User talk:DavidRF/archive 2

Tagging Classical

Hello...just a quick favour: could you add the tag |composition=yes when you tag the WP:CM banner to a musical composition? (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Compositions task force) Saves me having to do it when I stumble over the piece! Centy – reply• contribs – 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Note about italics - my view is that if a nickname is in italics, the brackets also have to be to avoid ugly spaces. However given that AWB thinks this is not MoS, it may be that we don't italicise nicknames (even though I think we should given titles for books and songs are italicised).

Just to let you know that I realise {{Classical|composition=yes}} is quite a lot to type so that's why I've began to add them via AWB. No need for you to do it by hand! I shall hopefully soon fully utilise every feature of the Classical banner (ie tag all stub articles as such as well all those requiring attention). Meanwhile, I think we should work on rewriting articles that look like they've either been lifted straight from a set of program notes (complete with peacock words) or badly translated. Centy – reply• contribs – 01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dvořák operas

Hi. Just a note to say that members of the Opera Project have long been in agreement that it is helpful to have all articles on individual operas in Category:Operas as well as sub-cats by composer and language, so I've reverted your cat deletions. This apparent over-categorisation is detailed in the Project's Guidelines and has been discussed on its Talk page, but feel free to raise it there again if you want fuller and better particulars. --GuillaumeTell 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have put the Classical Music banner on The Stubborn Lovers. I'm a participant in both projects and regularly put their banners on articles, but it's worth noting that we try not to overlap. In the case of operas we put them under the opera project. Other articles, on conductors for example, go under CM. Hope this helps. Regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symphony No. 3 (Beethoven)

David,

What you did is absolutely fine with me, but the user that removed my contribution did not say anything about it and he/she did it in several articles I contributed to, not only in Classical Music related articles. I call that vandalism as well. I left a comment in his talk page, I am sure you can see it.

Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

Hello David! I added references to the articles of classical music "to-do" list (Furiant, String Quartet No. 12 (Dvořák)). I removed "unreferenced" tags, should I remove the articles also from the list? And (maybe it'll seem stupid to you) in the case of Dvořák's Quartet only part of the article was saved... In the "edit the page" section you can find it whole, but when I used "preview", there was only one section... I hope it will be easy to fix it, but I simply don't know how... I'm novice... Thank you for your time and help Vejvančický (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and sorry... I'm more librarian... Than technical type. Vejvančický (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart's Nachtmusik

Thanks for adding the tag back in. I agree with you -- in fairness, I should have reverted to the tag, too, but I was lazy and didn't know how to do that quickly and easily. Have patience, I'm a little new at Wikipedia editing! My preference is to have no tag, because I have already provided sufficient reason (in my opinion), but I don't feel really strongly about it. Regarding my slight change of translation, I did have a reason. My objection to the "popular" translation is not JUST that Nachtmusik means serenade in German, not "night music". It is ALSO that the use of the English word "little" in this context indicates the partitive sense of this word, namely "some" or "a bit of", and not the simple adjective = small. The German word "kleine" CANNOT have a partitive sense, and can ONLY mean "little" or "small". This was why I initially chose the word "small" in my first attempt at a more accurate translation, to get rid of the ambiguous word "little". But then I thought, "little" is clearer and more direct, and sounds more natural in this context. AND "a little serenade" cannot be understood in the partitive sense of "little," so there really is no ambiguity if you use this phrase. Ajrocke (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mozart's operas - Template NMA

On the article's talk page you suggested that a truncated version of the NMA link might be added into the list. This sounds an interesting idea - can you demonstrate the form of the truncated link? Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now incorporated these links into the article. Thanks for suggesting it Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Just a note to say I have replied to you on Classical music. --Klein zach 00:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonic poem

I recently revamped this article and wondered if you would be interested in looking it over, if for no other reason than to have a second set of eyes on the article. If not, no problem. Thanks! Jonyungk (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its much longer than I remembered. Lots of new material. I'll take a longer look later (at work now).DavidRF (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Saw your note. Apologies for unleashing the typo beast upon you. Jonyungk (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was easy (and almost fun) because firefox has a spell-check. :-) Another pass would probably be warranted for wording and phrasings that a spell-check would miss. Its an impressive article, though. Lots of new content. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haydn Symphony Articles

Hi David, FYI. I look forward to your input. Eusebeus (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC) I created a centralised discussion at the Classical Project Talk page. Also, there seems like something slightly odd going on between several editors when I make an admittedly brief comparison of contributions and areas of interest. Have you noticed anything? The edits of Jindřichův Smith & Horn of Plenty seem quite coincidental. Eusebeus (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it all makes perfect sense! Only one person in the entire world is dumb enough to disagree with Eusebeus, and he/she is pretending to be several people! "This is the break in the case we've been waiting for," to quote Homer Simpson. That person must be real dumb because he/she failed to make the different personas different enough. What a single lone idiot! Ha, ha, ha! Cromulent Kwyjibo (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Hello DavidRF, Looking back at the edit history at Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, I realize I reverted an edit of yours ("of the German nation") rather rudely. In fact, at the time I carelessly erred in thinking I was reverting the work of an all-too-familiar troublemaker, rather than that of a noticeably thoughtful and careful colleague, i.e. you. Sorry about that, and thank you for your patience. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re photo in M. Haydn article

Hi David...I created the composite photo because I felt it would convey more info & feeling than any of my single shots taken there. And since the article is rather brief, there's really not enough space for multiple single photos. If something better were to come along, we could replace the composite. Perhaps tweaking the size of the thumbnail in the article would help! Best regards, Scott User:sba2 (talk) 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D major violin concertos

Why not extend the current paragraph at D major to make a forceful point, and make a strong statement at Violin Concerto (Brahms) to lead the alerted reader to the examples?--Wetman (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Ta for the copyedits - perhaps a quick comb on 34 as well? Have you read Sisman's article? It is a striking piece of scholarship - happy to send it to you if you don't have JSTOR access. Eusebeus (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your 48 edit, I don't accept the argument that date of composition and scoring are unconnected. They DO go together, since (1) the creation of the piece engenders its instrumentation and (2) as we know in his Haydn Symphonies work HCRL always pairs DoC and scoring in his analytical treatment - so we are basically following hcrl. (It's true that I had forgotten why I had originally paired them, but this is the reason.) I don't feel that strongly, but in the case of Haydn (and I only implicate Haydn), the categorisation seems apt. Eusebeus (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schubert's last sonatas

Hi. I've requested peer review for this article, as I hope to make it a GA (not FA as yet). Any comments would be welcome. Thanks. Gidip (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haydn symphonies

Well, now almost all the Haydn symphonies have articles. No. 42 remains the "technetium" of Joseph's periodic table. Anton Mravcek (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool! I'd add a stub for "Tc", but I'm away from my books & CD's now. I'll add one on Tuesday if no one does it before then. DavidRF (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting advice on copyright status of a musical example

David, could you take a look at Image:Simpson 5.jpg and tell me what you think the copyright status of it ought to be in your opinion? Anton Mravcek (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schumann piano quintet

Kudos for the correction. I had it from two sources that Schumann was the first to write a piano quintet. They, like I, didn't know much about Boccherini. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole continuo issue

I can't give you page numbers today, but you can easily enough find in the books of HCRL et al recommendations that the early Haydn symphonies should be played with continuo. Where exactly the dividing line falls is what is open to debate. Some will say the Paris symphonies and some will say the Sturm & Drang symphonies. Either way, No. 7 is covered. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see. Thanks for the links. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Haydn-I99-I-first-theme.png

Image Copyright problem

Hi DavidRF!
We thank you for uploading Image:Haydn-I99-I-first-theme.png, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot.

--John Bot III (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Seaborgium color

It is because seaborgium's half life is exactly on the barrier mentioned in the image's label. Nergaal (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikified

David I wikified Piano Sonata in B-flat minor (Reubke). Never heard it, never even heard of it, but I highly doubt this chordal sequence: i, bII6, viio7, i4-3, v, VI6/4, viio7 (spelled enharmonically as a diminished seventh of Abb minor) and finally V Am I reading that correctly - the enharmonic spelling of A double flat minor?? Surely not. Eusebeus (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Songs by Edward Elgar

I have nominated Category:Songs by Edward Elgar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Songs written by Edward Elgar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elgar: His songs and their categories

Thank you for removing the category "Compositions by Elgar" from all his songs. One might think that if they in the category "Songs by Elgar" they should also be in the category "Compositions by Elgar", as a song is obviously a composition. But indeed that is now achieved by the efficient method of including the large (for Elgar) category "Songs by Elgar" as a sub-category of the category "Compositions by Elgar". Well done. P0mbal (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No content in Category:Operas by Nicholas Lens

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Operas by Nicholas Lens, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Operas by Nicholas Lens has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Operas by Nicholas Lens, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete it. I created that category 18 months ago doing some maintenance of uncategorized articles. Exports have since recategorized the article(s) that were in there. I'm fine with it being deleted. Thanks for the heads up. DavidRF (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret de Baux

Hello David, thank you for pointing out the oversight on the Margaret de Baux article. I have now fixed it by adding the fact that all of the English monarchs from 1509-the year of Henry VIII's ascension to the throne-have been direct descendants of Margaret via Elizabeth Woodville.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop ...

... you are incorrect and I will prove it. Can we have the discussion first. If I am incorrect I will remove the images myself, but I have extensively talk this topic and have all the samples and suggestions saved in my archives.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline

I'm working on a text, though I'm not sure I'm in the drafting mood today. Would you like to have a go with it and try to improve it? Here it is:

Guidelines for including images (and accompanying text) of coins, banknotes, postage stamps, souvenirs and similar items in music articles

1. Images should be free of copyright, or have a precise, detailed and individual fair use rationale.

2. The inclusion should inform and contribute to the subject of the article, not be used in reverse to give credibility and value to the object (coin, banknote, stamp or whatever).

3. The inclusion should not be for advertising or other commercial purposes

4. The information included should be of interest to the average reader of the music article, otherwise the material should be moved to a dedicated article about the object (coin, banknote, stamp or whatever) itself.

Note that coins, notes, stamps etc. in general circulation are more likely to meet these criteria than 'commemorative issues' in which there may be a speculative interest.

Thanks. --Klein zach 12:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit this page

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Commemorative_Coin_Controversy

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]