User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 29

Active discussions
Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

The Immortal Hour

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article The Immortal Hour, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 207.69.139.145 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but 207.69.139.145, you may want to give WP:DTR a read. Connormah (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
One would not need to template a regular if the regular hadnt completely violated policy by returning unsourced content and opinion to an article, now would one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.145 (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmm (1) I didn't write the article, (2) paragraphs in the article that you disagree with can be tagged, they shouldn't be removed. The paragraph you removed could be referenced, you should allow the editors the chance to do this. --Kleinzach 00:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not a message from yourself, rather than a template, that suggests he read the policies? The templates are very generic, and, I feel are suited to newer users. Connormah (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This wouldn't be a problem if the IP follows the 'Bold, Revert, Discuss' cycle and puts his/her views on the article talk page. I actually agreed with some of the edits anyway . . .--Kleinzach 01:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding sources. 207.69.137.39 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.69.139.145&diff=cur If you notice, each and every removal is clearly supported policy - content without sources can be removed or challenged. Content cannot be returned without being properly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.145 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you have been extraordinarily heavy handed. In one instance you removed a paragraph that was both pertinent to the subject and very easily sourced from an RS. In fact, Klein has easily sourced almost the entire article including most of what you removed/questioned! Only one line needs to be sourced and checked for OR now (and in fact, though I don't know the work, I suspect that it really is close in mood to Mozart's opera and that a little more work will verify this). Kleinzach is one of the most respected of editors across all Classical Music projects and it beggars belief that you chose to banner him with that particular notice! BTW, seeing as you have been editing since Jan 2004, you should be aware of all of this, despite the fact you choose to remain an IP... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical guitar repertoire

No one has commented on my merge proposal on the aforementioned article. I'm not sure if that would mean that no one besides you has seen this proposal, or no one has any opinion on it. Should I proceed with it?

Secondly, if I do, what would I do with the leftover page, use it as a redirect of disambig, since I'm merge/split -ing it into 2 different places. Brambleclawx 14:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How about asking here so other people can see this? I'll try to reply to you there, although I'm not sure I understand this very well. Thanks. --Kleinzach 22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My list

Great work Klein! Maybe I'm playing catch up with you now... Sorry if I sounded a little sarcastic when I replied to one of your comments recently: I was trying to be drôle but probably failed (fairy typical for me, at least in real life where I have less time to think...) Anyway, I am a present caught up in real life stuff and may not be going full sail for a short while. I'll still pick at the List of 21st-century classical composers, though, when I get a chance. I doubt whatever process is agreed upon for dealing with unref'ed BLPs will be finalised for a while yet, given the splits and splinters over at the discussion. Any such process will have to be fully tested and properly written up, too: that will also need discussion and consensus... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO it's impossible to influence these mega-debates unless you are in on them from the beginning. Hence I'm not getting too involved in BLP, just doing rescue work on specific articles.
If you have time I hope you can participate in the Cm guidelines discussion (about to be revived) and the important arts categories decisions (proposals forthcoming). --Kleinzach 00:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Mega-discussions: you make a good point. This particular one: probably a fait accompli... The other discussions etc: these are too important to ignore, so I will indeed participate. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jörg Dürmüller

Answering your question about his notability (or rather the other user's q): I created the stub instead of as interwiki-link to the German article - as for other singers of the Koopman cantata project. Even if the critical user doesn't speak German he or she might look at names connected with the singers activities to be found there. I personally don't have the time right now to transfer all that to English, also find overly long lists of famous names a bit boring and believe that the list of his recordings recommends him enough. Thanks for your effort on his behalf - I was on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The critical user seems to have gone quiet - but I think it would be good idea to keep an eye on the page. --Kleinzach 14:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Style

On I saw my Lady weepe, there are quotes in boxes, which are not introduced beforehand. Is this bad style? Brambleclawx 19:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was weird. I've tried to fix it. What is the reason for the strange capitalization on the title? Why not 'I saw my lady weepe' or 'I Saw My Lady Weepe'? --Kleinzach 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea. Maybe it should be moved. Brambleclawx 00:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Category:Works by choreographer

Ok, i understand, no problem. Biasoli (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical composers time-line

I just userfied it to my page per the general concensus. Hope that's ok? If s, could you speedy the redirects? Otherwise I might get accused of pinching articles! Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 03:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Scylla et Glaucus

Hi, Kleinzach! Sorry, but when I removed the supposed full name of La Tour, I thought I had originally edited it myself, since I am presently dealing with the history of hautes-contre. You can find here [1] the motivation of my changing the name of La Tour, and I have, meanwhile, modified further on the article Scylla et Glaucus, explicitly indicating my sources. In fact, the final edition appears to have turned rather entangled, but, apart from a general dubiousness wrapping the occurrences of the French music history of the concerned period (orthography is rather depending on writers, names are often unknown or confusingly uncertain, voice types are extempore, etc.), the four main sources I can apply to (Grove, Pitou, Amadeusonline and Le magazine de l'opéra baroque) are awfully inconsistent with one another and therefore only very cautiously reliable. If you would revise the article, I could very willingly scan some pages from Pitou’s work for you. Thank you very much. Jeanambr (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You are absolutely right to reference La Tour in that way. It's true there are sometimes errors in Amadeus. I'll leave this to you, but thanks for the offer of scanning. Regards. --Kleinzach 10:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

John Mayer

Hi Klein, that's great work you are doing out there! I noticed you remarked John Mayer with "ODM checked to here": does that mean it is actually the ODM that has been copyvioed? Or that he is in the ODM but you are awaiting closure of the copyvio investigation before adding the source? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No. It was just a marker to show I had checked as far as Mayer - but he isn't in the book. --Kleinzach 00:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah! That makes sense, now. BTW, that newsletter (was above) is quite a good idea: I might propose a newsletter for CTM at some stage. It might get the less involved members more involved. Or at least keep them abreast of what we are doing. What do you think? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe at some stage in the future. I think we should deal with BLP problem now, saving all the notable biographies. After that it might be possible to start a series of collaborations which could indeed be advertised through a newsletter. --Kleinzach 00:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
OK: I'll make a note somewhere for my self and crack on with the present work. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

La boheme discography

It seems as though we were working on it simultaneously.....As soon as I see an article come up on my watchlist and, depending upon the author, I usually look at the changes. Had forgotten that this one didn't even have a table.

Now it is complete, with "standard" layout, fixed col. width for roles to reflect 1 singer= 1 line, cat. numbers of recordings, and source(s). All Verdi opera articles are in the same state. Viva-Verdi (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

La bohème? Anyway that's good. I've also added a couple of new R Strauss discographies as well which you will see. Thanks. --Kleinzach 05:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

unref'd BLP articles

whoops! will do....--Smerus (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

John McCabe (composer)

Jerome Kohl has requested further clarification of the precise entry(/-ies) in OMD for this composer see here. Thanks (again) for your efforts, thus far! --Jubilee♫clipman 22:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think I've ever seen a citation tag on a reference before. See my answer here. --Kleinzach 23:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Neither me! A little odd... I'll check out your comment. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My list

Just to let you know: I am adding more to L and M (adding lesser issues such as "poorly ref'ed" and "cleanup tag", as previously). I will then review A-E and add any dodgy articles from those, too. I suggest holding off checking my list for a few days until I catch up with myself... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hiding stuff with the cn tag...

Did you know that wrapping {{cn}} around text hides it? Look at this: [citation needed] then look at the edit. I found this out while editing Robert Ghillies just now. I wrapped the cn template around a huge amount of the text and it simply vanished! I wonder if this might help with our present situaton: we could just hide unsourced stuff rather than delete it... --Jubilee♫clipman 09:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I decided to suggest this idea over at the RfC. --Jubilee♫clipman 09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, but maybe the Rfc is more oriented towards a policy discussion rather than technical matters? Also note that it's easy to hide text like this <!-- Berlioz must have been a real pain in the neck . . . -->. And the problem with hiding text is that non-one knows that it is there unless you start editing. --Kleinzach 02:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Good points. Anyway can't do any harm to suggest it! --Jubilee♫clipman 04:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I like the concept. But how would I know as a reader that (in the above example) it isn't "Look at this:" that needs citation, but something I don't see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed! The RfC refered to also pointed that out. The idea has been modified a little: there is also an {{Unsourced BLP flagged}} template which helps with this. RfC here --Jubilee♫clipman 02:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Scans and other issues

I have done a few more CatScans for CTM: lists and discussion here. Could you review the copyvios I flagged in the CTM subpage? One at least is wrongly flagged according to the CP discussion. Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Elegie für junge Liebende

Hallo Kleinzack, thanks for your note! (but I'm watching your talk anyway). I added a bit to Elegy, please check the plot, I did't know a good term in English for a young woman who is with an old man for his glamour. Also how to say in a few words that M. knows the lovers are in danger, is asked to report that and just doesn't, he doesn't act to kill but somehow does it it a soft way, for his inspiration. - I would also like to invite you to the Rheingau Musik Festival, (even some operas in 2010, Elizabeth Parcells - Olympia in Wiesbaden - an articly asking for improvement - appeared in a recital of Baroque and Kentucky in Idstein in 199x ... - but I can't mention them all), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done a little rewording. Is that adequate? If not please edit and I can polish it later. I've also referenced Parcells. --Kleinzach 23:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Perfect! I added another bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes for orchestras

I know that Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines discourages Infoboxes ("Infobox musical artist") for classical musicians. Has there ever been discussion about infoboxes for articles on orchestras? They seem to be used to some extent. "Infobox musical artist" doesn't seem to be very appropriate for that purpose. I'm wondering whether creating an infobox designed for orchestras would be a good idea or a bad idea. Any thoughts on this? Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO we've probably got more important things to do than make new infoboxes, though I agree with you about the inappropriateness of "Infobox musical artist" etc. (In the past WP:CM has neither added them or removed them from orchestra articles.) Past discussions have mentioned orchestra infoboxes in passing, but not focused on them.
Orchestra articles have never received the attention they deserve. If you are interested in starting a dedicated task force within WP:CM, or even a project, I would certainly back that. A possible infobox could then be discussed in that context. You may be interested in looking at Category:Orchestras to see what is involved. --Kleinzach 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, like you say there are probably more important things to focus on. Not sure whether I want to pursue it at this point or not. Thanks for the feedback! --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable...

Jacques Loussier I say no more for now... --Jubilee♫clipman 14:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah... JBsupreme (talk · contribs) stubbed it during the personal-whim-removal-of-unsourced-sections thing... I'll restore it and attempt to source it later today. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Orlando furioso

With great peasure I watched yesterday Orlando furioso (Vivaldi). I wonder about the voice types in the article, would link contralto for Orlando, wonder why the mezzo needs citation and would call Bradamante and Medoro mezzo as well. I wonder especially about Il Farnace - not part of this opera. Should I change? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is referenced to Eric Cross in Grove, who refers to Orlando, Medoro, Ruggiero and Bradamante as contraltos. In general, we try not to be anachronistic and go with the original voce types. Is 'Il farnace' just an error? I was wondering about that. Perhaps we should take it out? --Kleinzach 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Did Grove listen? - I certainly heard three mezzos and a counter-tenor. But won't argue with such an authority. Farnace may have been copied - wouldn't know from where - and left there, seems a mistake. I expected a review in the paper today but suppose it will go to the national edition, not just regional. It was quite an event! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Gerda. If you check I think you'll find that mezzos didn't exist in the early 18th century. They only appeared later. --Kleinzach 14:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. The opera house didn't specify, just gave names. The singers' bio was today's, of course, so was the stage [2][3]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Scans and other issues

I have done a few more CatScans for CTM: lists and discussion here. Could you review the copyvios I flagged in the CTM subpage? One at least is wrongly flagged according to the CP discussion. Thanks. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Elegie für junge Liebende

Hallo Kleinzack, thanks for your note! (but I'm watching your talk anyway). I added a bit to Elegy, please check the plot, I did't know a good term in English for a young woman who is with an old man for his glamour. Also how to say in a few words that M. knows the lovers are in danger, is asked to report that and just doesn't, he doesn't act to kill but somehow does it it a soft way, for his inspiration. - I would also like to invite you to the Rheingau Musik Festival, (even some operas in 2010, Elizabeth Parcells - Olympia in Wiesbaden - an articly asking for improvement - appeared in a recital of Baroque and Kentucky in Idstein in 199x ... - but I can't mention them all), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done a little rewording. Is that adequate? If not please edit and I can polish it later. I've also referenced Parcells. --Kleinzach 23:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Perfect! I added another bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes for orchestras

I know that Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines discourages Infoboxes ("Infobox musical artist") for classical musicians. Has there ever been discussion about infoboxes for articles on orchestras? They seem to be used to some extent. "Infobox musical artist" doesn't seem to be very appropriate for that purpose. I'm wondering whether creating an infobox designed for orchestras would be a good idea or a bad idea. Any thoughts on this? Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO we've probably got more important things to do than make new infoboxes, though I agree with you about the inappropriateness of "Infobox musical artist" etc. (In the past WP:CM has neither added them or removed them from orchestra articles.) Past discussions have mentioned orchestra infoboxes in passing, but not focused on them.
Orchestra articles have never received the attention they deserve. If you are interested in starting a dedicated task force within WP:CM, or even a project, I would certainly back that. A possible infobox could then be discussed in that context. You may be interested in looking at Category:Orchestras to see what is involved. --Kleinzach 23:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, like you say there are probably more important things to focus on. Not sure whether I want to pursue it at this point or not. Thanks for the feedback! --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable...

Jacques Loussier I say no more for now... --Jubilee♫clipman 14:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah... JBsupreme (talk · contribs) stubbed it during the personal-whim-removal-of-unsourced-sections thing... I'll restore it and attempt to source it later today. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Orlando furioso

With great peasure I watched yesterday Orlando furioso (Vivaldi). I wonder about the voice types in the article, would link contralto for Orlando, wonder why the mezzo needs citation and would call Bradamante and Medoro mezzo as well. I wonder especially about Il Farnace - not part of this opera. Should I change? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is referenced to Eric Cross in Grove, who refers to Orlando, Medoro, Ruggiero and Bradamante as contraltos. In general, we try not to be anachronistic and go with the original voce types. Is 'Il farnace' just an error? I was wondering about that. Perhaps we should take it out? --Kleinzach 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Did Grove listen? - I certainly heard three mezzos and a counter-tenor. But won't argue with such an authority. Farnace may have been copied - wouldn't know from where - and left there, seems a mistake. I expected a review in the paper today but suppose it will go to the national edition, not just regional. It was quite an event! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Gerda. If you check I think you'll find that mezzos didn't exist in the early 18th century. They only appeared later. --Kleinzach 14:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. The opera house didn't specify, just gave names. The singers' bio was today's, of course, so was the stage [4][5]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Songs by artist

You have just moved this from artist to musician, but there should be no presumption you need to be a musician to be a songwriter, for an obvious example, Charlie Chaplin! Also one of the subcategories is songs by lyricist where there is no presumption of being a musician! (LOL). Then again, in your favour, songwriting is not an art but a craft! My main complaint though is this discussion should have been referred to over at the relevant music projects, or don't other editors/projects at WP count over at Art Projects? I shall now go away, think on the changes and exactly what the category should be - in the fullness of time I may actually agree with the change! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, first of all this was referred to all the main music projects, not least the Music Project itself, see here. (I'm actually a music editor myself.) Second the Visual arts project would like to keep artist categories to the visual arts, see here. Third, please consider what rearrangements to the cats you think are necessary. (Categories are not linear, they can link in different directions.) I'm certainly open to suggestions, as I think other people in the music projects are. The structure is not perfect, though hopefully we are moving in the right direction following all the discussions. --Kleinzach 13:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for response, I still need to think it all through, rather than bull-in-a-china-shop, which I more or less admitted in my first post. I still think that anything related to songs should have been notified over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. Especially as the decision could affect 100s of other categories, not least “songs by artist” which I must admit I’d love to be changed to “songs by recording artist.” However, I do need to think about it all. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Nothing irreversible has been done to the 'Songs' cats. It may be that “songs by recording artist” should be taken out of the 'creative' tree altogether. Let me know your thoughts later and we'll see what can be done to satisfy the different concerns. --Kleinzach 14:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking at this discussion, I think having called "artists" (in a general way) the group of composers, players, singers, choirs, orchestras, conductors, actors ... who make RMF is not "correct". But what else would I call such a diverse bunch of creative people? - Next question: is opera a "visual art"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
We have always been consistent in calling opera a performing art, alongside other forms of theatre like drama, ballet etc. (Regarding categories, this is not a matter of semantics, but having unambiguous sets of articles that can be processed by projects. So we are not talking about the definition of 'artist' as such, just trying to avoid ambiguity.) --Kleinzach 13:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. So I may leave the artists in the article and enjoy opera (s.a., question open)?
I guess so, but did you see my answer (above) to your question about Orlando furioso? Is Il Farnace a mistake? --Kleinzach 14:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wagner etc

Nice work there at WPr Arts on working this issue through. Had I known about it I definitely would have participated. At last Wagner's works category can R.I.P. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Parsifal

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Parsifal/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Italian theatre managers and producers

In that particular moment, my only concern was creating a place for the five Italian people who were already being filed in the undisambiguated parent Category:Theatre managers and producers. I'm not attached to the category name if it's problematic, but any major naming change would need to apply to the whole tree, not just to the Italians alone — my only role in this case was doing some cleanup on a tree that already existed and already had those five people in it. Bearcat (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I now see the extent of the problem. Right. --Kleinzach 08:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I've now checked this. All the articles were about opera managers, not straight theatre people, so I have put them in that cat. Category:Italian theatre managers and producers is now empty. You may want to keep this for other articles that may be appropriate there. I've also tried to make the definition of the cat clearer. Thanks. --Kleinzach 04:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and good luck

 
thanks and good luck

Thank you for all your hard work, Kleinzach. It has been very much appreciated by CTM. They will certainly be sorry to see you go. I seem to remember you saying that you have plans for another WikiProject? I hope that goes well for you. I wish you luck and all the very best and I thank you for helping me grow as a Wikipedian. I still have much to learn but learning is, after all, a life-long process that only stops at the terminus... I think the BLP issue will never go away as I explained on the CTM talkpage

Regarding the Composers RfC: this was the only way to stop the issue raising its head again and again and again. I quote you, yourself, over there:

And one again the editors [...] are asked to stop working on the encyclopedia, and repeat again the same arguments, marched up and down the hill like the troops of the The Grand Old Duke of York. [...] The Grand Old Duke of York [..] They were neither up nor down– Ha! No consensus!'

Are you actually admitting there that there really is no consensus? I never got the point of that. (Or is "York" a subtle swipe at me perhaps...?) Your near-WP:POINTy attack on well meaning editors was also rather unhelpful: even Melodia nearly choked on her coffee when she read that! And you unbelievably missed the fact that Opera was informed long before WP:BIOG was. Anyway, sour grapes can kill...

Genuinely, I really do appreciate your hard work and the time you have invested into me personally. Please not let's fall out over a potential white elephant that we might be forced to buy. The force of argument against our projects' (my former) position is actually pretty compelling. Just so you are clear:

if there is a box on an article, there is a box on the article; if there is no box on an article, there is no box on the article. I will neither add nor remove (unless the box is blatantly ridiculous or violates policy) from now on: each time I remove any box, I will make my reasons clear on the article's talk page as per normal practice all over en:WP.

— me in reply to comments by DavidRF

We don't have to use it but these things are optional anyway. I think that point needs to be voiced rather more loudly, actually. Some people seem to be forcing the things down our throats: that, too, should be investigated. What right have they to do that. (Unless, of course, they have clear guidelines published on their project pages that were drawn up following consensus among their group of editors, perhaps... but no that would be absurd wouldn't it?)

— me slightly later in reply to same

The projects will lose if they turn their backs on this discussion: they need to add constructive points individually like DavidRF, Gerda Arendt, Folantin and others have recently done. Especially the stalwarts like Eusebeus, Antandrus (if he is back off his hols), Opus33 etc. They also need to stop bullying Melodia: that is deplorable behaviour. Melodia's points are very often absolutely correct and to the point but everyone puts her down as if she were the schoolgirl everyone used to hate. The Opera, Composers and CM projects are now a close-knit clique that don't give a fig what rest of WP think: that is bad and CTM will not go that way as long as I am at the helm. That is not sour grapes: this is genuine advice and concern that I hope you will take in the manner intended i.e. as a friendly prod.

Anyway, Kleinzach, no doubt our paths will cross again elsewhere on WP (and I hope that we can continue our personal friendship outside WP via the occasional email or two). Good luck in your new ventures: you were certainly a God-send to me! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Death and the Maiden Quartet

I was about to move this article to Death and the Maiden quartet (Schubert) to conform with our naming convention, but then I saw that it was you who moved it to where it is. It's fine with me any way you like it, just pointing this out.

BTW, I have completely rewritten it. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved it in April 2009 in accord with the naming conventions as I then understood them. As far as I know we are still not disambiguating 'true names' only 'generic names'. Which naming convention are you referring to? Perhaps we can sort this out? --Kleinzach 06:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC) P.S. Good to see a substantial article on this!
I will have to learn about naming conventions. This name would tell me that Quartet is part of the title, a bit misleading: "Maiden Quartet". How about "quartet" or ", quartet"? - And, yes I see now that we have a similar problem here as for the Bach cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Mmm. See Death and the Maiden for disambiguation. See Opera article titles for a fully-operational 'true name' system. --Kleinzach 07:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Mmm. In the DA "Death and the Maiden (quartet)", not italic, would seem conform with the others. I doubt btw that Schubert himself named it that way and wonder about Forellenquintett or Trout Quintet? - I'll look at the operas later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Basically I agree. The Opera Project worked out a guideline for commonly-used English names and the Classical Music project should do the same. --Kleinzach 11:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it makes very little difference which name we give it. As long as you get to the article from String Quartet No. 14 (Schubert), Death and the Maiden Quartet (Schubert), Death and the Maiden Quartet or String quartet D. 810 (Schubert). Ah, the last one doesn't work - no matter. I just thought that, after all the discussion on the project page, we had reached some agreement.

Schubert never called his quartet "Death and the Maiden". It received that name only with its publication, as far as I know. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Right about redirects. I am certainly interested in nailing down the style for composition article titles, but we are still a long way from doing this. (There have been a number of discussions at here as well as on the project page. --Kleinzach 13:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Mezzo-soprano/Messa da requiem or Messa da Requiem?

Just explained to the FAZ that mezzo-soprano was not "invented" yet at Vivaldi's time. Could you please add a bit of history of the term to the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Gerda: FAZ? Could we keep each conversation in one place? I'd really appreciate that because I'm quite busy at the moment. OK? Thanks. --Kleinzach 08:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Please forgive my sloppyness, FAZ, concerning the (yes national but unqualified) review of Orlando furioso. - One more short question, only if you have time: Requiem (Verdi), is it Messa da requiem or Messa da Requiem? (It's furioso, not Furioso, one more mistake of FAZ). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
A difficult one. Roger Parker in Opera Grove gives 'Messa da Requiem', but I wonder. Regarding the title as being in Italian rather than Latin, then I would have thought 'Messa da requiem' correct. --Kleinzach 11:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, would feel the same, but will keep looking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

PROD for books

Proposed deletion (books), an adaptation of the PROD process for Wikipedia-Books has been proposed. Since you are a member of WP:WBOOKS, discussion and comments would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nrswanson

I don't particularly care one way or another; the accounts are clearly linked through that SPI, and Amory's reasoning for the decision is sound. If you do have a concern about it, then your best bet would probably be to talk with Amory when he gets back as the closing clerk. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Kleinzach/Archive 29".