User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 26
|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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself.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.|
|Archive 25||Archive 26||Archive 27|
Re: Your Oppose Vote on the proposed project "The Clean Team"
Hi Kleinzach, I just wanted to let you know that I've responded to your comment on the proposed project The Clean Team in case you don't have it on your watch list. Thanks again for your helpful feedback. – tunecedemalis Talk 06:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
editing Richard Strauss
Source for cast lists are Franz Trenner's Richard Strauss Werk Verzeichnis, 1999.
Hammerstein's Santa Maria: opera or musical?
Hi Kleinzach, I've been having an issue with someone about an article I created on Santa Maria (musical) with words and music by Oscar Hammerstein I that opened at a now-defunct theatre on Broadway in NY. This person believes that the work is an opera because it was billed as a "comic opera" at its premiere in 1896. I have pointed out that the word "musical" was not used at the time, and that in the US, "opera" was often used for musicals of this time (1890s). This user, User:Singingdaisies claims that my inference is original research and does not belong on Wikipedia, and that whatever the work is, because it was called "opera" it belongs to the opera project. The work's coverage in the New York Times clearly shows that it was associated with other musicals, not opera. Yet the person has switched the article to Santa Maria (opera) and has linked it to the Wiki Opera Project despite the comment from another user that none of the people in the cast was associated with opera, but they were associated with the Broadway musical stage (i.e. muscials). I don't have access to a vocal score (which is also labeled opera) and there is very little written on this work. If you could suggest some ways to convince, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! -- kosboot (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Classical Music Assessment
Timeline of classical composers
Hello. I just read the article and I would like to add Khachaturian to the timeline. He belongs there certainly. Unfortunately, I am new to wikipedia and I don't know how to? Could you kindly help please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this doesn't affect anything other than the sort order in the categories, not even the name displayed there. The idea is that von and Von should sort together. WP:NAMESORT has more details. Rich Farmbrough, 12:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for your message. A lot of this has passed me by as I have been out of the loop. I can only repeat to you what I said to Voceditenore: I quite accept all you say, and I'm sorry you've had so much trouble. With hindsight I can see it was imperative to sort out both the copyvio and the splintering user-identity questions.
Perhaps I should have worded my thanks to NRS less effusively: but when we have all marched together in the ranks, it is hard for me not to feel a pang of regret for an enthusiastic fellow-traveller that has sunk by the wayside, however he may have strayed - and there is little harm in one murmur of thanks in the epilogue to the Dies Irae. If all our faults were painted in our faces, what a sight we'd be!
I look forward to seeing your future efforts with pleasure, and take this opportunity to send greetings and to wish you well. There are still a lot of redlinks in that Wagner singers list!!
Best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just a footnote to the above: I have reworded my note of thanks, not wishing in any way to be provocative towards you and others who have had to deal with the problem. I have no quarrel with your course of action. Eebahgum (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message and footnote. Your reaction was completely understandable, but there again the whole situation was extraordinary. The sockpuppeting went beyond trying to win arguments by vote stacking etc. It seems he was treating WP as an internet game using multiple 'avatars'. He would sometimes be talking to himself, with Puppet 1 giving advice to Puppet 2! Quite bizarre. I hope we won't see another case like this, though it's likely that Swanson himself will be back in some guise before long. --Kleinzach 23:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there's a lot of discussing going on and not a lot of doing. I was once told to be bold in my editing, so I'm going to go ahead with my idea, let people see what I have in mind, and it might actually help move the discussion along and give people a kick up the butt to get to the point. This has now been discussed and discussed so many times, I think it is time for a bit of action. Perhaps rather than reverting, you can maybe help me, look at what I'm doing, give me your suggestions, then maybe together we can come up with something, and say to all the people discussing it - "here's what we've done, what do you all think?". Crazy-dancing (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did just respond to your point about Swan Lake, hence I was surprised by your name changing. If anything I think the name changing undermines your argument for two articles. --Kleinzach 13:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I will read your comment about Swan Lake in just a second. I think this issue needs resolving that's all, and with your help and working fast, I think we can come up with a viable solution, even if just a temporary one. I have found an article that has some interesting background to the music, so perhaps this will be useful. I just think the music and the ballet production need to be separate. Ballet.co.uk Crazy-dancing (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's not doing it in panic, I've been following this debate for over a year now and it's going nowhere. I think a bit of bold editing, perhaps from a couple of people like you and me working together, can produce something that will at least give everyone something to work on and enable us to move the discussion on and actually work to a point rather than going round and round in circles. Crazy-dancing (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- I realise that. I have put a under construction tag on the music page, so people can hopefully see what I'm trying to achieve, and will make similar edits to the Ashton page. I just don't see this going anywhere without someone doing something proactive. Like you, I am happy to explain what I am trying to do and ask for help, but help that is going to get something done, not just leave use in the stalemate.
- What I want to achieve is 2 articles:
- Undine (Henze) - Article about the score as a musical work, not a ballet
- Ondine (Ashton) - Article about the ballet and the choreography
- What I want to achieve is 2 articles:
To be honest, if I get blocked for taking a proactive approach to the situation, then fine, it will just prove to me how petty some people are on Wikipedia. I see nothing to be gained from leaving this situation in its current stalemate, which has now been going on for over a year and is no nearer to being resolved. If people are so blinded by their own agenda that they can't see that what I'm trying to do, is do something POSITIVE, then that is their problem, not mine. Crazy-dancing (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why not put it on your own page? What is the problem with that? --Kleinzach 14:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- If you didn't want to see me blocked, you wouldn't be the one reverting all my edits and putting edit war tags on my talk page. You are the one blocking my attempts to do something helpful, and putting obstacles in the way of me trying to improve the situation, so try helping instead, then maybe we can get somewhere. Crazy-dancing (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Polite Notice - Possible solution to Ondine merging
I am creating this notice to invite all interested parties to vote on the proposal to merge Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton) to a new article at Ondine (ballet). You can read the discussion and add your vote to the poll at:
- btw, did want to say good work on the change of title for the Santa Maria article, it is one of those ambiguous ones. It prompts me to ask your thoughts on 'when' we started to refer to light opera or operetta as musical theatre in its modern day context? Crazy-dancing (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- You don't have to childishly reiterate the point, I get the idea about the striking out thank you. I know you think yourself mightily superior, but that doesn't make me stupid. Now perhaps if you have any other concerns, you can try addressing them without the petty undertone. Oh and for your information, I did try to follow the Wikipedia help pages about merging, because I would actually like to learn how to do those things. I realise I made some mistakes, but that's what more experienced editors are there for, to correct mistakes and if necessary, explain where people have gone wrong. I know in an ideal world we would be able to read the help pages and guidelines and be able to perform such tasks perfectly first time, but then we're not all perfect Crazy-dancing (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Canvassing in connection with Undine/Ondine
Sir or Madam, you wrote on Robertgreer's talk page:
- "Perhaps you should all read WP:CANVAS: " Messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive. . . . . "--Kleinzach 00:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)"
As far as I am concerned I was invited "...to improve the quality of a discussion...," and weighted the pros and cons in light of my own knowledge/ignorance. I hold firmly that Wikipedia is meant to SERVE everyone, no matter how much or little they know... otherwise Wikipedia would HAVE no reason d'etre whatsoever. Sincerely, Shir-El too 21:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Just a quick question. I have clicked the 'watch' button on the Ondine Article and the talk page, but I'm not getting any notification of when changes are made. I've only known you are replying to me by checking it every so often. Have I done something wrong or am I getting the wrong end of the stick about what the watch button does? Crazy-dancing (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I fear for your health
I can see the blood pressure rising: Undine will be your undoing. I suggest you give it a rest. Let the boy do his thing. We can always fix it later. Better to devote all this effort to an expansion of Mass in C major (Beethoven) - a work, I am sure you will agree, at least as monumental as Henze's. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I am truly deeply sorry to have supported even indirectly the ongoing edit storm that used to be Undine. I came and offered my support as a member of WP:BALLET as I thought WP:CM was the wrong venue for the poll. Unfortunately the rapid closure of the last poll and the subsequent massive changes to the article have proved you to be right and me to be wrong. Please feel free to remove / archive this comment after you have read it as I see you have rapidly archived the main Ondine thread on your talk pages and I can well understand why. Scillystuff (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
We've bumped into each other at Wikipedia_talk:Layout but haven't communicated directly. I've sensed that you've gotten a hard time from some of the other editors at that page. I myself have found the discussion very forbidding. About a week ago I mentioned this at one of the contributors' talk pages , but I didn't find her answer helpful. Subsequently, C&C left me one of his typically-cryptic messages , whose gist was that I'm not experienced enough to be contributing to a policy-style page. I got sick of the drama and just walked away from the whole thing. But I'm becoming increasingly disturbed with the discussions that have been going on at wipedia_talk:layout. It's simply impossible to interject oneself into the conversation. I just raised this issue with another contributor at User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Wikipedia_talk:Layout. I'm wondering what your thoughts are? I am, indeed, a relatively new editor (3 years with an account, but only 6 months as a serious contributor) and have never witnessed a situation like this before. Thanks. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 00:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Gosh, I'm impressed with your diligence -- I had forgotten about leaving this message!
- The good news is, I quickly moved on from that page and sought other projects. The bad news is, I subsequently discovered (as you've described) that many policy pages get "'occupied' permanently by a few editorial 'authorities'." Between June and August, I made many many hours-long "improvements" to policy pages which were quickly reverted. It was very demoralizing, and now I only edit in the article space.
- I think the best (i.e. most altruistic) account for this phenomenon came from User:SlimVirgin, who suggested that longtime editors often grow to rely on the verbatim text of policies, because (for example) they find it useful to quote the text in disputes with newbies. So that's a legitimate reason why policy pages can become so darn resistant to improvements.
- I was saddened to see that policy pages are afflicted by chronic sclerosis, but I consider it a learning experience, and I've happily returned to adding material to the article space.
- Cheers, Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at that article. I had begun it but then stopped when I had a debate with Singingdaises about whether it's a "musical" (my opinion) or an opera (Singingdaises's opinion). Now I see you uncovered Singingdaises as Nrswanson. So much sweat over nothing. So thanks. -- kosboot (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Please review these proposed changes
See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contemporary_music#Proposed_changes_to_lead_section. Thank you. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I admit I lack the time to pore through extensive archives. I can certainly understand how the infobox gets edited without regard to certain uses. I continue to think those can be resolved, but maybe the people who can facilitate that are just spread too thinly. Powers T 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Since you were the organizer of the WikiProject Opera, I'm wondering if you would be willing to share how you got it started. I'm trying to organize musicologist for a Wiki Musicology Project, and their skeptical that Wikipedia has any organization. Any ideas on how to make a convincing argument? Thanks. -- kosboot (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting question! I suppose there are two aspects to this, the practical business of starting a project (which is time consuming but not difficult), and the much more difficult question of how to structure the group. In the case of Musicology this would probably be difficult because of the potential overlap with so many other different music projects. May I ask why you would want to do this? Why are you thinking in terms of a project? Maybe if you can give me a bit more information I can then come up with some ideas? --Kleinzach 00:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- On the email list of the American Musicological Society (AMS), Wikipedia has been mentioned (and argued for and against) as a potential project. The idea is that many of the articles could use more correct/scholarly content, and that AMS would not be perceived as an isolated society, but as a group that takes an active (web 2.0) interest in promoting good understanding of musicology. I guess I was one of the more outspoken so one of the heads of the organization is suggesting I spearhead something. I don't have the time to spearhead, but I figure providing good information would be a benefit. So I hope that provides you with context. -- kosboot (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- That's interesting. One possibility would be to establish a Musicology Project (under the Music Project) as a non-bannering, non-assessing forum for the discussion of key articles. I think you would need a good definition for the group, but I guess that wouldn't be too difficult to write. Another possibility would be to start a task force under the Classical Music Project. Either way it would be important that people joined as individual, independent users, WP doesn't look favourably on externally organized groups. Hope this helps. --Kleinzach 00:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that advice. Actually, current trends in musicology are not exclusively classical, so it'll be difficult. Perhaps one could start with just a few people coming up with a statement of limited goals which then can be expanded as more people join or see issues in need of resolution. Thanks! I may come back to you for advice on this. -- kosboot (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Recordings vs. Selected recordings
- It's the result of recent discussions. There was a consensus against using 'Selected' when in fact no selection had taken place and the list was just incomplete, see here and elsewhere. --Kleinzach 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the link. It seems like there are a lot of articles with "Selected recordings" sections. I didn't do a count, but a quick search turned up quite a few. I'm opposed to changing all of them until there is more input. I left a comment at the bottom of the discussion you linked above, but it may be a bit late. I'm not sure how many will read it. But my feeling is that this heading is fairly well accepted by a lot of editors. I certainly did not feel comfortable with having it changed on two articles where I have made contributions. I think just using "Recordings" may falsely imply that the list is complete. (I admit I am very much in favor of discographies, complete or otherwise. One reason for having them is that recordings often go out of print, so having them listed in Wikipedia documents that they exist, and if one is interested, one can search used book/record shops for the recording. There are lots of good reasons for including them in Wikipedia, as I'm sure you will agree.) Thanks again! --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Please express your opinion on the Classical music project page. I think you also need to talk to the Opera Project. They have also been removing the word 'selected'. --Kleinzach 01:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you're keen on discographies and want to work on them I can point you to a few pages that need attention — also to formats that have been developed for presenting them. --Kleinzach 01:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's a possibility, altho I have a lot on my list right now. But I would be interested in knowing about them. And the formats. I've found that to be a bit of a problem. I appreciate all your help! --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Haven't quite figgered out the whole table thing yet. I wanted my entries to be different because they are video, not just sound. Feel free to edit....SZ User:SingingZombie
What unconstructive addition? You don't think people who look up parsifal would be interested in the fact that amfortas' affliction has made its way indo medical chemistry??? US Patent office doesn't screw around, you know. Do you think it's coincidence, M4TS? I happen to know the person who created it and gave it that name. Can I reference "Personal communication from [someone]" like they do in the science journals?
Actually, "Opera in science" might be a nice entry for Wiki. When I was in grad school someone named a molecule after a Puccini character whom I don't remember because I cannot listen to Puccini--whenever I try I find myself thinking about other music.
Anyway, it certainly wasn't intentional vandalism. That would be vewy vewy diffewent!