This is an archive of past discussions with User:Michael Bednarek. 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.
Hello, Michael Bednarek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Manscher08:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Opera Project
Welcome also from the Opera Project! We will be delighted if you decide to sign on with us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera.
Hi, I see you have added Klebe 13 operas to The opera corpus. I certainly agree we should have an article on Klebe, however I wonder where we are goig to find information on the operas. Do you have some ideas? None of the individual operas have articles in Grove. We try to list complete works on composers biography pages and only list works on the opaer corpus that we intend turning into articles. Best regards, --Kleinzach09:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MZ-LOGO.GIF. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. OsamaK13:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:MZ-LOGO.GIF)
Thanks for uploading Image:MZ-LOGO.GIF. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot06:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MZ-SEXTETT.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot06:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:MZ-LOGO.GIF. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot08:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:MZ-SEXTETT.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:MZ-SEXTETT.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot08:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MZ-Screen.GIF. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rlest11:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Michael, message received and (almost) understood! I'll do my best but it may be a long, slow process as there is a great deal of material to check.
Also, thanks for the external link alert, I was unaware that it had been changed (apparently at the beginning of September) and have duly removed it.
Regards, -- Gianetta —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Klebe operas / unreferenced tags
Hi Michael, one thing we have been doing recently has been to go through articles needing sources, providing references and removing the 'unreferenced' tags. I've noticed that some of your Klebe articles are included. I'm wondering if you might like to provide suitable references? Best. -- Kleinzach08:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Michael, I've just realized that you haven't actually signed up to the Opera Project. I'm sure we'd all be delighted if you liked to join. Best. -- Kleinzach06:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I saw that one a bit ago. I have some suspicions about what's going on here, but I haven't really gone anywhere with it because I'm assuming good faith for now (also known as "hoping the problem goes away on its own" ;) ). --DachannienTalkContrib10:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out. You have no idea how many hoops I had to jump through in order to get the page going. MMetro (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Bellyfuzz
The block was made after the user's edits. I think it just slipped by with all the other vandalism they were making. In any case, it's a headstart on warnings so they can get blocked faster next time. Thanks! joshschr (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Plagiarism
I noticed you entirely and indiscriminately plagiarised the act 1 and 2 synopses for The Love of the Nightingale (Opera)from the program. If this is allowed, great. If not, you suck.--Daftism (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm a bit busy the next three days, but I should have some spare time early next week. A good thing to learn is to sign your contributions on any talk page by entering four tilde signs (~~~~) at the end — see WP:SIG. Also, you could have avoided the deletion discussion by preparing the English article off–line and not starting it with a one–liner and then developing it. Take one of the articles I recently created: Die Försterchristl; it took me about two weeks to gather and translate the material and edit that article. By "edit" I mean that I write the article in Wiki language using a text editor on my PC. After two weeks I'm ready to create a fully blown article in the first attempt. This method seems not uncommon; if you look at the German version of Die Försterchristl, its creator, Dr._Belotz seems to work the same way.
The first thing to consider is the need for an article; frankly, I'm not sure the English–speaking world needs to know in depth about the Freiherren von und zu Thannhausen. Maybe this information could have been worked into an existing article somewhere. The second thing to consider is the article's title, or "Lemma" as the German Wikipedians like to call it. Do you really think that "Lords of Thannhausen" is the best translation of "Thannhausen (Adelsgeschlecht)"? Have you researched the treatment of German noble titles in English? That's all for now; I hope I can help you with your article next week. — Bis bald, Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Die Physiker
I thought we should standardize the German/English, rather than using the German word for this play. I hope you don't mind correcting your correction. Thanks for your vigilence on this site. I knew Therese Giehse, and wanted to beef up her site, for present and future students.
Weimar03 (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Project banners are for marking articles. Our one creates a category (WikiProject Opera articles) on Talk pages to be used by the bot. They are not really for non-article pages. Does that make sense? From what you say the banner must be displayed on some other Template talk pages. Is that right? It's not something I've given much thought to actually, though I dimly remember Jay taking about it. Did he banner the templates you have seen? --Kleinzach (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right that they appear in the article but for some reason idiots keep on doing things like confusing the term alto with contralto and trying to add contemporary contralto singers sections when identification of non-operatic singers is in most cases unverifiable. These problems have lessened considerably with the links under see also being there for some reason. I've been watching this article for a long time so trust me on that.Nrswanson (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion--but, in fact, I do routinely click the preview button before adding to an entry. As I've noted in the discussion page for List of classical pianists, having completed a correlation between Classical pianists (recorded) and that page, I've launched an effort (so far, alas, pretty much a solo effort) to increase its population of pre-recorded-era pianists, a category almost unrepresented, outside of a few of the most obvious names, when I began. (For example, while W.A. Mozart was there, his son was not; Chopin was there, but Henri Herz wasn't; Pixis for some reason was there, but Gottschalk, Dussek, and Tomasek weren't.) As I also noted in the discussion page, I'm no expert on the subject of pianists from the 19th century and before, so once away from the "big names" I must research most of the names I'm finding, at least a little bit, to confirm that they at least arguably belong on the list. Thus, each of the edits you've seen represents the addition of one name as it turns up through my exploration of various sources both inside and outside Wikipedia and goes through my vetting process. So far, I think none of the edits to the classical pianists article reflects a mistake that I then went back to correct.
While on the subject of those two lists, thanks, too, for amending both when you added Tan Crone; some of my edits that you've been seeing—indeed, all the ones early on, when I was trying to regularize the two pianist lists one letter of the alphabet at a time—came about because a name got added to one list but not the other when in fact it belonged on both. I was sorry to see that your entry drew that overhasty (and completely unjustified) deletion nomination; I voted to retain, by the way. Drhoehl (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I don’t know how to say but I think someone should talk to Kleinzach. I think he is withdrawing from Opera project – look at his user page. He has done a lot of work. He is like the key person in Opera project by maintaining the articles, corpus listing, doing assessments and also key person in Wiki project page itself. There are times we have compromise with what we want in order to save a good member – at least that is what I will do in the real life. There are many unorganized projects in Wiki, projects without “somebody” taking care it. At the end, the project is dead. I do not want to see that to happen in Opera project, and for that, I believe we need Kleinzach to continue doing what he always do. I am writing this to you, hoping that you could consider or at least talk to him. When I said, “compromise”, I mean, if the “stub tag by language” isn’t that important compared to losing a good friend, so be it. I genuinely feel that losing a good friend to something that is less important is not worth at all, seriously. I just don’t understand why the tags have been placed in our articles without consensus. We haven’t agreed to it, we are still in the middle of the discussion. That is why I said we have to vote first. I was surprised to see my “watchlist” full with list of “tag added” even I have said clearly that we need an agreement with our active members. I need your opinion about this. - Jay (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the stubbing exercise: I feel exactly as you do; while the intent was probably good, its execution was deplorable.
As to Kleinzach: we had our occasional run-ins where I was just as stubborn as he is now. On the other hand, we also agreed on a lot of things, and I, like you, regret his absence in the project. However, I respect his reaction and if I try to put myself into his shoes, I just might react the same way. —— Quite some time ago, another prominent music editor reverted without an edit summary a rather lengthy and reasoned edit of mine; my question on the editor's talk page about the reasons for his reversal remained unanswered; I haven't touched an article where this editor apparently claims ownership since. —— That's part of why a) I don't want to be involved in any "official" role in Wikipedia or any of its projects; b) I am not likely to possess the people-skills to approach Kleinzach in a way that makes him consider his position. However, I can think immediately of someone else in the project who might — I have marvelled from afar at her calm, reasoned and well-put points for a long time, not to mention her incredible talent to research the most obscure subjects. I'm sure I don't have to spell the username out. All the best, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Michael, that was a really bad edit, and I apologize for it. I will try to be more careful in future editing. Yours very truly,Opus33 (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I posted an apology here a while ago but the edit history suggests you may not have seen it. I'm re-posting just to be sure.
Yeah, I saw that. I counted the votes 3:3 (not counting the nominator), but I couldn't find any guidelines regarding a promotion to "featured sound". But frankly, I'm not all that interested any more in the whole "featured sound" business — I just can't get the the hang of their criteria and procedures. I fully agree with not having that sound in the article. Cheers, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Miles Franklin Award
I've been thinking about the layout of this page in light of our discussion regarding the new Prime Minister's Literary award. I had a look at the Pulitzer page you suggested. The problem there is that there are a number of different categories which necessitate having the winners on one page and the shortlisted works on others, or else the page would become unwieldy within a year or two.
It seems the one prize I can think of that sort of matches the MF award's problems is the Man Booker prize. That prize has winners, shortlists and longlists just like the MF award. The Booker page lists winners on the main page and nominated works (shortlists and longlists) on another. I'm coming to the view that this looks like the best way to go. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just about to log-in and I received a "new message" notification. "Strange", I thought, because it is to an IP address. Anyway, I noticed it was vandalism to Charles I. I have not edited that page and I checked the history to find that neither has the above IP address. Therefore your warning may not have reached its intended recipient. Thought you should know.88.111.116.120 (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your edit on the list of Handel's compositions page. I must admit that the use of the { { Hs |... } } code is a bit of an eye-opener for me. I'd like to do something to sort the dates on the page, but due to the way dates are entered, sorting is not that straightforward. Is there a help page somewhere on WP that explains how to use the { { Hs } } mechanism (and similar)? Cheers. HWV 258 21:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The only further help I know on {{Hs}} is at that template's page, including the further link to Help:Sorting#sorting_with_hidden_sortkey (which I find in parts quite incomprehensible). You might also get some insights by looking at the code of Köchel catalogue. It boils down to adding a sort term via {{Hs}} and add it to the column in qquestion, before the visible data; the example at Template:Hs should help. In your case, the first entry could look like this:
|1
|''[[Almira]]''
|align="right"|{{Hs|1705-01-08}}8 January 1705
Problems arise when the dates are incomplete — one could simply omit the missing parts (e.g. {{Hs|1713-06-00}} for Silla, or {{Hs|1718-00-00}} for Esther), or interpolate (e.g. {{Hs|1708-99-99}} for Dalla guerra amorosa). Alternatively, you could inspect the code of other pages which use the template to see how others have done it. Good luck. Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Now I see you have already answered this question above - though I'm a bit puzzled to see you have been duplicating the work. Isn't one list of operas enough? Anyway I'd be grateful for help with the other 20 pages (mercifully unduplicated!) if you have time. --Kleinzach00:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that two lists of operas seem redundant; in my opinion, the one in the main article should be removed, but I sense opposition, so I won't propose that. I'm willing to add sorting information to other tables, although in my personal opinion the cost/benefit ratio for tables of up to 50 rows is unsatisfactory: it takes an awful lot of work for very little added information which could easier be gleaned by eyeballing the table or using the browser's "Search on this page" facility. Larger tables require of course even more work (e.g. Köchel catalogue), but the benefit is also greater because those user-based tools don't work well enough for them.
Thanks. Yes I am getting the hang of it now (at least one Rameau column done) and see great benefits in the flexibility of the sorting arrangements. It could be useful for special research. I now understand how to fix the other tables myself (given time) but please make any technical suggestions you think worrthwhile. --Kleinzach05:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said, which other tables did you have in mind? Despite my stated opinion above, I'm certainly willing to put some time into adding sort keys into tables — just let me know, although my working rhythm is a bit irregular these days, so it might take a couple of of days (in the wider sense). Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer. I suppose there are two possibilities, depending on your inclinations, energy, access to sources etc. One might be to review all the articles in Category:Lists of operas by composer for technical weaknesses, starting with List of operas by Auber. The other would be to help with articles that lack, partially or completely, tabling, such as List of operettas by Offenbach or List of operas by Mayr. Of course you may have other preferences. (I've been doing these lists with a word processor using global search and replace to make the work less onerous. Maybe you do it the same way?)--Kleinzach01:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll attempt table formatting/improvement for some lists, although it probably won't be this week as my private & work schedules are rather tight at the moment (and the Offenbach & Mayr lists look like they need considerable time). I will have some spare time over the Christmas holidays, though. Speaking of which: Merry Christmas! (a bit prematurely, I know) Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just been doing some more work on the Offenbach . . . Merry Christmas! to you as well! (writing overlooking a suitably white-carpeted larch forest) --Kleinzach04:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I, too, prefer squeezable tables, but the Strauss list rendered with so many infelicitous line breaks that I used a few {{Nowrap}} templates to exert control; this seems to make those columns unsqueezable. This is highly unfortunate as the Wikipedia software fails to provide a horizontal scroll bar under Internet Explorer 7 (IE7) if the page is squeezed after loading; such a scrollbar is shown in IE7 if the window requires it when the page is loaded, but otherwise it's not. This is not necessarily a IE7 problem as tables on other web sites will produce a horizontal scrollbar dynamically when the page is resized. Firefox 3.0.4 doesn't have this problem. As I'm editing on a 24" screen with 1920x1200 pixels I often fail to anticipate rendering problems on lower resolutions. I will try to see whether Microsoft's Internet Explorer Developer Toolbar might be useful under these circumstances.
I managed to get the Mayr list into an acceptable shape (here) by using percentages for the column widths, but that took me several dozen preview attempts — I'll see what else I can do for the Strauss list. Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, that Developer Toolbar lets me specify the width in pixels of my browser window. However, I find it impossible to achieve a satisfactory rendering for a width of 1024 (or even fewer) pixels. I'll have another look at the Strauss list with my browser window fixed at 1280 pixels, but that might take some time. Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. There is an improved link for the Ballet portal, {{portalpar|Ballet|Ballerina-icon.png}}, if you care to use it.
I noticed the link to Portal:Ballet in the navigation template {{Ballet}} the second I clicked the "Save" button on my edit of the Irina Baronova article. Still, I think it is customary on Wikipedia to show a relevant portal at the bottom of an article using the more prominent {{Portal}} template, although it has been argued that links to portals should only go on discussion pages. In my opinion, if portals are to be of any value to Wikipedia readers, links to them should indeed be shown using the template in a consistent positition in articles. Whether the navigation template {{Ballet}} needs the link to the portal is in my opinion neither here nor there — it may be redundant in some articles (e.g. Baronova), but there are many articles which show {{Ballet}} but don't show {{Portal|Ballet}}. Does WP:BALLET have a position on the usage, placement and appearance of {{Portal|Ballet}}?
Placing two external links into columns does in my opinion not make for a better screen layout. Given the overwhelming weight of Wikipedia pages which show external links as a vertical list, I think the reader's eye is actually deceived into perceiving only one link, not noticing the second link which on screens with a reasonable resolution (1280px across) appears well to the right of the middle of the screen. My rule of thumb is to start thinking about organising lists into columns when there are more than 12 items, in other words, when one of the resulting columns will contain at least 7 items. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering how you think we should (sort) tag the 'composed but unperformed' items (premiere date column)? (There are many of them in this table.) With performed operas by date, or separately? How have you done them in the past? Also how do you code vague circa dates? Thanks. --Kleinzach01:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
On similar events in other lists I picked a sort tag which would correspond to the date of composition, with the aim of keeping the work in its position when sorted. E.g. for Grétry's Le connaisseur I would use {{Hs|1768-06-00}}. I have no firm views on this approach; it just seemd to me that this would preserve the chronology, which seemed more important to me than the unperformed attribute. Also, for neatness' sake, I like a table to have a sort term which will bring it back to its original order and "Première date" is normally the only column able to do that. Let me know if you want the unperformed works treated differently. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm certainly in agreement with that, but how do you code a sort tag for say 'ca, 1783-1785'? --Kleinzach 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. I saw one tag with {{Hs|1939-99}}. What does that do? --Kleinzach03:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The term {{Hs|1939-99}} indicates something at the end of 1939. The argument to {{Hs}} can be anything, and {{Hs}} is completely unaware of what you feed it. When it comes to sorting, a lot depends on the sort term in the first row, whether it's alpha or numeric. Something like "1803-02-15" is merely a compromise between a human-readable and a computer-sortable format. Instead of going through the elaborate creation of date-based {{Hs}} sort tags we could simply number the rows 1…n and have the same effect — until the table gets revised by adding a work or changing a date.
To your first question: Again, I would pick a term which would preserve the natural table order. E.g. in Grétry:
Looks alright to me. I hope you don't insert those sort fields by hand. As I wrote before, I have a tool which inserts date fields for complete dates automatically, leaving just partial dates to be done manually. Similarly for title and librettist sort terms (omitting (in)definitive articles and first names), a macro in my editor only requires a highlighted word and a key stroke will insert the appropriately filled {{Hs}} template. Admittedly, I have been sidetracked by a number of things recently and haven't worked on any list since 20 January, but I have not forgotten the project and will attend to remaining tasks of adding tags and re-ordering columns real soon now. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, I have been putting them in by hand. No rest for the technologically challenged . . . . Your help will be appreciated! --Kleinzach07:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
You may remember we talked about the 'voice part' column in List of operas by Mozart and whether to do similar ones for other lists. There's been a proposal to do one for the List of operas by Handel. I'd be grateful if you could have a look here. P.S. I don't think those proposing this really understand fully what is involved, re castrati etc. --Kleinzach00:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if you have any comments before I start? They are quite different from the ones I've done previously. I'll probably start by removing the French title translations. --Kleinzach01:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that is quite a list at the French Wikipedia. I suppose you want to expand the English list along those lines? I'm not sure the single table for all kinds of works and then color coding the works is such a good idea, but I'm not fanatical against that. Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering about your reaction to the colour coding. I'm in two minds about it myself. I was also wondering about the sorting. Maybe I should go ahead with it and show you again when I've done some of the basic translation? --Kleinzach03:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Making such a table sortable would of course avoid the need for two such tables (par genre & chronologique) — in my opinion the only way to go. However, subheadings in such sortable tables (Opéras / Musique vocale etc.) are not possible, which might require a column "Category" or similar. Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Making it all into one table sounds a bit scary. I hadn't thought of that and frankly I don't think I'd have the confidence (or the likely time) to take it on. I was thinking of doing the genre one first (with a subpage for the operas) and then tackling the chronological list later. I like the idea of the chronological table showing what Verdi was doing in any one period. --Kleinzach10:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
That method (starting lines with a blank character) is an extremely cheap (in terms of time spent on formatting) way of presenting an awful lot of data. I have to think how that can be re-formatted into a bullet list or even into a table. Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
There is indeed an anchor in the table using the template {{Section|experientia docet}}. Navigation works for me using Internet Explorer 7: clicking on Experientia docet will open List of Latin phrases (C-E) and place the table such that "experientia docet" is positioned at the top of the browser's window. However, it didnt't work here with Firefox 3.0.4; turns out that FF needs exactly agreeing use of case (experientia vs Experientia) when specifying an anchor as target. I have now modified the REDIRECT accordingly. Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Linking to NMA
Hello Michael, can you explain to me the method for using the NMA template to link to particular volumes of the Neue Mozart Ausgabe? I'm having trouble linking to the correct volumes at Mozart and dance (current links are incorrect). Thanks very much, Opus33 (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The basic instructions are at {{NMA}}. In this case, I obtained the volume and page numbers for the scores and the critical reports by a) expanding the list for "Serie IV Orchesterwerke" at NMA; b) opening the scores and critical reports for numbers 62 & 63 (Tänze · Band 1 & 2); c) navigating to their respective title page: the page number is then shown in the browser's address box. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
If we move the PM's non-fiction Literary Award into the fiction table then we have to do the same for all the state based awards in order to make the page consistent. I thought of that approach when I first created these pages and decided it would just make the lists too unweildy - better to have the fiction awards and the non-fiction awards together in their separate tables. I'll be putting the PM non-fiction award back in the non-fiction table.
The order of the awards was alphabetical and it was just co-incidence that all non-state based awards were listed first. However, I can see having the PM's award listed between two states might be confusing and am willing to list it before the states in both tables. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've just seen your improvements to this, however I am wondering if the basic template is still too large - functioning more as a picture frame than a navbox. What do you think? I tried to modify it myself before but couldn't work the technicalities. --Kleinzach08:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the image (in a preview) and the overall size of an uncollapsed "Operas" section is still quite overwhelming —there are just too many of them — so I didn't proceed. I don't know what can be done about it.
Generally, I'm not too keen on having images in these opera navigation boxes, but others seem to like them and most templates now have them. Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I can ask your advice about another intractable technical problem — the Classical composers timeline — discussed from time to time here? Can you think of any way we can make this work visually? --Kleinzach23:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
First let me say that I admire the development of a tool like <timeline>; I dip me hat to Erik Zachte (talk·contribs).
Second, reading Talk:Classical music, it seems to me it's much less of a technical problem than a content dispute: who's on it and who's not. I find myself much in agreement with many contributors there regarding the obscurity of some on that list, and some of the suggestions for names to be added seem even more obscure to me.
Third, it seems to be much ado about nothing: this template is used exactly once (Classical music), albeit in a central article.
This graph will always be controversial because it seems to assume some kind of canon, which will, in my opinion, always be better when presented with authority instead of by consensus. Of course, there is no such thing as authority in Wikipedia, and a "democratic" list is much less convincing.
Thanks for the long answer. As with some other formatting issues in the past, I'm wondering whether we are seeing the same thing. On Safari or Firefox (Mac) I'm looking at a graphic that's considerably wider than the page with small broken text that's hard and sometimes impossible to read, on top of blocks of unusually (for WP) dark colour. The timelines of the individual composers are extremely compressed etc etc. So, my question is: are you seeing something much more coherent?
I'm not sure I get this. Aren't the sites above for displaying Mac-type pages on Windows? What could I use to see the diagram as you see it? --Kleinzach12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought those web sites allow you to specify a browser/operating system of your choice, and they then take an image of a target web page and present that image to you. That way, a Safari/Mac user can see what a page would look like when seen by IE7/Win-XP. Anyway, I saved the Wikipedia PNG representation of the template, took a screen shot of my browser and produced a PDF file of the article; all are on their way to your e-mail inbox (the German city which rhymes with "Kleinzach"). Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The monarch's homosexuality is speculative. The plot summary in the article doesn't mention any lesbian leanings, quite the opposite. The one scene where Christina kisses the lady-in-waiting is a rather weak point on which to hang the categorisation of the whole film. Finally, the sexuality of the lead actress, which is also somewhat speculative, has nothing to do with the categorisation of the film. Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I made some rather large changes to the article (nominated it for a GA), and I find it easier to make several small changes than one large one, which is why I made so many edits. Although I agree that I should be using the preview button more often. Cheers, tempodivalse[☎]02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
re: "removing infobox parameters no longer used"
There was mostly a one person venture to have the consensus driven change undone, but after a lot of discussion, that editor agreed. The next point that was brought up by someone was having a bot remove all of the content from the awards box, which seemed to be not just a little excessive. One of the most salient points in the discussion was that in the higher profile articles, anyway, most of the awards that were included in the infobox are also covered in more than one place within the article already, from the filmography to the endless lists of succession boxes, to templates, to the main body of the articles. In most cases in the articles I've dealt with, which come from the top priority and high priority lists from the assessment from WP:ACTOR (about 300 articles), those are completely covered. In other cases, there may be some that aren't. However, one of the reasons I have been leaving a very clear edit summary was so that anyone can find it in the article history, should that data need to be retrieved. There are several WP:ACTOR members and others who have been removing the information when it was discovered. However, if you would like for me to address Jeremy Irons and transfer that content to the filmography, please let me know and I will do so right away. Thanks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose I need to remove that note - I've begun responding on the other person's talk page. One of the points that was made, and I believe was an alternate proposal, was to remove the Golden Raspberry Awards and the awards listed under "Other awards" in the infobox. I don't think it was an objection to them per se, but more because they overwhelmed article style on articles with a lot of them. It wasn't so much that the minor awards (critics, film festivals, etc.) weren't important as such, but they were certainly less so than an Academy Award, BAFTA Award and the like. I don't have the sense that multiple lists of awards is endorsed, but as I said, I'd be glad to transfer them to the filmography. I know that some editors have worked on adding them there already. Thanks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Michael, I'm working on a new list. It's complex and I'd be grateful for your general reaction. I'm doing citations in the way Brian did with the Wagner list, but I have many identical Oxford refs. Do you know how to avoid the repetitions? See here. Thanks. --Kleinzach02:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
References can be named and they can then be used multiple times. One way of doing that is to
define the name once: fact<ref name=nnn>the reference</ref> which renders as "fact[1]";
use that name again: another fact<ref name=nnn /> which renders as "another fact[1]".
The subsequent use of <references /> (or {{Reflist}}) will renders as:
Note that the definition of a reference's name does not have to precede its use. For the gory details see Help:Footnotes (where most of the code examples are not quite HTML standard compliant) and even gorier at Wikipedia:Footnotes.
That's terrific. Thanks. I've moved it over to my main page. Any other thoughts? My intention is to link all the lists to this one when it is complete and up as an article. --Kleinzach23:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The genres/terminology thing is a bit tricky. It's a potential problem, but not one that has actually surfaced yet. I think I'd prefer to leave it for the time being and concentrate on the table itself. --Kleinzach12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Michael Bednarek. You have new messages at Anomie's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for this. Looks good but can we make all the columns range left? Having one ranging right makes me feel a little seasick . . . Also I see you are tight-coding but removing all the letter spaces around entries. Is there any special advantage in this? The reason I use them is simply so I can see the text easier. I find tight coding everything makes in much more difficult to locate text when it needs needs correcting. Does it affect the layout in some way I haven't noticed? Thanks. --Kleinzach08:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Left-align for date column: I wasn't so sure about this myself; I noticed that a lot of tables elsewhere use this for date columns, so I thought I try it, but I'm happy to take that out again.
Tight-coding: I admit the editing of such a page can be a bit challenging, but the coding without any spaces makes my tools, especially WTDtHs (which inserts the date sort tags) and the macros I use in my text editor to create sort tags for titles and librettists work much more reliably. If your text editor can do macros you might consider creating one which replaces every || with Δ||Δ (where Δ represents a space) before you edit the code. Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. I understand. I'm using global search and replace routines on my (Nisus) word processor to construct the tables, which seems quite fast without using macros which I'd find challenging. --Kleinzach10:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Michael, Thanks for fixing that. The new user who created the articles on Koukias' operas had pasted it in each article individually rather than making a template.[2] When I made it into a template, I assumed she had copied all the parameters and mark-up correctly. I'll check more closely next time . Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
ABC TV
Hi Michael—I noticed your edit summary that mentioned WP:OVERLINKING. Can I say that the collection of WP's ABC articles do need monitoring for overlinking. Let me know if you need assistance! Tony(talk)15:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that an edit of ABC Television introduced a single link to ABC3 (which until then I didn't know existed). ABC3 in that article was previously linked to a section within that article (#Other). So I changed those intra-article links to normal wikilinks to ABC3. At that point I knew that there were several such links in the article, but as this was done shortly after midnight, I didn't feel like evaluating it for overlinking (how many links exactly? how far are they apart?), so I flagged possible overlinking in the edit summary. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Genres
The List of opera genres is now up. Please let me know if you have any general comments. I've been wondering about how to link to items in the list. Do you know how to do this? For example, there is a 'Zauberoper' called 'Die Wunderlampe' listed in Wenzel Müller. How can I link 'Zauberoper' in that article to 'Zauberoper' in the List of opera genres? Any ideas? Many of the genres are not substantial enough to justify individual articles, but it would be good to link them to the list. --Kleinzach04:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The answer is {{Section}}. Wherever you put it, it will act like a heading and thus be addressable via "pagename#section". So, if you put {{Section|Zauberoper}} in front of that word in the table, you can then reference it from where "Zauberoper" occurs in the Wenzel Müller article using the syntax: [[List of opera genres#Zauberoper|Zauberoper]]. This is a good method if the scope of the targets is limited, esoteric. If however the target is of a wider interest, and I suggest Zauberoper would be, then you could create a new page Zauberoper as a REDIRECT to that target.
This mechanism is used in List of Latin phrases (A–B) etc. All entries which don't have articles and are blue linked have the template "Section" with their entry; unfortunately, only very few REDIRECts use them, most simply link to the particular list. One that does do deep linking is Ex Africa semper aliquid novi (you might find that the target of this REDIRECT appears just off the top of your browser window and you have to scroll up by a small amount; I suspect this can be fixed by a more judicious placement of the "Section" template, which is placed after the text in the Latin list — that's why I suggested above to place it before the term.) Let me know if this explanation is unclear. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Very helpful. I get your point about using redirects, which seem to have various advantages over the more complicated direct coding. I have put {{Section}} tags on all the non-article entries in the List of opera genres. (Please let me know if I have done anything wrong.) --Kleinzach03:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Sometime soon I might have a go at adding sorting tags for the dates, as suggested, and clean up some links to disambiguation pages and table code infelicities. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think this may prove to be the most significant article I've done on opera. (Genre (and genre cats) have been a problem since I started here.) I'm surprised there are already so many links to the list. Nevertheless I'm a bit apprehensive about it being hacked . . . I really hope no-one recommends it for GA/FA!
I was rather thinking about the List of opera genres itself: it contains cutrently 4 links to disambiguation pages which should be fixed" Robert le diable, Oscar Straus, Classical mythology, and Tasso. Robert le diable could be changed at the disambiguation page by modifying that to a REDIRECT and a hat note at the opera article, but it's probably less contentious to just use Robert le diable (opera). "Oscar Straus" is a straightforward change to Oscar Straus (composer). "Classical mythology" is a problem; maybe it should be left as a disambiguation target. "Tasso" should be changed to Torquato Tasso. I might give these a go tomorrow. And while I'm at it, I might also avoid some REDIRECTs for some names, like "Kurt Weil" which redirects to "Kurt Weill" and similar cases.:-)
I don't know what I meant by "table code infelicities" — it must have been in another table.
There's nothing you can do about Burla and Posse; you have to use the syntax [[List of opera genres#Burla]] to avoid them. Bedtime now.
It's entirely possible that my 40-year-old memories of High School Latin are not perfect, but I can still "see" the image of the Latin master flourishing his gown (in a similar manner to the way Dracula and his cape are often portayed) and exhorting that the boarders (plural) were actually going on Exeunt, not Exeat(!) Perhaps it was his Welsh accent and he was actually saying Exeant? Perhaps my memory of his gestures are better than my memory of his pronunciation? Perhaps I need to dig out my "real" Latin dictionary? (My Collins Latin Gem dictionary (first published 1957, printed in Great Britain) is surprisingly un-helpful on the matter.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
As the Roman senator said: I! (go!) — Or look at this web page. Also: singular exeat -> plural exeant makes intuitively more sense than exeunt — it's not that irregular. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Certainly not as "irregular" as my Latin master was, or as my memory is! I have more confidence in your confidence than I have in my memory. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Michael Bednarek. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
In answer to your question. I believe we have always sorted on titles: Mr, Signor, M etc. Grove, Oxford etc do this so I think there's no problem. I've taken the sort tag off Don Quichotte. --Kleinzach23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The Paris Foire St Germain, circa 1763, after the fire of 1762.
Nicolet's theatre at the Foire St Laurent, circa 1786.
In the early 18th century, the Théâtre de la foire - a collective name for the theatres at the annual fairs at St Germain, St Laurent (see illustration below) and later, St Ovide - offered performances with both music and spoken dialogue. First called comédie en vaudeville, these developed into the opéra comique. The Théâtre de la foire appeared in London in the 1720s, to be imitated in the form of the English ballad opera, which in turn stimulated the creation of the German Singspiel.
Is it possible to put two pictures in one box? I've added two illustrations, but I've had some problems with them. Ideally I'd like to combine both pictures in one box with one caption. Any ideas? Maybe you can think of a better solution? Thanks. --Kleinzach01:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
One below the other, or side-by-side? If the former: the two images have a caption each now; above, you ask for one caption — which?
One below the other. What I meant was that I thought it would be better to have the extended caption referring equally to both pics in a single box. Maybe difficult? (It would be easy in a print publication.) I had a look at some of the relevant (or not so relevant) WP docs but couldn't find anything about grouping pictures to a single caption. The Théâtre de la foire, like many others, lacks information (which does exist on the French page) but i don't really want to get distracted from the main article. There are lots of other minimal articles on theatres. . . . --Kleinzach09:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The simplest way is as shown here. The first image is shown without the parameters |thumb and any caption but with the parameter |right; that makes it appear without a frame. Only the caption of the second image is then used. Does that help? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I wonder if people will notice the missing frame? I do, but maybe the average reader won't? I'll put it on the article and see if I get any reactions. Perhaps it will get attacked by a style bot? (I've just had this situation with Albert Vanloo.) --Kleinzach13:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no style rule against non-framed images. Some accessibility guideline somewhere specifies that images should have an "alt"-text, but we can worry about that later. The matter of section headers not in sequence at Albert Vanloo is a different matter; whole armies of bots and human editors who have nothing better to do dedicate serious time to fixing those — there is even a page somewhere which lists all offending articles (see also: WP:HEAD). I can see why it's done that way in this case, but you could get around the style police by using a different emphasising mechanism, the semicolon which will simply bold that entry; as side effect is that that entry will not find its way into the table of contents, which in this case might be a good thing. Here's an example:
Thanks. I've used 'triple apostrophe' bold but your method is probable more elegant. I'll remember it. (Did you see my talk page? The whole thing seems to be spurious as the MoS doesn't apparently rule on the omission of level 3 (or any other) headings anyway.) --Kleinzach14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Whenever I edit an article for more substantial reasons, I usually replace the triple apostrophe style with the semicolon — one of my nerdish habits. As to section header sequence: I remember a very long and heated discussion about it on the German Wikipedia (and I'm not going to look it up this time), where the formalist argument won. I suspect a similar discussion might have occurred here as well, and I also suspect the same result. The bots' argument: "but a bot just looks at the formal aspects and fixes them" blows my mind every time. I had to fight them several time about interwiki links; there are a number of articles which need two of those because a term in one language has two related meanings in another, eg de:Alt (Stimmlage) needs links to Alto and Contralto. "But that will confuse the bots" I heard. My response "and that's why bots are unsuitable for removing interwiki links" met with pure incomprehension. 'Nough ranting, bed time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Amen to all that. The 'formalist' position here amounts to a complete denial of typography - it'll just produce ugly pages. --Kleinzach00:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've found I can put two thumbnail pictures in one box using {{Quote box2}}, see User:Kleinzach/Lists of operas - but not how to insert the long caption at the bottom of the outer box. Any ideas? Or am I attempting the impossible here? --Kleinzach23:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That's great. I've used it. I might tone down the blanched almond slightly but we're very close to a solution. Thanks. --Kleinzach07:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Weird scrolling
Hi Michael,
You might recall the discussion at WP:VPT about IE 8 and weird scrolling behavior. Well I got some info from Microsoft including a fix/explanation (of sorts), and have written an update here. Astronaut (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
a) Please respond to my questions where I asked them. b) Please sign your messages; the instructions are just above the edit box.
I quoted your addition to the article verbatim, so I don't know what your remark —("R" rather than "r" indicates its[sic] a meta-term.— what happened to the closing parenthesis? is aiming at, nor do I understand "meta-term" in this context. Here's what I wrote on your talk page:
c) The URL you provided (http://http://www.australianmusiccentre.com.au/artists is wrong. d) The term is "Represented Artist". When you had all that information, why didn't you just add the proper reference to the article as I suggested? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I see you've been looking at this one. Do you have any ideas about how to table Op. numbers that have multiple items (such as songs)? We haven't had one like this before. --Kleinzach07:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking at that list for quite some time and I couldn't figure out a way of representing it as a table until now, and it turns out to be surprisingly simple. At this point, I'm not sure whether to allow sorting of the "Work" column, whether to place the opus numbers at the top of their cells when there are multiple items as demonstrated below for op. 10, and whether to right-align the opus numbers as demonstrated for opp. 1–11 below; the latter requires the most amount of wiki code.
Visually that's good. The only problem is sorting the works info. What about adding a simple genre column (piano, Lieder, orchestral etc.) in between the other two, making that sortable, and then making the Works column itself unsortable? --Kleinzach11:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Second draft with attempt at genres above. Any suggestions about the top- and right-alignments? I think the opus numbers have to be top-aligned, but I'm undecided on their right-alignment. Also: what to do about the "Other works" and "Arrangements"? At the moment I tend towards leaving them as they are. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Good. Re horizontal alignment, I really think it's better to have all the columns aligned right. I'm less sure about the verticals. Maybe top alignment like Op 10 is better, as you say. Not sure I understand your question about "Other works" and "Arrangements"? Why are they a problem? P.S. Lots of bad karma around now. Shoemaker quit WP (again). ArbCom are being attacked on multiple issues. Composers are having a scrap with Biog project etc. --Kleinzach13:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
"Re horizontal alignment, I really think it's better to have all the columns aligned right." — "all the columns aligned right"?
Ah. Yes. I think you are right. Best left where they are, especially as they probably need checking against a good list (perhaps the Boosey and Hawkes). --Kleinzach14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Having stared at this table for some time now, I think it ought to have a column "Year"; I can fill in the obvious ones and the rest can be done later. What do you think? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes absolutely. That will also make it easier to include "Other works" and "Arrangements" later. But is it composition or performance year? --Kleinzach07:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the usual practice to use the year of 1st performance, at least unless that year is much later than the year of composition? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. That works fine with operas and probably big symphonic works, but piano music and Lieder? Does the information exist? --Kleinzach08:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I took preliminary years from this site, except for those with Wikipedia articles. I might check some against this site which has quite detailed information, although unfortunately only in a by-search-result fashion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
BTW I've just realized there are some major items in 'Other works' — like the Four Last Songs and Metamorphosen. Do you have any idea why they don't have numbers? --Kleinzach10:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I have now researched the matter of opus numbers and other catalogues for the works of Richard Strauss, and I wish I had done this at the outset instead of blindly converting the existing list of opus numbers to a table. I now believe the Franz Trenner Verzeichnis (TrV) is the most complete list, and I should have aimed for a concordance list between opus numbers, another numbering system by von Asow, the Asow verzeichnis (AV), and the TrV. In the meantime, I have converted the remaining compositions to a table with AV and TrV numbers. The order of the original list was alphabetical, and so is now that table. There are also currently some questions marks where I couldn't identify a title. In the medium term, I intend to redo the whole thing as indicated above, presented by TrV number in its natural order. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association
The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.
If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here
— so I didn't proceed. I don't know what can be done about it.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
_2){kind=link}
