Jump to content

User talk:Michael Bednarek: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 102: Line 102:
Thank you for your understanding, all the best, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white">&nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 07:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding, all the best, <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background:#00008B;color:white">&nbsp;Chzz&nbsp;</span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B;background-color:yellow;">&nbsp;►&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 07:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
*(Placing my reply on the talk page of three editors) A closer look will reveal that there are no edit wars taking place on this article (between these three editors). An additional review will show that there has been discussion on the article with two editors working ''together'' with the third new editor to corporately bring the article into compliance. Working with these other editors has actually been a ''positive'' experience in community editing. Nothing problematic here, but appropriate, effective, and good faith edits on the part of ''all editors'' involved. Thanks again, <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">[[User:Cindamuse|Cind.]]</font><font color="purple" face="Tahoma">[[User talk:Cindamuse#top|amuse]]</font></b> 08:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
*(Placing my reply on the talk page of three editors) A closer look will reveal that there are no edit wars taking place on this article (between these three editors). An additional review will show that there has been discussion on the article with two editors working ''together'' with the third new editor to corporately bring the article into compliance. Working with these other editors has actually been a ''positive'' experience in community editing. Nothing problematic here, but appropriate, effective, and good faith edits on the part of ''all editors'' involved. Thanks again, <b><font color="navy" face="Tahoma">[[User:Cindamuse|Cind.]]</font><font color="purple" face="Tahoma">[[User talk:Cindamuse#top|amuse]]</font></b> 08:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

==Sutherland==
I have rv the "Technique" paragraph because the Voice section is full of hagiographic quote, but she was renowed for her flawless technique--except her diction and sometimes her intonation, it was perfect. So, I want to reintroduce this paragraph. [[User:SemiramideSutherland|SemiramideSutherland]] ([[User talk:SemiramideSutherland|talk]]) 07:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:36, 1 May 2011

Piero

Here is another German challenge + my first approach of a translation, opera title (Jens Joneleit): Piero – Ende der Nacht. Hörstück für ein Theater der wandernden Gedanken und Klänge (Piero – End of the Night. Aural piece for a theater of wandering thoughts and sounds). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO perfect. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - Did you know that an opera on Borussia Dortmund is in the planning? My brother told me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of operas by Auber/sort problem

If you have a moment could you look at List of operas by Auber. Robert.Allen has been doing some useful work on it, clarifying theatres etc. He decided quite reasonably to remove Paris (because almost all the operas were done there) but that has messed up the sorting in some strange way. I also have reservations about multiple linking (of Eugene Scribe, Opéra-Comique etc.) which I think goes against a common sense interpretation of the style guides. Thanks. --Kleinzach 22:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This also involves the Adam list, see Talk:List of operas by Adam. --Kleinzach 04:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I have sorted it out (pun intended). Thanks for your patience and help! ;-) --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take it, it's all good now? If not, let me know. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello Michael Bednarek, you are approaching 3RR on Franz Lehár on Anton Lehár and on Lehár (surname). Please review the policy. Note that if you should violate the three revert rule WP:3RR, you may be blocked for that.--Nmate (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yoursef with the policy you quote and the nature of my reverts. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section vs anchor tags

Someone has gone through the List of opera genres changing section tags to anchor tags, see [1]. Does this matter? Does it still function the same way? Thanks. --Kleinzach 00:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. {{Section}} is just a simpler version of {{Anchor}}; Anchor takes up to 10 parameters to set alternative anchors (e.g. {{Anchor|Azione teatrale|Azione scenica|Componimento da camera|Componimento drammatico|Componimento pastorale}} would create five anchors in the same spot), Section takes only one. Why Anchor used with one parameter should be preferrable to Section escapes me. The crusades some people choose ... -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reassurance! --Kleinzach 05:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Gheorghiu

I wonder if you might have time to switch some columns on Angela_Gheorghiu#Recordings? As you will see the date column would probably be better on the left. Thanks. --Kleinzach 05:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much better now. --Kleinzach 02:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This newly created article has a portrait of the composer, not previously used on Wikipedia as far as I am aware, that has some problems. The thumbnail does not display correctly (differently with different browsers), and even the index image on Wikimedia Commons is problematic, though the full-sized image looks fine. You have worked some magic previously on problematic images from this same upload batch. Would you have a look and see if anything can be done to correct this problem?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done File:Stockhausen Studio (1996).jpg for Montag, as well as File:Stockhausen March 2004.jpg and File:St. März 2005.jpg -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marvellous! Thank you! (I really must learn more about how to deal with graphics.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and restored the maintenance tag calling for improved references on the above mentioned articles. I have spoken with the editor, resulting in content removal of the original research. (I disagreed with the essay-like description.) That said, the article needs significant improvement in referencing. The article is only supported by one review, one press release, and four primary sources. Additionally, there are unsourced statements in the article. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse 14:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, the article does need reliable sources. When I looked at the Template:Multiple issues, I was distracted by "essay-like" and "original research" which I didn't find applicable. I should have paid more attention to the quality of the sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bednarek, hey, just a "thanks" for taking the trouble to look into this (after I posted on the project talks). I remain neutral on the issue - I'm just pleased you took the trouble to investigate and comment. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  09:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of theatres and entertainment venues in Paris

I'm now working on the List of theatres and entertainment venues in Paris, a list of present-day theatres. It presents some special difficulties with sorting. First of all there are the arrondissments. I wonder if there is an easy way of getting them in order? There are also the theatre names. I'm inclined to think the easiest way — both for us and for the reader — would be to leave it as it is and just put in sort tags for names with definite articles (to avoid sorting on 'Le' and 'Les'). What do you think? Thanks. --Kleinzach 03:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bien sûr, pas de problème. I agree regarding the sorting of the handful of theatre names with "Le, La, Les". The arrondissements all need a numeric sort term to make them sort properly; do you want them linked to their articles (all in Category:Arrondissements of Paris)? The street address would have to be sorted by the street's main name, omitting the house number and signifier (rue, boulevard, etc.) right? Do you want them to be linked to their English articles (some in Category:Streets in Paris), and if not available, to their French articles? Should the columns "Present use" and "Notes" be made unsortable? You also mentioned this table on your page User:Kleinzach/Lists of operas; adding an opening date column is no problem; do you still want to add columns for other names? (The "Use" columns seems already to be implemented.) In which order do you want the columns? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all the right questions! Obviously this is a work in progress. I've been adding the columns one by one when I have the data. Glad you agree about theatre name sorting. Ideally linking the streets (omitting numbers) and arrondissements to article would be good . . . Is it normal to omit rue, boulevard, etc.? If so would that contradict the theatre name sort? (French sorting can get horribly complicated and confusing for the reader, who will not understand the rules.) 'Present use' should be sortable as that will enable to reader to select opera, dance or whatever. 'Notes' are really a temporary, holding column. Maybe best to make it unsortable? Can we address the other questions later as trying to get everything decided in one go is difficult. --Kleinzach 10:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help so far. One future problem we'll encounter is the 'former names' info. It's amazing how often these names changed. I don't know whether there is an elegant solution to displaying them? Small type? Footnotes. Any ideas welcome. --Kleinzach 02:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting them into the "Notes" column seems the best solution so far. I have no sensible suggestion if you plan on adding more columns; small type only goes so far, and footnotes are difficult to follow. There is a way of collapsing parts of a table cell, displaying it only by pressing a "show" button, but that makes it impossible to search the page text for a former name and presents accessability problems for screen readers. For some data sets, a list may be more appropriate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which implies a separate page to handle it. The sortability of the present page seems worthwhile to me. I guess it just depends on how much information we can usefully pack into it. For the time being I'll just fill out use/capacity and start date columns (I can do these myself on my word processor). Thanks. --Kleinzach 10:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to add a blank column and place it your your userspace? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A single column? No, I don't think I'd be able to use that . . . I usually either work in the word processor or on the article itself. --Kleinzach 12:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misread "and start date columns" in the singular (see below about selective blindness). Anyway, I've got macros in my text editor which can add Wikipedia code for empty columns. Le me know if you want me to do that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, actually I've now added the columns. (I do them primitively with search and replace . . .) Fortunately they seem to sort OK. I've added an explanation to the lead. I'd be grateful if you can spot anomalies, since obviously this list is a one-off and quite complex. You will see how I treated 'second' halls. At the moment we are sorting on the number of seats in the 'first' hall. Actually, I think that isn't a problem. The content is time-consuming to collect. If you are thinking of adopting some theatres and filling in some blanks, please don't hesitate! --Kleinzach 10:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second

Hi there,
"Avoid referring to an artist's second album or single" - the preferred word is already in the guidelines, so the second sentence is unnecessary.
Thanks,
Bouncehoper (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I reverted my edit. I don't understand why I didn't see those words in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music). My only defence is that I was distracted by the previous edits which removed the sentence altogether, but my wife can explain my attacks of selective blindness much better. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, no problem. I think we all have selective blindness at times!
Bouncehoper (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation

Hi - I just rollbacked (rolledback?) La Bohème (Leoncavallo) to the correct capitalisation and was going to add a note to the miscreant's page when I saw that you'd already done so. I should have checked his/her User contributions first. Sorry about that. (I forsee yet more fruitless discussion of the matter, however.) Best. --GuillaumeTell 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Italic title without brackets

Hi Michael, How does one italicize a title such as Lucia di Lammermoor discography using DISPLAYTITLE? (I'm assuming Template:Italic title will not work for this type of title.) Robert.Allen (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DISPLAYTITLE explains the limited ways how an article's title can be manipulated with the magic word {{DISPLAYTITLE:…}}. In this case, the code is {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Lucia di Lammermoor'' discography}}, which I added to that article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obediently I tried that trick on a Bach cantata {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Am Abend aber desselbigen Sabbats'' BWV 42}} but seem to have overlooked something, it looks as before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(A comma was overlooked. The text of the article's title and what's used in {{DISPLAYTITLE:…}} must be identical, only formatting is allowed. For details, see WP:DISPLAYTITLE. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC) )[reply]
I see! Should we start the discussion again, then? Because that comma doesn't really belong there, it is not part of the title and only there to separate the title from the BWV#. Is there a way to do the same trick in the text? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The comma does belong there to separate the BWV from the title; it (the comma) is not italicised in the article's title nor in its text. What trick do you want to apply in the text? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict:) I never thanked you for all the links in the Liturgical functions! - Back to the comma: if the italic shows where the title ends and the number begins we don't need the comma in the article name. I observed a template for handling names of ships with partly italic, partly not. Some cantatas don't even have that comma, s. BWV 172, the ones with a title ending in "!" or "?"ending. My question: should we treat them all the same, without the comma? Certainly not if we have to code "''[[Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen, BWV 66|Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen]]'' BWV 66" to see Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen BWV 66. Dreaming of a template which you have to feed only with the number and the full thing appears, including a link ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the title, italicised or not, should conform to normal standards which require that an opus number be set off by a comma. The special case of titles ending in a punctuation mark is a very special case indeed, and the current practice of omitting the comma there seems sensible. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, thanks! I had tried this, but I must have typed something wrong, because it didn't show up properly in Preview, so I didn't save the change. I just added it to Ariadne auf Naxos discography, and it worked, so I think I'm comfortable with it now. It's really fairly straightforward. Thanks again for the all the help. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. {{Jasmine Sagginario (born September}} (edits changing it both ways)

This is just a quick, friendly note to 3 people who've recently edited that specific portion - Djc wi, Michael Bednarek and Cindamuse

That article has, recently, been problematic - bordering on edit-war. (Sorry, some of you will already realise that - but I'm just being neutral in commenting here),

Therefore, please exercise great caution in editing and reverting - and if there are any problems at all, please discuss them on Talk:Jasmine (American singer) - especially before repeating edits.

I remain neutral and uninvolved; I'm just trying to avoid trouble - particularly, trying to avoid a need to 'protect' the article from editing.

Thank you for your understanding, all the best,  Chzz  ►  07:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Placing my reply on the talk page of three editors) A closer look will reveal that there are no edit wars taking place on this article (between these three editors). An additional review will show that there has been discussion on the article with two editors working together with the third new editor to corporately bring the article into compliance. Working with these other editors has actually been a positive experience in community editing. Nothing problematic here, but appropriate, effective, and good faith edits on the part of all editors involved. Thanks again, Cind.amuse 08:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sutherland

I have rv the "Technique" paragraph because the Voice section is full of hagiographic quote, but she was renowed for her flawless technique--except her diction and sometimes her intonation, it was perfect. So, I want to reintroduce this paragraph. SemiramideSutherland (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]