User talk:Casadesus

Welcome

User:Goodshoped35110s/Welcome To Wikipedia! -Goodshoped 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Henri Legay

A tag has been placed on Henri Legay requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The speedy deletion tag can be added a minute after article creation; if you read the template, you will see that it mentions that if you do not agree with the tag, add the {{hangon}} template to the article also. Ideally, the article should be written and worked on in either your user page or a personal sandbox before creating the actual article in question; although there are enough sources now, they should really have been added in the beginning - or after the {{hangon}} template had been added. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:New pages patrol: "Special:Newpages logs new pages as they are created. It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author." - Casadesus

David Weber

While I understand your intentions were good, please do not make moves such this one without discussion first. David Weber (the science fiction writer) is—by far—the most well-known David Weber out there, and a simple disambiguation hatnote will suffice to point people to the only other David Weber article (the one for the clarinetist) on the site. If you have questions about things like this, please feel free to ask me and I'll be happy to help you out. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hilde Güden

Hi. I wonder if I can ask you why you changed the title of the article? Any special reason? Regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I made the move because Gueden appears to be a transliteration of Güden. Using Güden would be consistent with other pages on people with umlauts in their surnames like Karl Böhm instead of Karl Boehm. I hope this is ok with you. -Casadesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casadesus (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. We do indeed use umlauts in names (and articles). However in this case the singer (as I understand it) - and as explained in the article - specifically used the Gueden spelling and that's how she's known internationally. In the case of Karl Böhm, he always used the umlaut. So I think we should change the spelling back to Gueden. --Kleinzach (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me. I'm happy with having it changed back to Gueden. - Casadesus

I think your original instinct was correct — "Güden" is the only correct spelling. "Gueden" occurs only in English–language publications, but not always. See also de:Hilde Güden (and the external links there), and all the other international Wikipedias (incl. the Chinese); only the Portuguese spells the name "Gueden" (but they also spell Erna Berger as "Bergher"). Even if her name were mainly recognised in the anglophone world as "Gueden", following Hildegard Knef (who indeed was known in the anglophone world as "Neff"), Wikipedia should follow the usage in her country of birth, where it is spelled with the umlaut.
I don't think this matters much as far as the article name is concerned (REDIRECTs can take care of that), but it should be spelled that way in the body of the article. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we'd all agree that she should have been Güden, however Grove, Oxford and the record companies all use Gueden so that how she is known in English publications. If we use Güden instead some readers will be confused. (Also of course Goodle Gueden gets more hits that Güden etc.) --Kleinzach (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Not all English publications use "Gueden". 2) I was under the impression we use the form used in the person's own country (see my point about H. Knef). Even in controversial cases like José Carreras, the article starts that way. 3) Of course Google shows more hits for "Gueden" — it's dominated by English speakers.
PS: The Germans/Austrians are remarkably consistent in their use of an umlaut in people's surnames; Eberhard Waechter would never be spelled with "ä". It only gets a bit murkier when older names, like Goethe are concerned, mainly because their own spelling was inconsistent. Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree but this is an unusual case. If you think it's important why not take it to the Opera Project for discussion?--Kleinzach (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see the argument for either spelling. It's perhaps most similar to the situation with Handel vs. Händel in that the latter appears the norm in Germany (and Austria) and the former in English-speaking countries (although the case for "Handel" is notably stronger given that was how his name was spelled when he was living in England). I agree with Kleinzach that "Gueden" is by far the more common spelling in English publications (although there are some with "Güden"), but as Michael Bednarek pointed out, "Güden" is the standard in European countries. I'm happy with simply sticking with any one, with the alternative spelling clearly mentioned in the first line, and applying the necessary redirect, unless wikipedia has a standard solution for situations like this. -Casadesus

Yes, it's like Handel/Händel though more confusing. Handel/Händel are obviously the same name, Gueden/Güden are not. It's an unusual case, however there is a general guideline about following Grove for style see 9.1 at the Opera Project - also her records continue to have Gueden on the covers. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Banners

I've put banners on some of your articles (talk pages) to make them a bit more accessible to other editors. Incidentally you are very welcome to join any of the Opera, Classical Music and Composers projects if you wish. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the banners. I'd be interested in joining. How do I go about doing so? - Casadesus

Which one - or maybe all of them? Opera is the most active one. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ideally all, but at the same time I don't want to spread myself thin. Do they have any specific requirements (e.g., level of activity)? How do they work? -Casadesus

They are just groups of editors. No specific requirements. If you like to sign on to the Opera Project here I can send you the special explanatory welcome doc. (The other projects don't have this). You can also see the Opera Project main page which will give you an idea of what we do. (N.B. Signing off is as easy as signing on.) --Kleinzach (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've started on as a participant. Any explanatory doc you could send me would be very helpful and appreciated. - Casadesus

Welcome

Project logo Welcome to the Opera Project!

Hello, Casadesus! We're delighted you've signed up to join us! Opera is a very active, medium-sized project with more than 4,400 articles - it's smaller than the mega-projects like Music etc, but it is also larger than closely-focused projects such as Richard Wagner. We have a discussion page linked to the main project page where you signed in. Participants work together on articles, see for example the Composer of the month, Singer of the month and Can you help? features on the Project page. Please take part! The scope of the project is huge: 400 years of history, many countries and many languages. For that reason the editing style of opera articles can sometimes be complicated, so we have detailed guidelines for formatting on the project page, covering the tricky points like opera titles, capitalization, categories etc. Please don't be too bothered if you make a few mistakes at first - we all went through the same thing when we started! Some opera editors use reference books such the New Grove Dictionary of Opera, New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the Oxford Dictionary of Opera and the Viking Opera Guide. These are helpful for checking facts and providing the essential references required on Wikipedia. It's great if you can get access to these books. However if you don't have access to books, there are still many other ways you can contribute to the project: compiling lists of recordings, writing synopses of your favourite operas using CD librettos, translating texts from other languages, picture researching, writing biographies of contemporary singers from online sources etc etc - and see also the To do list for articles needing attention. We hope you have a great time on the Opera Project. Please don't hesitate to ask us if you have any questions! We are always here - here! Best regards!

Kleinzach (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sending me the intro/info. I will try what I can to help! - Casadesus

Hi Casadesus

I just wanted to welcome you personally to the opera project. If you have any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page.Nrswanson (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

delighted you're adding the articles on European figures--but please, could you add a reference when you do this--you obviously have some good information at hand, and it might not be all that easy for someone to find good sources later. DGG (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I will try to be more consistent in the future. -Casadesus

Question on Talk page conventions

I have a question about talk page communications. If I'm responding to someone's comments or questions on my talk page, is the convention to reply on the same talk page where the question was posted (i.e. my own), on the other person's talk page, or both? If anyone should happen upon my talk page and knows the answer to my question then I'd be happy to hear from you. -Casadesus

WP:CM

Hi Casadesus, I noticed you are quite an active editor of classical music articles on Wikipedia (and they're quite a rare breed nowadays). I was wondering if you were interested in joining WikiProject Classical music? Centy – reply• contribs – 21:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Centy. I would be interested in joining. -Casadesus

Signature

Hi. I see you are still not 'signing' messages. Any problems? You can do this by clicking the 10th box above the edit window (it looks like a signature). Best. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering how people did that. I never thought to check out the boxes above the edit window which of course would have been the thing to do. Thanks for the info and sorry about that. Some of these buttons should make future editing a whole lot easier! Let me give this signature box a try and see how it works. --Casadesus (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Opera articles: changes of titles

Hi. I see you have been changing some opera article titles. I don't necessarily want to dissuade you from making some rational changes, however the system is a bit complicated. It's explained briefly here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera#Operas:_avoiding_ambiguity.

Under the system it's quite possible to have an article on Apollo [the god], Apollo (opera) [for the first opera on the subject by Jones], and Apollo (Stein) [for a subsequent work on the same subject]. If this happens it's not necessary to change Apollo (opera) to Apollo (Jones) as this may lead to further confusion, and in any case there are so many similar titles involved throughout WP that there is little point in making the attempt. Of course the different versions should be covered in a disambig. page and redirects. Hope this helps. Best.--Kleinzach (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also changed Jocelyn (Godard) to Jocelyn (opera) as this is the normal format if there is only one operatic work. This means Jocelyn (Godard) becomes a redirect.--Kleinzach (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the system in use. I will keep this in mind in future edits.--Casadesus (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead links in list of musicians

Hello, Casadesus. You have new messages at Jac16888's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jac16888 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jac16888, I'd advise you to review the guidelines on red links (see link provided by a previous user under "b. & h. hip hop" on your talk page or go [[1]]). (It appears that several others have similar reactions to this blanket policy of removing all red links in lists.) Under the section "When to create red links," it says: "Do create red links to articles you intend to create, technical terms that need to be explained, or topics which should obviously have articles." See also under "Dealing with existing red links:" "In general, red links should not be removed if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article." Also one needs to consider the purpose of removing (or having) red links. If the primary concern is aesthetics, then removing all the red links would be the most sensible thing to do. If the concern is that, as you say, "it allows every music teacher, teenager with a bassoon, or amateur organist to add themselves to the list, and we have no way of knowing if they are in fact notable" then I fail to see how this concern is different from any other edit on wikipedia, which anyone with a computer and internet is able to do. If anything, putting a false claim in red links draws more attention to it than if it were subtly entered in the body of an article, and makes it more likely to be detected. They should be treated the same way as other edits and not be blindly removed based on their color. The more rational approach (and the one adopted with edits in general) would be to have editors who determine a name in red does not belong to remove it. This approach has been working, for example, with the for clarinetists. One should also consider the function of these lists - to supply readers with a list of groups or individuals relevant to a particular topic; they should not be lists of what wikipedia has articles on within a certain topic. Finally, to supply sources for all the red links on the various lists, especially within a non-specified time, is quite a lot to ask of one person and is quite a demand of time. Thanks for your consideration. --Casadesus (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Prelude

Hi, regarding this article, the talk page I was referring to in my edit was actually Talk:Prelude. I'll repeat what I said there here, though. If you read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages)#Piping, you'll see that in disambiguation pages, we don't want to use piping, and instead the actual name of the article should be displayed. So if an article is called Preludes (Debussy), that is what should be displayed. Disambiguation pages are meant to disambiguate between Wikipedia articles, and so we want to show the name of the article, even if it is convoluted looking due to parentheses and such. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Xyzzyplugh. Thanks for the clarification. I've made the appropriate changes. --Casadesus (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Janáček Quartet

Hi! I just started article about Janáček Quartet and I see you are intersted in it, so can you please check it, maybe correct my english? Thanks.. Vejvančický (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your message. I will certainly take a look at the article for you.--Casadesus (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help.. Vejvančický (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Saint-Saëns concertos

Template:Saint-Saëns concertos has been nominated for merging with Template:Camille Saint-Saëns. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Hftf (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Casadesus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Delibes ballets

Template:Delibes ballets has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Aza24 (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)