User talk:Michael Bednarek

NBA

Hi Michael, the Neue Bach-Ausgabe comes in German with "historisch-kritisch", how would that be said in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Template:NMA calls it only "critical", but "historical-critical edition" finds that usage plenty of times. (In our household, NBA is more likely to refer to NBA.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, helpful again. I noticed your household link before, that's why I wrote it as I did, smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I got some more paragraphs from de to en NBA (Bach), realizing that I don't know English terms for such common words as Entstehungsgeschichte, Gesamtausgabe, Notenband, Lebensaufgabe ... please have a look, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have found adequate terms for those words; I can only suggest two alternatives:

• "Notenband": instead of "volume of sheet music" (as you already use it), it could possibly be simplified to "music volumes".
• "Lebensaufgabe": Instead of "[Neumann and Dürr] made the new edition their project for life", the phrase "… made the new edition their life's project" seems slightly more idiomatic to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Taken, I enjoy this! btw Alfred Dürr was accepted for DYK overnight, I wanted NBA for a background. Improvements for the editor welcome, of course, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

EAR - listening to your problems.

A member of the WP:EAR team has addressed your enquiry at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Vienna New Year's Concert and the Anschluss. If the issues/problems persist, please make use of one of the WP:dispute resolution departments.--Kudpung (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bach-Archiv Leipzig

de:Bach-Archiv has a Logo with Leipzig in the name. I would like to see that in Bach-Archiv Leipzig, possible? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

See File:Bach-Archiv Logo.svg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! What do you think about the name? In a way there is only this one, like one Thomanerchor, but as they carry Leipzig in their logo I took it as par of the name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what they call themselves, so I can't see a problem whit that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Unwanted parameters on OP banner

Before I ask Antandrus to make the changes to the OP banner, I just wanted to check that this is what he needs to do

Under the line:

|MAIN_CAT = WikiProject Opera articles

Remove:

|attention={{{attention|}}}

|infobox={{{needs-infobox|}}}

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think should be done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Grychtolik

Thanks for your support! Following up, is there a term for Huldigungskantate, and is Trauermusik Funeral music or something else, in general and specifically in Köthener Trauermusik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would indeed translate Trauermusik as "Funeral Music", or, depending on the work, "Mourning Music", but the term is often left untranslated in English usage – see Maurerische Trauermusik, Trauermusik, or these works.

Huldigungskantate is a bit more difficult; "cantata of homage" or "homage cantata" (note the English spelling, different to the French/German spelling de:Hommage) – see this Pachelbel catalogue – is the only thing I can think of. H. C. Robbins Landon uses "allegiance cantata". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, working on it, BWV 210a, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Homage: O angenehme Melodei, BWV 210a and O holder Tag, erwünschte Zeit, BWV 210, translating to "O pleasing melody" and "O lovely day, o hoped-for time", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey Robertson refs

Hi Michael, I noticed you reverted my edit. The reason I removed the references was because just one would be sufficient to meet WP:V - we aren't supposed to be a collection of newspaper articles and I noticed that the only edits Siddell (talk · contribs) made were dumping references to every newspaper article related to Rick Gibson (see that article for the real mess). I haven't reverted you, but if my edit now makes sense, can you consider a self revert? Thanks. P.S. If you're interested in the article, I'm contemplating putting some work into it next week, you're welcome to help. SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Leere Saite

Such a simple term, but I don't know it, would be nice for BWV 83, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to leere Saite at BWV 83, but the normal English term is open string. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, copied, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Genügsamkeit

Please give me more feeling for language, the keyword of BWV 144 is Genügsamkeit, which I see translated to both contentedness (never heard before, matching syllables) and contentment. Difference? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Both are probably correct, and I can't tell the difference. Both seem to reflect more the idea of Zufriedenheit, although my Langenscheidt shows Genügsamkeit for "contentment". The aspect of Genügsamkeit that's missing from both these English words is "frugality" or even "asceticism". I suspect, "contentedness" will have to do. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Would you mind going a step further and implement the attitude "let it be enough and don't complain if someone else seems to have more or to be happier" to a better translation of the Dürr "sich mit seinem Los zufrieden geben und in Gottes Willen schicken" than my rough approach. I guess that neither fate nor destiny match "Los" in a Christian sense, especially not of 1724. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"fate" or "destiny" would be OK, but "to be content with one's lot" for "sich mit seinem Los zufrieden geben" is perfectly idiomatic (see wikt:lot#Noun #6 & #8). "Submit to God's will" would probably work for "sich in Gottes Willen schicken". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the idiomatic one, thanks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh no there wasn't

Hi Michael. With the greatest respect, no, there wasn't, but thank you for looking out the WA schedule. Another editor has now pulled us all back to the present time. :) I would imagine that this service will be an impressive event. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh Four

Thanks for Musiktheater im Revier! Title of the musical, who translated that? Teach me more language: will that "Oh" be understood as the number, not an exclamation as in "Oh no"? And is "outdribbles" as doppeldeutig as "kommt vorbei"? Perhaps a bit of explanation might help readers not familiar with Schalke nullvier. (I tried a bit) Also: if nullvier is not capital, why Oh Four? (back to "op.") --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I came across this little gem rather late in my preparation for the article, and there (Der Spiegel) it was spelled that way; see also this & a further link there. I now realise that that was possibly not a good idea – Wikipedia usually avoids idiosyncratic original spellings in favour of the more conventional one; maybe it should be spelled "Nullvier". And the English translation (mine) would probably be better as "Nought Four" or even as the digits 0 4 – Nobody… – I have to ask my son who's a Schalke fan (he never fails to go Auf Schalke when he's in Germany) and whose idiomatic sense of English is naturally much better than mine. He might also have an answer for the really difficult Keiner kommt an Gott vorbei, with its subtle double meaning (the phrase originates with Reinhard "Stan" Libuda, as you can see on the German Wikipedia. I'm not sufficiently acquainted with English religious language to know whether there is a phrase vaguely approximating this German term. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Smiling ... I like that little gem, tried to arrange the line to explain what Schalke 04 is a bit sooner, and dropped the italics from the translation, just as in the Bach cantatas. Perhaps a second translation would help? But I would not change "nullvier" - a title is a title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Squeeze?

Hi, Michael. I was just curious. You put "squeeze" on the discussion page of Maestro Alex Gregory, and I was wondering what that means? :) Lost Josephine Minor (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Normal practice on talk pages is to add one's comment to the bottom of the discussion. I wanted my comment to appear directly beneath yours – to squeeze it in. To indicate the non-standard placement of my comment, I used "(squeeze)". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Musiktheater im Revier

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't resists your little gem, the Heimspiel now featured on Portal:Germany. Borussia - Schalke 0:0, you probably know, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Alexander

Hi. Can you explain why you removed important text from the Peter Alexander article as: "unnecessary hatnote; Luftwaffenhelfer & Reichsarbeitsdienst: -unnecessary explanations (it's in the articles); +wl The White Horse Inn; -some WP:OVERLINK; -Category:Austrian military personnel of World War II (non-defining)". In line with AGF I will assume that this is not an attempt at whitewashing history but must point out that all the references (except for IMDb) on the Alexander page are German language articles, which are of little value to non-German speakers on English-language Wikipedia. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought my edit summary explained my edit. Here it is again in more detail:

1. Unnecessary hatnote: if the title of an article is unambiguous, as it is for Peter Alexander (Austrian actor and singer), the article doesn't need a hatnote; see Wikipedia:Hatnote#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous (WP:NAMB).
2. Luftwaffenhelfer & Reichsarbeitsdienst: these terms are thoroughly explaineded in the linked articles; there's no need to attempt a summary here. That's what I wrote in my edit summary.
3. +wl for The White Horse Inn: what's your objection to adding that wiki link?
4. -some WP:OVERLINK: I corrected the link for Vienna, Austria to Vienna and removed an identical link; see WP:REPEATLINK. What's the objection?
5. -Category:Austrian military personnel of World War II: this category does not define Peter Alexander; he is known as an entertainer; see WP:COP and WP:NPOVT#Categorization. He would not have an article in an encyclopedia because of what he did as a 18-/19-year old at the end of World War II. Please compare Alexander with the other 10 entries in Category:Austrian military personnel of World War II and my point will become obvious.
6. German language references: I did not introduce them, I formatted them properly.

I resent you edit summary "POV rv; text deleted for no valid reason restored"; I did not express a point-of-view and I provided a comprehensive edit summary explaining almost every change I made. You replaced the section heading I introduced ("Life and career") with "WWII" which is inappropriate in its form (it should be "World War II") and in its meaning: the section covered much more than that. A section "Life" has since been split off, which in my opinion leaves an unacceptably short section (2 sentences) "WWII"; which, as explained above, is WP:UNDUE given what Alexander is known for.

I think all my edits were well reasoned and should be reinstated. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Opera infoboxes/Original cast names

I see you raised this subject elsewhere. As you may know, I have an open mind on non-biographical infoboxes. The boxes on the German articles are OK, but unfortunately they don't accommodate the original cast names. I suppose some new boxes could be designed to include the whole of the present English Wiki role box, but the result might overwhelm the rest of the article and be technically difficult for people to edit. Conversion of 1,880+ articles would also be a vast job. What do you think? Regards. --Kleinzach 04:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I was just spit-balling; I suspect that the volume of articles makes changing their structure almost impossible. Gaining a consensus on an info box is probably even more difficult. It may well be too late for such a monumental change and we all have probably better things to do. I for one am very busy in real life now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Batavia

I am very sorry, but I failed to notify you of a discussion at Talk:Batavia (disambiguation) in which, based upon your comments at Talk:Batavia (region), you likely have an interest. My sincerest apologies (I'm kinda new at this sort of thing). HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your notification; I did notice that discussion when it started, but it seems to go the right way and have nothing substantial to contribute. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Messa per Rossini

Thanks for improving, but I wonder how Rossini can disagree with the conductor after his death? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, someone is paying attention :-) I might expand the history of the work in that article a bit further – mentioning the committee set up to oversee the process (never a good idea) and elaborate on Verdi's less than dignified role in blaming Mariani for the collapse (cherchez la femme? – la Stolz – which I won't mention). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like that, even after our performance of the Verdi, pictured on my user page. Next: Monteverdi, touched on Classical music, but no answer yet, the complete confusion about the psalm numbering (never mention a psalm just by number without saying which system :-). So I delay the next question: is the 1641 Messa perhaps the 1631 Messa, as one of the recordings suggests (to me)? As I got no name for the Mass, I first expanded Selva. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, not my bailiwick. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a new word! The psalm confusion is no musical topic anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for interesting reading! The NY performance a year later: two years are mentioned in the sentence before, do we get 1989 or 2002 by adding one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I found the soloists for the 2 Sep 2001 performance in my files, in case of interest, Karine Babajanyan, Lioba Braun, James Wagner, Mikael Babajanyan, Michail Schelomianski, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That performance was not a "first" and I couldn't find EN Wikipedia articles for any of the soloist, so I think it's probably not sufficiently noteworthy. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I felt the same, therefore I put it here, not in the article, :-) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Column switch?

I wonder if you still have the column switch script handy? Help with the date col. here would be great. Thanks. --Kleinzach 03:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You're lucky to catch me before I leave for a week. Which order would you like? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Same as before, date before place. Thanks and have a good holiday. --Kleinzach 10:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Note that HTML synatx now allows the attribute data-sort-value= which is claimed to be much faster than using the crutch of {{Hs}}; it's certainly better HTML. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. the last thing is the premiere date sorting. I don't know if you have an easy way of inserting the data-sort-value= into the premiere date column? --Kleinzach 05:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I get back from the beach (see top). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)