix (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Operas by world premiere location

Hey there, after noticing that there was a category for operas that premiered at the Met, I created a number of categories for premiere locations, which can be found at Category:Operas by world premiere location. I'm sure your encyclopedic knowledge of opera could come in handy - want to help out? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

WP Classical Music in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Classical Music for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day! -Mabeenot (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look at it. --Klein zach 23:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The interview is designed to be easy for busy editors to contribute, which is why the interview takes on a more static Q and A form than a real-time interview. You can include other comments not related to the pre-determined questions in the "Anything else to add?" section. You could discuss challenges the project has faced since 2009 or offer insight into where the project is heading. We'd appreciate having your ideas represented in the Signpost. This week will be the last week to add your comments before the article is published on the 28th. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

FSC

Revamped process, with regular exposure on the main page possible. Could do with more reviewers ... Tony (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization: a little more on titles of ballets & operas

Many thanks for your help yesterday. It seems that a contracted (elided?) article by itself doesn't count as a "first word": L'Oiseau de feu. Then should this condition be mentioned or illustrated at the Opera Project guideline?

I don't have Grove, and for decades have simply followed an old Schwann Opus (when I bothered to look). I notice looking there now that what is given here as Histoire du soldat is listed by Schwann as L'Histoire ..., which in any case would look more correct to me. The WP page simply says "(sometimes written L'histoire du soldat; translated as The Soldier's Tale)". My only copy is a cheapo MCA CD, which nowhere mentions the French title. In terms of common usage, in skimming quickly through Amazon my impression is that "L'Histoire" occurs most often, followed by "The Soldier's", in turn followed by "Histoire".

Third, since ballets don't have a separate guideline, and appear to follow the same formatting rules used for opera, might it be useful for the opera guidelines to explicitly subsume ballet? Milkunderwood (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I tried to link to the subsection Article titles - don't know why that didn't work. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that it should be L'oiseau de feu. In other words the ellision shouldn't affect the capitalization. (I should have noticed that earlier.)

I have checked in Grove Music and Jeremy Noble does give Histoire du soldat without the article. If the original publication of the score had an article then that would trump Grove, of course. (This article/no article thing can be a significant problem with early Italian operas.)

As all ballet involves music, the capitalization rules of the Classical Music project (which are identical to those of the Opera project) have been thought applicable. The CM guidelines are here.

I hope that all helps! Let me know if you find any more capitalization puzzles! Best. --Klein zach 01:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on CM. But check this out: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Oiseau_de_feu . They do capitalize the "O" throughout. I hadn't thought to look there before.Milkunderwood (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Oops, they also capitalize "Sacre". Maybe we should start checking things there? Milkunderwood (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not having luck linking to a subsection - must be doing it wrong. (And my connection is running very slow.) Here's this, under http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_%C5%93uvres_d%27Igor_Stravinski - lots of caps following articles, whether or not elided. Also, "L'Histoire". (I don't know much French, but Histoire du soldat without an article would surprise me very much.)Milkunderwood (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I find only this, which appears not to help very much: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Conventions_sur_les_titres_d%27%C5%93uvres_de_musique_classique Milkunderwood (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth, Schwann appears to follow fr.wikipedia.org in their capitalization rules. La Baiser, Le Chant, L'Histoire, Les Noces, Le Sacre.Milkunderwood (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The French WP follows a different system. That's why I mentioned in my original message that there were "competing systems"! --Klein zach 05:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I did notice you had said that. But I'm still convinced that Histoire du soldat isn't proper French.Milkunderwood (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You could check Histoire du soldat/L'histoire du soldat out by getting a copy of the score (first) published in 1924. Recordings/programmes seem to use both versions. --Klein zach 06:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject MFDs

Don't forget about WikiProject subpages and templates when you nominate a WikiProject for deletion. You can use Special:PrefixIndex — just type in "Wikipedia:WikiProject [whatever]" and it'll show you every subpage. Once the main project gets deleted, just tag all the subpages for {{db-housekeeping}} or {{db-subpage}}. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Very useful info. --Klein zach 01:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've just tried Special:PrefixIndex on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tool and it didn't seem to work. --Klein zach 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

French capitalisation

Thanks for this. I'll copy your note to the Opera Project talk page. Best. --GuillaumeTell 11:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You have relied on blogs and disregarded valid published articles

You reliance on blogs for misinformation is counter to wiki policiesLost Josephine Minor (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your great work in creating Théâtre de Paris and Théâtre des Capucines; for rescuing Théâtre des Champs-Élysées; for your work on Théâtre Déjazet; for a fantastic job on Théâtre de Paris. You are a joy to work with. Foobarnix (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conceptual Jungle

Hi, Klein, would you mind if you discuss at WP:DRV? There is a deletion review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conceptual Jungle listed at WP:DRV that you vote delete at WP:MFD. Please join the discussion here. Thank for your time, regards, JJ98 (Talk) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Done --Klein zach 05:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject MfDs

Hopefully you'll be aware of this by now, but please please please stop nominating WikiProjects simply because they're inactive. It has long been established that we do not delete inactive WikiProjects unless they have virtually no real content or discussion. That is the whole reason we have the inactive tag for WikiProjects, and why WP:MfD says to tag them as inactive and not delete them. It might not seem like anything to you, but it's one of those things that the community at large has decided we should keep, just like talk page archives and past proposals. Many of these pages also contain relevant information to people who need to find sources on those topics or find out the reasons behind past decisions like mergers and such. -- Ned Scott 09:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC) Done Replied. --Klein zach 09:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

European opera theaters

Hi Kleinzach -- thanks for your message! It's nice to be asked for my input, and of course I'll be glad to help to the extent that I can. all best -- --Lockley (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Paris theatres info

Do you know the web page lots of info about Paris theatres? --Foobarnix (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Lots of entries - that's useful. --Klein zach 06:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a glance at Salle des Concerts Herz info and give me feedback. Would you want to write the article, by the way?--Foobarnix (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Théâtre des Champs-Élysées

I agree with your practical approach to get rid of the copyright violations. Thank you for getting on this. I had already noticed your changes. I started rewriting it too. For now, we can both tinker with it. If you think we should more carefully coordinate our efforts, let me know here or on my talk page.

Salle des Concerts Herz

You are welcome to create the article Salle des Concerts Herz using these links. You are a better writer than me. I will also be glad to contribute with further research and some writing/organizing.--Foobarnix (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories for REDIRECTs

You removed the categories from the REDIRECTs for Die ideale Gattin and Die Tangokönigin as "confusing"; I don't think they are. Those titles need categories as they are not just REDIRECTs from other spellings but refer to a somewhat different work. If someone looks up the Category:1921 operas, Die Tangokönigin ought to be found there. Similarly, the title Die ideale Gattin ought to be part of the Category:Operas by Franz Lehár. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages (last bullet point) and all of Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects; I indicated as much in my edit summaries when I added categories to those pages on 5 January when you created them. I suggest to restore the categories you removed.. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Done --Klein zach 05:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Nino Rota

Hi Kleinzach -- Sorry I have not been of much help on Paris theatres recently—I got way distracted by other matters. I hope you do not mind if I ask your advice on something. I recently created a stub for the article I due timidi. I was working with things related to Nino Rota and it seemed like this opera article needed to be created. I am afraid, however, that it is a bit thin. I had trouble finding more material. Can you take a look at it and advise me whether you think it is worthwhile starting an article such as this. (You are more than welcome to expand and revise the article—LOL).

Also I created the categories Operas by Nino Rota, Film scores by Nino Rota, and Compositions by Nino Rota. Do you think that was a good idea? Thanks as always for your help.--Foobarnix (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can't see any problems. Let's expand the article with at least roles and recordings sections. If you can do a synopsis that would also be good. --Klein zach 00:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Good work. You leave the rest of us in the dust. BTW, do not hesitate to change any of my wording if you can improve anything—you will not hurt my feelings. I hope this little diversion was fun. I apologize if I distracted you from one of your other 25 projects. Cheers!--Foobarnix (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem - but I'm not going to attempt the synopsis! The only thing that I am unsure about is the opera buffa description. Do you know where that came from? --Klein zach 01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think my mention of opera buffa (which evidently died out in the 19th century) came from the 4th footnote. I saw I due timidi listed under the heading "opera buffa" in the table at that site and assumed it was an example of the form. I vote to take it out. I like what you did with lists of Rota film scores and compositions. I had been thinking of doing something like that but was not sure of just how to do it. BTW, are you familiar with the marvelous template below? (I have plugged in the parameter I due timidi)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

That's very useful! I've removed the opera buffa bit. Thanks. --Klein zach 06:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Nino Rota page looks better with film scores and compositions split off as separate articles. Do you think we ought to do this for the discography too? This is sometimes done; see for example: Jean Michel Jarre discography, Coldplay discography, and John Denver discography.--Foobarnix (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes definitely, but it will be a lot of work turning it into a good page. I don't think the present arrangement of listing by record company is useful. In the past I've done quite a lot of tabular pages such as Category:Opera discographies, but these have been devoted to single works. I suppose we could simply move the present text to a subpage and leave it at that. What do you think? --Klein zach 00:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets move it and then think about how to clean it up. I may use one of the pages I mentioned as a model. Have to think about it. I will move it starting now. More or less complete discography can also be found at subpages of official Nino Rota website.--Foobarnix (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The more I look at Rota discography, the more frustrating it becomes. I really would like to clean it up but did not know what I was getting into. It turns out there are many many sites with Rota "discographies" but the overlaps and inconsistencies are daunting. Can you give me any guidance? Is there a "best" reference for these discographies? What is the source reference of the existing version? (it was all added by an anonymous editor on 11 August 2009)--Foobarnix (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you could start by putting all the relevant discographies into the reference section of the Nino Rota discography? As for a 'best reference', I don't have one, but you could ask the discographies project if they have something similar. You could also ask Viva-Verdi who has worked on a lot of opera discographies. --Klein zach 03:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I just added an important reference. I see that you are there too. I will back off for a day or so while you work your magic. Let me know what you would like me to do. Thanks for adding the banners.--Foobarnix (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to do any more now - nor am I sure what really to do. We don't have any other composer discographies at the moment, so this one is unlikely to start a series of similar pages. If you are interested in Rota, then you will be the best person to decide the form of the discography. --Klein zach 04:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Opera title italics

Hi Kleinzach - I've taken the liberty of copying your questions to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Opera_title_italics and responding to them there (unfortunately including some capitalised gibberish - sorry). Simon the Likable (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following through with this. That's appreciated. I'm not a member of the Opera Project, so I won't comment there, and I missed the Rfc debate, but I am strongly against italics for typographical reasons. I hope you won't be italicizing any more opera titles - or indeed musical ones - until there is a real and full resolution to the issue. --Klein zach 00:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I won't be progressing without project consensus. However, you may have noted that I have requested consensus on whether I should revert my changes to date. I'd be grateful if you could avoid unilaterally reverting my edits for a couple of days until consensus (one way or the other) emerges on the project talk page. (Note: I don't believe your non-membership of the Opera Project in anyway prevents you from adding your comments there; in fact, I would encourage it.) Simon the Likable (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There is (as far as I can tell) a unanimous dislike of italic titles among opera and classical music editors, hence I went ahead and reverted the Puccini titles. Obviously it would be preferable if you changed the other examples rather than me or someone else, so I am perfectly happy to wait on your decision. --Klein zach 10:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I would merely comment that "unanimous" is a big word. At any rate, as I genuinely would like to understand this issue, would you mind briefly expanding on your "typographical reasons"? (Or, if it saves time, point me at some text that makes your points?) -- Simon the Likable (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I qualified my use of the word unanimous, which was considered. Last time I checked, no opera/music editor had said he/she liked italic article titles. Typographical problems are (1) the difficulty of mixing roman and italic at a large size (2) the use of a typeface with a sloping roman rather than a true italic, and (3) the odd aesthetic created by alternating roman/italic titles. (Other people have said much the same thing even if they have expressed it differently.) I don't believe alternating roman/italic titles exist in any other encyclopedia. --Klein zach 16:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing your font

Hi Kleinzach, I thought since you did not like the look of the italics in the titles, you might be interested in this discussion. I am discovering that one can change the Wikipedia font using "My preferences/Appearance" and am trying "Times New Roman", which you may also find better. You can do it by adding about 4 lines of code to your skin's "Custom CSS". (I've been using the default Vector Skin.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an interesting article Serif which says studies in the past have found that fonts without serifs are better on most computer screens. These days with higher resolutions, I suspect serif fonts are becoming more desirable than sans-serif. Perhaps Wikipedia might consider switching it's default font to a serif font. Try it on your screen, and see what you think. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all thanks for the information. Basically I was trying to find out whether the majority of people are actually using Helvetica. Judging by your comments at the Help desk, you are/were also seeing Helvetica. (Of course we don't know what variety of Helvetica - some are better than others - or where the italics come from.)

I don't think anyone would want to read War and Peace in a sans serif face, and I agree that eventually we will all be using serif faces on computer screens just as we do with books. Some fonts have much broader serifs than others — these would be suitable for use now (e.g. Plantin). Unfortunately many of the best ones belong to Monotype/Linotype etc. and are not available on the computer yet. We have Microsoft to thank for a lot of the rubbish. . . .

Like a lot of people with a print background I'm allergic to Times Roman. (Designed for newsprint, described in The Elements of Typographic Style as a 'historical pastiche'. The section about the face begins: "If there is nothing for dinner but beans . . . .". ) --Klein zach 00:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There are other serif fonts to choose from. Any that you like that can be used in Microsoft's IE? Just substitute the font name and adjust to the size to suit your system. I would be curious whether there are any that you find better than Wikipedia's current default of Helvetica in the default Vector Skin, which what I am guessing you are also using. I have to say I prefer the Time New Roman to the Helvetica, in particular for the italics titles. Update: Plantin is not available in Safari on the Apple Mac (my system). --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I'm using Vector - didn't really like the other ones. (I'm also using Safari on a Mac.) For the computer I usually prefer Georgia/Futura, However at the moment my focus is on the italics issue, so I'm really interested in how Wikipedia looks on the average screen, not mine as such. --Klein zach 01:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I switched to Georgia (at 90%), and I like it even better. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Monpou's opera

According to Wild and Charlton 2005, p. 300, Adam completed and orchestrated Monpou's Lambert Simnel. (Hippolyte Monpou died 10 August 1841). --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've corrected that. (As you will have seen there were quite a lot of errors in that list.) --Klein zach 05:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Good edit! Actually I didn't think the table was too bad. It's a long and complicated, and we all can make mistakes. But I hope it's even better now. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

For some reason the co-composers had got into the libretto column. Anyway it's fixed now. --Klein zach 05:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Kleinzach -- You really made my day! Really like the design of that star. I am working next on Carlo Savina, Jonathan Turley (the lawyer; am doing serious cleanup and referencing), possibly Théâtre d'Application, and also another math article. Did you notice my recent new article on Théâtre national de Chaillot? (please feel free to put in your two cents!) Thanks again wikifriend.--Foobarnix (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. BTW if you are interested in doing another discography Angela_Gheorghiu#Recordings might be worth looking at. I've done a little with it, but haven't time to take it much further. --Klein zach 06:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kleinzach--Nice job on the Angela Gheorghiu discography. I was intending to take your suggestion (eventually) and do this myself, but I have been spending most of my time on a new draft of Jonathan Turley, an important article which needs errors fixed, dead link pruning, a complicated reorganization, and a lot more citations (my draft is almost ready.) Has the issue of opera italics been resolved?--Foobarnix (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Infobox for Nordic noble families

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. --Klein zach 04:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

MFD

Relisted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Don Carlos

Greetings: Sorry, I haven't been on Wikipedia regularly for a while due to recovey from a major op. Anyway, given its title, it might be in the third act of the French version only, since I don't recall a ballet from the Italian version (4 or 5 act versions). My DVD of the Frecnh version of "Don Carlos" shows "Chapter 16: Scene et ballade: La Reine!" and I think it is when the queen has all her ladies around her. I'll pop the disc into the player asap and check on it. All the best, Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I took a look at the DVD and there is no ballet. However, earlier n the article it is noted that the balet was cut after rehearsals in order for people to catch their last trains.

In looking at the source of the mp3 file, I see that it comes from http://www.marineband.usmc.mil/downloads/audio/le_ballet_de_la_reine_from_don_carlos.mp3

and, therefore, appears to be genuine. On their list of recordings by the Marine Band, it says "Giuseppe Verdi/ trans. Donald Patterson "Le Ballet de la Reine" from Don Carlos". Listening to it, the music could certainly be Verdi's. Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste fail

Thanks for [1]. At least I warned the right vandal. :) Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Not sure he's got the message though . . . --Klein zach 09:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject historical clutter

Hi Kleinzach, Continuing from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Modular Articles...

It was just an idea, not a committed position. I appreciate your interest in cleaning up the stuff beginning with "Wikipedia:WikiProject". Did you see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Activity_reports "The data is fascinating. It looks like ~10% of our WikiProjects received zero non-bot edits during the last year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)". Agree there's room to do something about inactive clutter, just not sure we've explored all options, where deletion is the last resort. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I also appreciate your interest in preserving the early history of WP. I just hope you can find a good place to put all this stuff. --Klein zach 04:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been a lot of unconcluded ideas about this, posted in various places. I'd like to summarise and propose a solution at Wikipedia:Inactive wikiProjects. Perhaps all inactive, defunct (were active but faulty) and stillborn (but maybe a fair idea) could be moved to subpages of that page. Inactive wikiProjects are already well categorised, but that is not obvious enough. Having "Inactive" in the Page Title and URL would make it hard to miss, in every incoming reference and edit recorded. You don't seem to object to redirects remaining at titles beginning "Wikipedia:WikiProject ..."? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You and TPH have already said sensible things in the various places. I would like some indication from you as to whether you would think moving the clutter to subpages of "Wikipedia:Inactive wikiProjects" would be an improvement. It will still be clutter, but elsewhere, and not cluttering the active wikiProjects? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This idea has a lot of potential. I think I'd prefer to see an area outside the Wikipedia namespace being used, a kind of museum (archive) space or whatever. (In 20 years time the early history of Wikipedia may well be of interest to people and it would be good to have a place where it is properly accessible.) Anyway I will be interested to see what you propose. --Klein zach 05:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

To describe WikiProject ideas that seemed good in theory but then lead to nothing, I'd like to use a term other than "stillborn". The metaphor is too unbalanced. Do you have any ideas? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Seemed good in theory [to somebody, for some reason, in some context] but then lead to nothing". 'Stillborn' is the norm, I guess. Otherwise 'abortive', 'croaked', 'born in exanimation'. One other phrase I like is 'asleep in Jesus'. We could describe this desultory conversation as 'asleep in Jesus'. Excuse me while I take a nap. . . . . --Klein zach 23:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're thinking in concert. I'm thinking "stalled" (with no need to distinguish reasonable ideas that did nothing from those that did almost nothing).

I'm thinking of proposing two holding directories:

0 "active wikiprojects" left where they are.

1 "inactive wikiprojects" go to Wikipedia:Inactive WikiProjects/ if revivable or with a history, and including "stalled" if they remain a good idea in theory.

2 "closed wikiprojects" go to Wikipedia:Closed WikiProjects/ if they had a history, or are to be retained for some other reason, but are not welcome to be revived.

All others should be redirected or deleted.

I'm not keen on a "Museum" or other new namespace. It could too easily confuse. We overwhelmingly keep histories (eg old article versions) in the place where they were written. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)