User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 10
|This is a Wikipedia user page.|
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at
|This is an archive of past discussions. 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.|
Notice for opera project
Here is my draft for a first notice on the Opera Project:
Wagner Project:Article assessment trial
GuillaumeTell, Peter cohen and I have just finished rating the 44 articles on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Richard Wagner. This was based on the Wagner Project Assessment page (and lengthy discussions which are archived here and here).
Using a category-based points system (devised by GuillaumeTell), together with an edited version of the standard Quality Scale, we were able to rate articles with good consistency and reasonable speed.
Our conclusions are:
- The points system is simple and straightforward to use, and easy to adapt to different categories of articles (operas, singers etc.).
- Rating is easier and more accurate when an entire category of articles (composers, operas, singers or whatever) are batched together on the basis of an agreed points system for that particular group. (Randomly rating articles - an opera, then an opera company and then a singer etc. - would lead to inconsistencies.)
- The basic WP Quality Scale and the points system are complementary not contradictory.
- Assessors must be non (or minimal) contributors in order to be objective and impartial.
- Assessments should be done by editors with an interest in the subject, though not necessarily experts.
- Assessments should be recorded and explained (with suggestions) on the Talk:Xyz/Comments pages.
- Assessments should be distinguished from peer reviews which are done less frequently and more thoroughly.
We are now considering recommending extending the rating to the Opera Project and invite comments. -- (signature)
-- Kleinzach 05:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mention composers for now, unless you've got a whole new set of volunteers. If only three of us are doing assessments, then the >1000 operas will keep us busy for a while. Personally, I would want to limit how many assessments I do to no more than one a day as creating stuff is more interesting.--Peter cohen 11:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- There are only about 480 composers compared to 1,100 to 1,200 operas. Anyway that's not really the point as we need to focus on the present stage - which is the draft. -- Kleinzach 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Peter about composers. I don't think that we three should carry on doing all the ratings - surely there will be other volunteers? GuillaumeTell 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes there have to be other volunteers. If the opera project (or the Composers' Project) agrees to assessment that will affect everybody. That's implicit in the next stage, but as ever I'm at pains to keep this simple to avoid making assumptions and considering hypotheticals. (Please note I used the word 'recommending' (above)).-- Kleinzach 23:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is it worth saying that operas are the most thoroughly piloted category and therefore the proposal is start rating those articles? Then we can have an official plan that when we're a couple of months off finishing the operas, we can solicit interest in piloting the next category or two.--Peter cohen 10:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's essential to keep this simple, (quote) "We are now considering recommending extending the rating to the Opera Project and invite comments." That's all. We are not making a proposal. If we produce a longer document it will probably be ignored or perhaps even opposed. -- Kleinzach 10:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise, it looks OK, except for a couple of points:
- The sentence "Some assessments inevitably fall on different sides of the line necessitating extra check ratings" implies that two ratings are to be done per article. Do we agree (based on the Wagner experience) that two assessments per article are required? Or would one be enough, with an open invitation to interested parties to challenge ratings if they wish? ("Both sides of the line" needs to be clarified, too.)
- Yes, I see the problem. I've removed the sentence completely. -- Kleinzach 23:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- But do we want in our procedure, the option that if we rate, say within three marks of the border, we have the option of calling in a second opinion? (Peter Cohen?)
- Yes, I see the problem. I've removed the sentence completely. -- Kleinzach 23:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Peter, the draft above is just a report - it's not a set of guidelines - it would be counter-productive to go into a lot of detail. -- Kleinzach 10:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- It should be made clear that the provision of suggestions for improvements on a Comments page has been an important part of the process and should be mandatory for the future. --GuillaumeTell 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I've added a new sentence (above). -- Kleinzach 23:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Since neither of you are using the new page I set up I'm moving the draft here! -- Kleinzach 23:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, you said "Please let me know what you think" (rather than, say, "Please add your comments to the draft"), which we both, not unnaturally, seem to have interpreted as meaning "please reply on my talk page". --GuillaumeTell 00:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway . . . is the new version OK to run now? -- Kleinzach 00:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Boxes on WikiProject Opera
The simple solutions don't seem to work, so I'll probably have to make a new template. However, my Parasitology class is in an hour, so I'll have to do it later. Vanished user talk 06:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for welcome
Thank you so much for the warm welcome! I will study the links you gave me. - Dunkelweizen 12:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Singer of the month
What colour do you want for the singer of the month?
By the way, I've figured out how to do the horizontal thing easily. Want to go with something like this? [It'll look better once the singer is actually set up] Vanished user talk 00:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have a go. The one difficulty is getting a nice, clean break between the two boxes: I'll need to check some table code to make sure I get it right. Vanished user talk 00:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, by the way, if you want to add anything more into the vertical stack, the key pages are Template:OotM and Template:GetOotM. The first is the one that does the main page display, the second is the one that pulls up one of the three months shown on the talk page. (There's another one that handles figuring out what months to pull up, but you probably won't need to touch those.) Look at my edits from today, and you may be able to see how to add another project on. Vanished user talk 00:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message
In situations where one editor is impugning the work of another, it's unavoidable that the rest of us need to make credibility assessments about both of them. I made my assessment, and posted it on the project talk page. Apparently, a few people agree with that assessment. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Marc Shepherd 10:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, except that I'm sure I remember you having a run-in with someone who added a qualifier (composer or "opera") when there was no need for it. And I wonder how long it's going to be until an article appears for the Bononcini as well. --GuillaumeTell 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Could be coincidence, or maybe he saw my edit summary in the opera corpus history, or he's watching your or my talk page. --GuillaumeTell 10:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Logo for the Opera Wikiproject
Ernst Krenek: Sardakai / Sardokai
I see that you left a question regarding Krenek's opera Sardakai on my talk page: apparently Grover gives 'Sardokai'.
The reason I made the change to Sardakai is because I have a CD of a 2000 recording, and it says Sardakai on the cover, and the Queen of Migo Migo unmistakably sings "Ich bin Sardakai" (Act 1, Scene 1).
However, the recording is of the 1971 revised version (original 1969), so in theory it would be possible that the name changed during revision. It doesn't seem likely to me, though.
Regards, Ar 10:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
A brief break from Physics...
Response on Grove
I've responded to your comment on my talk page. Typically, I wouldn't trouble you by posting on your talk page as well, but I feel the article you mention requires attention, especially if it is as notable as you say. Regards. Doctorfluffy 00:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Conductors and info boxes
Could you bear to apply the rule to the many other conductor articles that have info boxes? I tried (John Pritchard) but made rather a mess of it. Tim riley 14:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome and advice! I look forward to working with you on the opera project. Merpin 02:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Kleinzach, I have had a go at shaping up that passage in the Martha article, which you felt could be kept and amended. (It was not mine originally.) Do you think this helps? The article could do with a bit of a facelift altogether... Eebahgum 16:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly enough the image does show up on the de.wiki page! There should be a way to move it to the commons. I'm also puzzled that the other image does work. Sparafucil 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Tx for welcome
Tx. for the welcome & nice list of pointers. I have edited Wiki articles before. Yours, ABShippee
English conductors: info boxes
I was not aware of any policy that discouraged the use of infoboxes in composer articles. Having read the link to which you refered, I find no reason stated there for why this conclusion was reached. As it happens, I copied the infobox straight from the Wagner article, and simply changed the relevant information. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I could use their format to add “vbe” and “hide/show” but it will make the box wider and only looks good if we placed it at the bottom of the article. Do you want to reposition all the templates at the bottom? I have created Mascagni’s template using our usual format for temporary, but if you think the template is best to placed at the bottom (the the vbe + hide/show), I can change it. - Jay (talk) 11:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have added "hide/show" + with the coding for VBE. I placed them on top. Refer to Template:Mascagni operas. However, the 'v.b.e' dont seem to point to the correct location. Perhaps you should check the link for each of them. - Jay (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- To be frank, I actually do not see the need of the "show/hide" or even the 'v.d.e'. The original template is more than enough and serves the purpose, that is, to list down all the works of the composer. About the v.b.e in Mascagni, I have just aligned it to the left corner! - Jay (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Someone has made another version of "v.d.e" and "hide/show" format for Template:Halévy operas. I would suggest for all of us to have discussion on the format and choose one. Or not, we may have many versions of it in the future.
- a) Template:Adams operas
- b) Template:Mascagni operas
- c) Template:Halévy operas
- - Jay (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Land of Smiles and Thailand
When you search on the internet using keyword 'land of smiles', you can find out many sites which refer to 'the land of smiles' and 'Thailand'. The article that I made an entry was created based on some Thai official sites. If you could bring back the article I can find and refer to the sources from the Thai history. Best regards.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eakaltun (talk • contribs) 05:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you know of any evidence that Josepha Duschek ever sang in an opera? I can't find any myself. This bears, perhaps, on her categories/Wikiproject membership.
I want to change Template:Krenek operas to the standard format but I dont want to offend the creator. Do you think we should change it? Krenek is the only one using this format. I like to standardize the format. Let me know what you think. - Jay 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Other projects (such as Classical and few others) put their banners in almost all their templates, I believe for some identification. Our banner begins with This article falls within the scope of the Opera WikiProject........ So then, if anybody wants to amend it, they know that it is not an “open” or individual banner and they should discuss the matter with “Opera Project”. Before we added “v.d.e”, some people may not know how to access or amend it, but now they easily change it by hitting “e”. For protection, I believe the banner is important, so then people know that they should discuss before do any changes. - Jay 01:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- A dedicated banner for all opera templates sounds like a good idea! - Jay 05:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Notable works and the opera corpus
That may be so, but Balfe's entry was pretty awkward at best, and bore no real resemblence to an assessment of his notable works. For instance, The Amber Witch has been performed and recorded in recent years, if I recall correctly, likewise The Maid of Artois. I'm sure some of those aren't as notable, but given I can find illustrations and reviews of every opera by Balfe... Vanished user talk 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to say which are - all were big events at the time, and the criteria used on the Opera corpus can be extremely random. e.g. are we looking for Agrippina notability? Are You There? notability? If the latter, frankly, all Balfe's works are more notable than that. Vanished user talk 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
About the Tags
I removed the wiki tags because it was really the other tag that I wanted. I have always seen the two together for the most part so put them both in which was really not neccesary.I would love help with getting sources for these articles! These articles cite hardly any sources and it's impossible to know exactly where the information is coming from which is why I put the tags there. I am surprised that nobody has complained up to this point. For the most part, I think the information is correct, but I think we need to reference where the information can be found outside of the articles.Nrswanson (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Weill opera box
Thanks For The Feedback
Deletion of Comments
Even when such comments no longer refer to material relevant to the article? Since that particular page no longer deals with contemporary singers, I felt that those comments were more like vandalism than actually furthering the article. Most of the comments were also very old. I can replace them if you think it best, but I see little point in having them on this page anymore sense the questions and comments are no longer applicable.Nrswanson (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
What do think?
Lists and what do you think of the alto page?
I agree. I am not focusing on the male sections as of right now except to edit them in relation to the female registers. Once I feel the female voices are in hand, I will turn my attention over to the men. If you want to start those lists then by all means you have my full support for it needs to be done. Also what do you think of the alto page now? I really appriciate what you do by the way and respect your opinions. Nrswanson (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
2 questions and a request
Whistle register singers
All of the "opera singers" (sopranos) I put in there have a "whistle register" as defined by you definition in Wikipedia. In fact, most far exceed the requrements. I have reseached these facts and am willing to discuss any you disagree with on a case by case basis. However, arguing that no opera singing sopranos possess a whistle register would be a bold statement on your behalf. Wallie (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh my God!!!! Those pages are horrible!!!!
They are completely saying the wrong thing. The whistle register has nothing to do with the coloratura high notes or a destinction of C6, at least not in the way they present in the info. It's a different type of vocal production in the female voice than head voice that all women have that allows them to sing above their normal range, much like a man can sing falsetto to sing higher. Coloraturas do use it but not always. That's what makes them unique. They can use head voice up there. Well we will just have to fix it. Start with article and then the list.Nrswanson (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yes. Some coloratura passages require it when the runs and trills get too crazy in the upper tessitura or there are a succsession of rapid high notes. Its mostly applied in the staccato vocal passages though for coloraturas. Not all singers have to use it of course, since every singer is different, and typically women in other voice types don't have to sing that high. When the voice takes on that high flute or whistle like quality at the top that is usually the whistle register. Coloratura sopranos like Mado Robin and Ima Sumac were known for employing whistle tone. Coloratura sopranos, though should be able to sing high Fs in head voice for a held extended note.Nrswanson (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you can or should get rid of it. Voice teachers often start their younger singers within the whistle register and as the voice matures work in the head voice. ANd sopranos are encouraged to vocalise up into the whistle register. Also, some coloraturas do use it in performance. Joan Sutherland even uses it in parts of the Doll song and Callas on her Bell Song. But not on the extended notes. It is a part of singing and a skill most coloraturas need and do utilize. Its just not all of them have to and some use it more than others. The article is correct in many ways but misleading and wrong in others.Nrswanson (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The German version of the page (in the text, not the title), and the first external link (the one you kept) both used Josef, so I thought it was a mistake (I didn't have access to Grove to see what they used). Are both Josef and Johann used, or is this an error in the other pages as well? The sourcing on the German page was basically similar. Regardless, I would agree to trust Grove more than other sources, if it says Johann. The page move to just Friedrich seems reasonable enough to me. Your rewrite is much better, too.
I'm also surprised to see that you are not an admin. I've seen quite a few of your contributions, and work on the Opera project, and you seem trustworthy, dedicated and productive. I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Rigadoun (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I moved the page per your suggestion. I also notice it has a number of oncoming links to Johann Anton Friedrich Fleischmann (the page where I found it, where the names are in the wrong order). If this name is wrong (and not yet another variant), then those should be fixed in the text. I could clean it up but I'm letting you know first in case they are actually correct and that is another legitimate variant of his name. Keep up the good work! Rigadoun (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete whistle register singers category?
I want to delete this article and I think you do too. Read my reasons on the discussion page. I attacked it pretty strongly. How do we go about doing it? I've never deleted a page before. Nrswanson (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please do. How is this sugestion? This category should be deleted for its presentation of information that not only lacks citation but is inaccurate. Furthermore, the category is on a topic that does not meet the notability requirements of wikipedia, as the ability to sing in the whistle register is quite common.Nrswanson (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologise if I have stepped on anyones toes. I was trying to clear some of the todo list at wikiproject stub sorting which included creating categories for Italian/French/English and German language Operas. I have completed the English and German categories but will hold off of the other two until I hear from you. I don't think a category of +650 stubs is useful to anyone and it appears a reasonable split to me. Waacstats (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Your advice would be appreciated
I want to propose a merger but I am not sure how to go about doing it. The pages in question are falsetto register and falsetto. I think we should keep the falsetto register page and move the falsetto page as the register page is in keeping with the other vocal registers.Nrswanson (talk) 10:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I like register better only because it is more technically accurate and it is a term speech pathologists prefer. It is also more in keeping with the other vocal registration articles?Nrswanson (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is not the title, it is the fork in the content. You are (both) free to propose a move from falsetto to falsetto register, though in general common usage is preferred. Nrswanson has committed a classic newcomer's error, int hat he has written whole new articles rather than organically grow the existing ones. His contributions seem scholarly but in some cases have been interpreted as idiosyncratic. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)