Jump to content

User talk:Jmar67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Beauchamp

[edit]

George Beauchamp lived in Southampton at a pub called The Woolpack Inn. He died here in the sixties he was never on the Lucitania and is not the man ringed in the photo. There are untrue accounts of this which originated by another George Beauchamp’s family and an article was published in the Hull Mail and picked up by all the other national papers stating this untrue story. Now when you google his name you are told he was a Jonah who was on two sinking ships! Not the true story of a young man who’s hair turned pure white with the shock and was a brave rower of the huge lifeboat thereby saving many women and children.

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Jmar67, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Thank you! - Now I can use thank-you-clicks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.D.

[edit]
22 August
Happy birthday
C.D.

Thank you for your help for The Little Nigar. As for advertisement: if it was a dog article, I might be concerned, but I don't think that a reader of an article about music will change the brand of dog food. - The line (which was inspired by a conversation on user talk:Drmies/Archive 115#The Little Nigar) stands for: the music is catchy enough to serve for advertisement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For the river of copy edits you have unleashed to date. Keep it up! Vami_IV† 17:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support that, couldn't have said it that well, but feel the same! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk questions

[edit]

I saw you got an answer to the first one, but the second one did not get a response. Did you find what you needed elsewhere?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: Thank you for the follow-up. Yes, I asked at DYK. Unfortunately there is no shortcut. Would like to have one. Jmar67 (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might be possible to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) but I'm not sure how that works.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019

[edit]


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, including meticulous copyediting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TNX

[edit]

Danke für deinen Dank.Sca (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April
... with thanks from QAI

... and the comments for the Sieben Worte! - and being back! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: I am no longer following your contributions page, but ping me if there is something you think I can help you with. Always impressed with your dedication. Jmar67 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have a section for Quality on my user page, - peer review for Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist. If you have extra time, you can look at new productions by my French friend LouisAlain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I want to review only those files that are considered to be ready for CE and will not be changed significantly while I am looking at them. How do I recognize Louis' files? Jmar67 (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those with problems are here, look at the draft ones if you have time, those marked for ce. Others need referencing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for becoming a member of the cabal of the outcasts ;) - welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Please explain the "cabal" remark. BTW, I deleted a strangely formatted reference to this from the QAI article. Looked like vandalism. Jmar67 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's an old nickname, check my 2013 user talk page archive. The group was founded in protest to the socalled TFA cabal, because that one's head would not schedule articles by a certain user (who incidently wrote today's, and more than anyway else). So we felt like outcasts, and when one of the founding members was blocked, and another banned, the name became even more appropriate. We are sort of proud of it ;) - If you don't want to belong to such a gang (missing banned users, using inflammatory images such as a blue sapphire ...), I'd understand ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring problems encountered in copy edits

[edit]

cite book edition

[edit]
Thank you, always learning ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for Kutsch/Riemens and similar works

[edit]

DNB reference to non-person

[edit]

Worldcat reference to non-person

[edit]

ChoralWiki reference to work

[edit]

in/at/on cemetery

[edit]

on a libretto

[edit]
  • Operas are often phrased as "composed by A on a libretto by B, based on...". Is "on a libretto" a standard phrase in this context in English? It sounds strange. I have usually changed to "with a libretto", in part to avoid repetition of "on". How would you have phrased it in German?Jmar67 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In German it's "auf ein Libretto" ;) - Our magic flute says "to a libretto". - I heard the same thing on ERRORS. "with" makes it sound a bit like "on the side", and the wording "with music" seems particularly strange, because without that music, if woudn't be an opera. But learning. The Komposition (in German) has no preposition or conjunction, plain "eine Oper von Giselher Klebe", - never heard "mit Musik von" in that context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"to a libretto" is probably OK, better than "on" but IMHO not idiomatic. Could be ENGVAR. "With" in the Klebe case is not a translation but rather a "circumvention". "With music by A and lyrics by B" is very common in the U.S. .Jmar67 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See lead of Antigone oder die Stadt for an example of recasting to avoid the construction. Edited by Gerda. Jmar67 (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

alongside

[edit]

@Gerda Arendt: This is not an error, but you use it too often. Try "with" or "accompanied by" for variety. Jmar67 (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like "creating a role", it's opera speak. I say "with" for the conductor, and "accompanied" for an accompanist, which is understood as a supporting function, although it's often just as hard. "partner on stage" might be another possibility, especially when it's lovers in the plot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "his"/"her" in series of works

[edit]
  • @Gerda Arendt: Again not an error per se, but the use and repetition of "his" in cases such as "Esser performed as a guest at major European opera houses, including the Vienna State Opera, where he appeared as Tristan in Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, as Siegfried in his Der Ring des Nibelungen, and in the title of his Parsifal." is irritating. The reader will assume that a series of works cited after a composer is named would all be by that composer. I doubt that this usage is common in reliable English sources. Jmar67 (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what instead? Repeat Wagner's name three times. I don't think the average reader would induce it's the same composer. You could argue that der Ring and Parsifal are unmistakably "his", though, - accepted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"where he appeared as Tristan in Wagner's Tristan und Isolde, Siegfried in Der Ring des Nibelungen, and in the title role of Parsifal". Could also be rephrased as "where he appeared in the Wagner operas Tristan und Isolde as Tristan, Der Ring des Nibelungen as Siegfried, and Parsifal in the title role". It is the repetition of "his" that I find annoying. Jmar67 (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wagner would find his Tristan, Ring and Parsifal being described as "operas" annoying ;) - enough reason for me not to do that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Web article titles with double quotes

[edit]

@Gerda Arendt and LouisAlain: The cite web and cite news templates set the title in double quotes. Therefore, double quotes in the title itself must be entered as single quotes. Jmar67 (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "pp." template

[edit]

@Gerda Arendt and LouisAlain: The "pp." template takes two parameters: first page and last page, separated by "|" (not a hyphen or dash). Jmar67 (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Always learning, I never used it, Chuckstreet did who was driven away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

[edit]

@Gerda Arendt: When you get a few minutes (?!), I would like a brief summary (here) of the infobox controversy you have been involved in. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just returned from the funeral (see my talk). My POV is on WP:QAI/Infobox. Perhaps start reading at the bottom, where admired people said good things. The last debate was on Pierre Boulez (in 2016, when he died, Archive 1). I didn't want any more of the kind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, the last debate was Georg Katzer when he died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I noticed that and thought about you. Still don't understand the objection to infoboxes. I have seen them so often that an article without one looks incomplete. Jmar67 (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask them that question, and perhaps get an answer. I asked, got no answer, but was told that I'm wrong. - I thought about bringing flowers iunstead of the question, but if the question is not understand, how will flowers be? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how about starting a little history of the infoboxs wars which began in 2005. As other religious wars, they are not so much about a faith (infobox yes or no) but about domain, power and alliances. The prime objection to an infobox seems to be that it dominates the upper right corner (for mobile the beginning of the article), and thus snares away the reader's attention from the "beautifully crafted" (not making that up, it's a 2013 quote) lead and article, and that reader may go away without ever looking at the beauty. Therefore opposers don't write infobox, but IB, meaning ídiotbox.

I can't tell you anything about 2005, because I joined in 2009. As you know already, if you followed my project link, my history with the infobox wars began in 2012.

2012

[edit]
  • April 2012: Samuel Barber - Gerda Arendt meets the infobox wars. Infobox was added by Andy (Pigsonthewing), perhaps the most-hated player in the field, which she didn't know. It was reverted, he began a discussion. She opposed - and was converted in that discussion, by a beautiful line. The discussion is short, still on the talk, and was never resolved.

There are a few no-nos if you go to infobox discussions. Don't do it on the day an article is today's featured article (Jules Massenet today and three more days)! Don't ever mention the word ownership! Stay factual. Best advice: don't go at all ;) - Andy and I soon became friends. He (who once called an article without infobox "naked", - that was when he was forbidden by our highest court to add an infobox to an article he had created, but that's 2013 already) rarely touches an infobox discussion these days, nor do I. I just failed to look up who wrote the Katzer article, or would simply have left it as it was (so certainly no Main page appearance, with exactly one ref used inline twice). Sooo many other articles are missing. If you want to do something for the future, ask the question in the peer review of Orpheus in the Underworld. Better you than I ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to write these notes. It is often difficult and always time-consuming to wade through past discussions. Jmar67 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2013

[edit]

ARBINFOBOX

[edit]
  • 12 July Ched, a QAI member seeing the several time sinks of discussions, requests an ARB case on the matter. He (and I) should have known better, by the ultimate guide to arbitration. His request came as a surprise. Here's the link to the request and all that followed in the case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 July The case was opened. It was the first for me ever, - I had no idea what arbcom was, nor how you have to behave, so made some mistakes you'd better avoid. I trusted that the arbs would easily see how much more user-friendly and elegant an opera article is with an infobox than with the side navbox. Only: they were not interested. It didn't take long until the case focused on Andy being hated by many, and the long history of that. Please see yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To be more precise: I'd like you to take a brief look at the evidence page, and tell me how you read it. Imagine your were an arb and had to do something about an old "war". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you again for taking the time to add details. This controversy is much more complex than I had realized. I read your entry here and skimmed through some of the others. It does appear that the arbiters (that's my preference) decided to focus on the warring rather than the propriety of infoboxes. But there does seem to be the need to address the policy about resolving infoboxes at the article level. That invites warring. I need to read the policy again, but I would require consensus to add an infobox to, or delete one from, an established article. As a copy editor, I like the additional opportunity to find and correct errors and think less about the possible redundancy of information. Jmar67 (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Define redundancy. The same information is normally given in an article three times, in the lead, in the infobox, and in the body. The same information serves different kinds of people, and I haven't heard complaints about the lead being redundant to the article. Also: define "same". As the Pierre Boulez discussion points out, the date is there in lead and infobox (if there is one), and one who commented even pointed out in bold and extra-large font how it is in the lead. (As if I needed shouting.) However: The date in the lead is a character string, the "same" date in the infobox offers granularity (day/month/year) to calculate with, to compare, and to be correct in different languages. Worth having, I believe, and not detrimental for those who don't care about this aspect. - In the evidence, you will have seen the Pilgrim discussion again, including the threat of the main author to leave Wikipedia if her article had to suffer an infobox. Adding to the guilt of infobox supporters that they drive away those extremely sensitive and valuable FA writers. - Not without irony: I reviewed said article for DYK when it was new ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you really add 14 infoboxes in 30 minutes? Alle Achtung. Is there an article somewhere on Wikipedia records? Jmar67 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Kafka stories, all following the same model, and excessively uncontroversial ;) - all to get Kafka ready for TFA day. In the decision, even the arbs agreed that it wasn't a crime. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 July First comment in the workshop - any questions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • August While there was much talk about editor behaviour in the case, I made a factual list of 59 infoboxes that got reverted. A mistake. Who cares about facts and detail in arbitration? Some delicious edit summaries with the reverts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 August The discussion of discussions, and illustrating "speaking terms" mentioned next: Talk:Siegfried (opera)#Infobox. If I had been arbitrator, I would have told all participants in the case: do it like this from now on ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that IB variant made it to the article. My initial reaction: much too short, defeats the purpose. Also, I noticed the term "music drama", which was likely a point of contention. Jmar67 (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look up the discussions when developing the template (s. fiirst in 2013 above), it was meant to be short, to minimise controversies. In this particular case, Siegfried is part of Der Ring des Nibelungen, so a parameter such as "based on" could be handled once, not for all. - Did you see when the infobox made it to the article? Yes, 2015. Have a guess: how many of the 59 reverted infoboxes have found their way back? (Or: how few are still without?) - You could simply look that up on the talk of WP:QAI/Infobox if that talk had not been deleted, but this is jumping ahead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess 50 have been restored. Jmar67 (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Close, 56. One left without is BWV 105, a pet of Mathsci, reverted with a delicious edit summary. We did things together in the meantime, such as Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan. He had severe health problems, and hasn't edited for months, - I am worried. Another is Joseph, with juicy discussions, 2013 and 2015, the latter of which caused my friend Montanabw (QAI member) to not succeed when going for admin. Such things can't be forgiven. The last one is the saddest case, Elgar's Cello Concerto, by Tim riley (also edit summary worth reading), with whom I had good relations (at least I thought) until someone else proclamed in 2016 that I drove him (Tim) away from Wikipedia. Author of Massenet, featured article the other day when I cautioned to never say anything while an article is on the Main page. - He returned, and we'll get there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 August In the workshop, a design for a simple infobox for Beethoven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That provided new light on the controversy. I now better understand some of the issues. Jmar67 (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name one issue that Beethoven made you better understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussions on the metadata and the IB content vs. the article content. Not sure where I stand on the latter, but I have never viewed an IB from that perspective. Just concerned with mechanical problems in the IB itself. Jmar67 (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 August On my talk page, Nikkimaria explains the fine line between "not contentious" and "shouldn't be contentious". She reverted many infoboxes, but we have been respectful of each other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As you mentioned, it is "not debatable" (which you could have said) vs. "not debated" (which is what "not contentious" means). Jmar67 (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 August Same place, a discussion started by Smerus, based on a misunderstanding, but resolved nicely. He was another one on the opposite end of the case, and we also have been on good terms. The third one was Kleinzach, whom you met if you looked at Bach, Wagner, the Sparrow Mass and Rigoletto. He stopped working for Project Opera, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pause Today is Sunday, so let's pause for a moment and look at the situation in evidence and workshop, and wait for the arbitrators to write their decision, Worm That Turned and David Fuchs. Today's featured article Rossini is by Smerus and Tim riley, and nobody praised me yet for not mentioning the topic in peer review and FAC ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before going to the decision, we should look at Peter Planyavsky, who was a composer but mostly an organist. What do you see, history and talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Or more precisly: which of the edits will be cited in the decision to ban a user? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 August Proposed decision is posted. (In case you are happy enough to not have seen such a thing, it follows a pattern from priciples to finding of fact to proposed remedy, and while arbs do much off-wiki, decision-making in cases is done in public. All arbs on a case support or oppose what the two who wrote the initial "decision" have proposed.) Look and see how the result is simple and supports what my dead friend wrote in his ultimate guide: "the Committee does not carefully examine the evidence and circumstances leading up to a case". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps now look at some reactions (on the talk of the same), the first coming the first day after publishing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you missed it: I turned to Floquenbeam for help, User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 6#Hearish? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 19 August "We start today ...", I said it then, I say it now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22 August by now several voted, what do you see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At that point, I could add again: "Gerda Arendt thinks the infobox is over." - do you see the same? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only, it wasn't. If you check the votes on the proposed decision, you'll see that the pile on banning Andy grew. It's just easy to take one strong player out of a game, reason or not. I got restless and argued that I'd just continue his work, which fired back to that then I of course also needed to be restricted. Spare me details please, it still hurts. On 28 August, we reached a point of a majority of one vote for banning Andy, and the voter cited one edit. I asked above which one. - I went to a concert that night, thinking that a wonderful collaboration was ended because of Andy trying to help me. Great concert, but I had black feelings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 September Ched (who had requested the case to ease things for infoboxes, remember?) left Wikipedia, disappointed. I left the two projects Classical music and Opera. Erik came to my talk, and the term cabal of the outcasts was coined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 September Relief. Not that the arb (who is again an arb now) noticed his mistake, but another one changed his vote, saying he didn't want his vote alone let ban a productive content editor. Not without irony, he had been the one who had requested to ban Br'er Rabbit (remember, who wanted that so, but still ...). I thanked him for a good approach, and wasn't the first to do so. Something is wrong if the (almost life and death) destiny of an editor on this project rests on one vote, imho. And then if that one vote is based on an edit correctly saying MoS in the edit summary ... - I should let go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt: I have a question: why don't those who don't prefer infoboxes just use custom CSS to remove them?

    But I guess the issue arises from an assertion that their preference is also shared by the average Wikipedia viewer?

    But on the other hand, I guess it could be said that I assert my preference for infoboxes by adding them to articles? I'm not sure I buy this, because infoboxes have been implemented fairly consistently across the encyclopedia. For me infoboxes are an expected feature of articles on Wikipedia. While the information is indeed intentionally redundant, I suspect an avid Wikipedia viewer will integrate the presence of infoboxes into their (sometimes subconsciousness) viewing workflow, either consistently browsing infoboxes or consistently ignoring them.

    But on the other hand, while it does seem like an issue of individual article ownership issues, I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to say every article should have an infobox. Still, I think infoboxes should be used where there is relevant data available to fill them. Retro (talk | contribs) 14:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You will have to ask them, not me. You can ask them individually because they are selected few. However, they are those who write our highest quality articles, so their preference counts a lot. Please (as you can read further up) never ever mention the word ownership (even if looks like it). - For me, infoboxes are useful, just like images, and so far nobody fought a war over the addition of images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ps: look at The Rite of Spring, for the arguments, and user names behind them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt: Regarding "ownership", I suppose I don't really mean it in the sense of WP:Ownership, but more in the sense of entrenched curation. But though I say that, this is not intended to be a negative reflection on any specific instance of infobox opposition, more a general rumination (I certainly would avoid using it in a debate about infoboxes, as it seems a bit ad hominem and ABF). Far be it from me to tell editors who have spent hours, maybe tens of hours researching and crafting an article the best way to present the information in that article.

    On an interesting note, despite the 2013 opposition to the infobox (which I have not yet read fully), an infobox was added in 2015 and remains to this day. Retro (talk | contribs) 15:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, to all you said. The best debate about infoboxes is no debate. Waste of time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9/11 The decision arrived, and I responded: "Ich steh hier und singe", which means, "I stand and sing", which is a quote from the funeral motet by Bach (which I sang on some 11 June, funeral 12 June), - in response to the raging of the world ("Tobe, Welt, und springe"). Also Kafka, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

during

[edit]
Cannot tell what he did. Jmar67 (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could follow his link, and look in the article history for "box" or the date, or here you go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
His link is to the article. Still do not understand your point: that he added the infobox? Why would that please the critics? Jmar67 (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was infobox opera added not by a despised member of QAI to an obsure short opera article, but one of the most respected FA writers adding it (on trial) to a featured article, - a first. Gerda Arendt thought the infobox wars were over ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jetzetle. :-) You meant "silence the critics", I guess. Jmar67 (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

after

[edit]

2014

[edit]

2015

[edit]

2016

[edit]

2017

[edit]

2018

[edit]

2019

[edit]

IPA pronunciations

[edit]

@Gerda Arendt, LouisAlain, and Elmidae: I recently tried my hand at adding an IPA template for Hans Günter Nöcker. It now occurs to me that many of the German-titled articles lack such templates. I would be willing to add them where I think they would be helpful, such as Bundesjugendorchester, provided that a native speaker checks them. Einwände? Jmar67 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know my way around IPA, I'm afraid, so I would be quite useless for checking these... when one isn't acquainted with the details, they readily "sound about right", which probably isn't quite sufficient :) As a general proposition, sure, go for it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask the Help desk where certainly s.o will help you. LouisAlain (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can generate the template, but it's a question of having a native speaker look at it and judge whether it gives the right pronunciation and stress. See Help:IPA/Standard German for the symbols, sample German words, and English approximations. In fact, the finished template links to this page. I have now updated BJO as an initial step. Jmar67 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no friend of IPA, at least where it normally is, after the name, then IPA, then translation, then - finally - what it is. Could they go to a footnote, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have always seen IPA shown like this in the lead. Seems reasonable. Jmar67 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same for me, but look at Peter and the Wolf and see how long it takes until we even read that it's a composition, and by whom. And that is a short title. If at least it had an infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that you are "impatient" :) in that regard, but I appreciate the additional info up front. Jmar67 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why a "t" for the end of "jugend"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's the type of feedback I wanted. Would you pronounce as "d"? I thought it was closer to "t" (not voiced) if not stressed. That's how I would say it. The Duden audio seems to agree. See also note 2 on the help page. Jmar67 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's like "Sand" and "Land" which are somewhat like English (not the vowel, of course). May vary with dialect how hard the ending sound is, softer than "bunt". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, how do you pronounce the end of your last name? Jmar67 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"t", you don' hear the "d". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with IPA, but can tell you that the "ch" in Bach is a completely different sound from the "ch" in Verzeichnis. Both don't occur in English, while I think "x" is common in English, as in "six". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should have recognized this. There are two pronunciations given for "ch", one for "nach" and one for "ich" and "durch". I suspect Verzeichnis should be the latter. The "x" represents "nach". "Six" would be "ks". Jmar67 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback might be better on the article's talk page, but I do appreciate it. Jmar67 (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I better leave my ignorance for IPA here than expose it openly. The "x" sound (ks) is so different from the "ch" as in Bach that I wonder if others won't derive "Baks" reading the IPA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a risk, but most interested readers would know how to pronounce Bach already. Seeing the other "strange" characters will hopefully take them to the help page if they have any questions. I find the IPA fairly easy, but you should not worry about "exposing yourself". Once you get used to it, you can sound like an expert. And feedback from a native speaker is essential for quality. Jmar67 (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hear radio speakers pronounce his name wrong (too long vowel, k-sound in the end) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "listen" in his article is fine. I am not sure about "zeich", especially the vowel which is a diphthong, - missing the "i" part. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that myself while doing Mädchenkantorei Limburg and fixed it. I am just going to do the ones I think people might really stumble over. Jmar67 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
for that article: the first vowel is a straightforward ä sound, is that the one you gave it? (Where's the list, for me to check without asking you. The "o" is also long, should that show. The stresses are on "Mäd" and "rei". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the IPA to get the list. I will investigate. "Always learning." Have now changed per your suggestions. For some reason, when I edit in the desktop view I am being logged out and the edit uses my IP. Jmar67 (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more question in the Kantorei: in Limburg Cathedral? Would be "in the cathedral", no? And Limburg just says which cathedral. It's not really a name, just a shortcut, because the official name would be too long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's somewhat controversial. :-) I prefer it with "at" and without article since it is effectively a proper name (treated that way as the article title). There was a similar complaint on WP:ERRORS recently about Canterbury Cathedral, preferring no article. Jmar67 (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ä

[edit]

The volwel sound in Wächter is as in chair (but short), however, the short ä has "Ende" and "hätte" which have completely different sounds, "Ende" like "Wette". For the short a, why not say "but" which seems really close, instead of "father (but short)"?

[edit]

@Gerda Arendt: Would like to discuss this informally. I do think a move is desirable, but it might be better to have the discussion here, as we both find time to do it. I want in particular to make sure I understand your reasoning for retaining the current title. Jmar67 (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most important person to include when it comes to precision of article names is JHunterJ. The article title Bach cantata has been stable for years which is one of my reasons to oppose a move. I'd be more intersted in moving Mass for the Dresden court (Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is the issue there, not German? Has it been discussed? Jmar67 (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have the title page, it says "Missa", we could say (as before) Missa in B minor (Bach), until User:Francis Schonken moved it (31 October 2014), with whom to discuss a lifetime is too short. It would clarify that this not any mass but the Kyrie and Gloria which became part of the Mass in B minor. It could also be called Missa in B minor, BWV 232a or Missa, BWV 232 I, and variations. Francis is blocked, though, and I kind of find it unfair to do anything while he's away (September). All I wanted to say is that we have worse titles than Bach cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
About "Bach cantata": German WP has "Bachkantate" redirecting to "Kantaten (Bach)". I doubt that the stability of the English title is due to consensus that it is valid but rather only that others have given up (or are no longer active). There was strong but mostly polite opposition in the last discussion. I might favor the current title if there were a qualifier such as "genre" or "musical form" to soften the strong impression that Bach wrote only one, which is the main problem. Again, just trying to understand your position. Jmar67 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the question is regarding precision for this topic, but Bach cantata is an unqualified title, so it's fine from a precision point of view, and Cantata (Bach) would be worth qualifying, but English Wikipedia prefers "natural" disambiguation to parenthetical disambiguation, so Bach cantata is preferred over Cantata (Bach). Mass for the Dresden court (Bach) is wrong from a precision point of view, since Mass for the Dresden court doesn't exist, so the disambiguator is not disambiguating anything. It should be moved: if there's a better title for it (such as Missa in B minor, BWV 232a or Missa, BWV 232 I), to that title, if not, to Mass for the Dresden court. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or Mass for the Dresden court should be created as a topic article or a disambiguation page or a redirect, if the Bach composition is not its primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, both. There is no topic. It is this piece, which isn't even a complete mass, only Kyrie and Gloria, the first two of five sections of a complete mass. That is what Bach called a Missa, as the title page says. Francis was afraid that Missa and Mass is not sufficiently different. I don't know where he got the present title from. Yes, it was written for and dedicated to the Elector's court in Dresden, but it's not really a title. I'll boldly move and see what happens. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. For what it's worth, "Missa" and "Mass" are sufficiently different (WP:SMALLDETAILS), with any potential confusion handled with hatnotes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot comment. Please do what you think is right. Jmar67 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In my view, the problem with "Bach cantata" concerns the title vs. the content of the article. As the article is currently structured, the title would be more appropriate in the plural: "Bach cantatas". The equivalent German WP article title (translated) is "Cantatas (Bach)". I have no problem using "Bach cantatas" on our side. However, If the article were to clearly focus on the specific type of cantata Bach wrote, then "Bach cantata" is ostensibly more appropriate. But it is not precise in that it does not sufficiently convey the concept of "type". To most people coming to the page (including myself), the first impression is "But he wrote more than one!" In the interest of precision, a qualifier is needed. My preference at the moment is to retain the article content as it is and move the page to "Bach cantatas". The specialized term "Bach cantata" can then be discussed in the article. Jmar67 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) might apply, particularly the second bullet about things that are distinct but usually considered as a set. But this is really a good topic for the article talk page, either as a requested move or not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had been trying to find that discussion, which Gerda had alluded to once. I wanted to talk "privately" with her before suggesting an official RM. Hope this thread does not violate any WP policy. Jmar67 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. But I guess I don't see the benefit of it either. The eventual consensus will out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For a title Bach cantatas, I'd expect speaking about them (plural), but the main concern of the article is to explain what one cantata is, typically linked from an individual cantata, singular, of course. If it was a plural, every link would have to be piped. Not worth discussing, imho. - At present, the plural title redirects to the list of all, which I think is fair. We have several dedicated articles to the cantata cycles, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good compromise solution would be Cantata (Bach), justified by the singular/plural ambiguity of Bach cantata. There are also Church cantata (Bach) and Weimar cantata (Bach) as precedents. The question also arises as to whether the latter need to be separate articles. Jmar67 (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good compromise, as JHunterJ and I explained above, for different reasons. Weimar cantata needs the sperate article, parallel to the other 4 cantata cycle articles. Church cantata (Bach) has the specifics of Bach's church cantatas vs. Church cantata in general. Not without irony, I typically link to the latter for Bach compositions, because it has readings and hymns. Bach's chorale cantatas are unlike any other chorale cantatas, and certainly deserve their own article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC) All these articles - not Bach cantata - are by the absent Francis Schonken, so let's be polite and not touch them. --[reply]
If JHunterJ is still opposed to Cantata (Bach), currently a redirect, as the actual article title, I cannot say any more. Jmar67 (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"JHunterJ is still opposed" → "the article titling policy is still consensus". A good compromise might be a WP:RM to see if there's consensus for WP:IAR in this case to use the parenthetical disambiguation instead of the natural disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion?

[edit]

@Gerda Arendt: de:Hermann Weil (Sänger) on DYK today. Our article is Hermann Wilhelm Weil. Jmar67 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually, booked for a while ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to take a look at the above article and see if you can find any additional sources? I suspect that the subject is not notable, based on what I could see from its German Wikipedia entry, but I wanted to check if you can find other German-language sources before I open an AfD. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Bolingbroke and Gerda Arendt: I will see what I can find. May take a week or so. Gerda may be able to help. Jmar67 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like local prominence to me. To what would it be connected. But I would just leave it as it is, - why delete? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

[edit]
May
Rapeseed
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving article quality in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and for adding to the Six Motets, Op. 82 (Kiel)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Beauchamp

[edit]

Hi!, thanks so much for your help. I'm confused and need help. Many sources say he died in 1944 during World War II and some say he died in 1965. What's true? I already asked another user but would like more than one opinion. Thank you. Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LLcentury: Please see reply on article talk page. Jmar67 (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't see it, should I clear my cache? --LLcentury (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to help me (not mandatory) could you help me "undraft" the article? I don't understand what must I do. Thanks again for your patience. --LLcentury (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that copyright violation is alleged, which seems to say that some text is copied verbatim from the refs. I have not dealt with this before but would be willing to see what I can do. It may just be a question of paraphrasing. I understand you are not a native speaker, and I do not have much time to rewrite articles. Will get back to you. It's an interesting topic. Jmar67 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've done my best. Still need help citing a book, Can't fix the error. May you help me with that last thing please? --LLcentury (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YES! We've done it man! THANK YOU SO MUCH! --LLcentury (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for so much asking you for help, but really, you're the only one helping me, I've added more sources, several more to disputed info. Do you think the tag is removable? And please, if you wish to do so, I invite you to see my post on the article's talk page expressing my feelings. --LLcentury (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Technical Barnstar
For your immense help improving George Beauchamp (RMS Titanic) in technical issues I don't understand. Best wishes. LLcentury (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Narutolovehinata5

[edit]
Hello, Jmar67. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Hallo Ü-Wagen.
Message added 03:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

[edit]
June
cornflowers
... with thanks from QAI

... for article improvements in June! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

[edit]
July
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving article quality in July! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Schumann

[edit]

Clara Schumann's bicentary is tomorrow, I should have looked earlier ... - will you watch, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Ref 39 should read "An Artist's Life ...". Cannot find. Jmar67 (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gefunden. Jmar67 (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - I was out and no time to search yet. Thanks for thorough ce! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

[edit]
September
meadow saffron

.. for improving articles in September! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Present perfect

[edit]

Present perfect tense is hard for Germans. Please explain. I thought it is used for things that began in the past but are ongoing, such as "they have made recordings, including 1 2 3". However, in "they made 3 recordings", that's past, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to mention this on yours. Present perfect is also past but focuses on the present. Here, it is used frequently in the article. The idea is that they could produce more albums in the future. Jmar67 (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The math seems wrong though, - is that not disturbing to a reader in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not understand. BTW: German often uses PP where we would use the simple past. That is a special point in translations. Jmar67 (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The math does not require simple past. It is simply a question of whether you can expect more such albums. If the band no longer existed, PP would be wrong. Interesting problem. I'm glad you brought it up. Possibly give me some German sentences to translate, if that would help your understanding. Or let me translate EN-DE. Jmar67 (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, I got it, I hope. Thanks for all the ce you do for me! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: "that Belgian bass Tijl Faveyts, recognized internationally since his 2006 performance as Mozart's Sarastro at the Aix-en-Provence Festival, has portrayed both Fasolt and Hunding in Der Ring in Minden?" You must use simple past here (portrayed) because this is a past event. Jmar67 (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: DYK today for Protschka: I noted at WP:ERRORS that "has later performed" was a conflict of "later" with the present perfect. Same reasoning as above. It now reads simply "later performed". Jmar67 (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

explaining?

[edit]

In an article on the Main page, as this is going to be, every bit needs to be sourced, - I am travelling and have no time to check if the given source has the explanation, - if not, better wait until that's over - or write the article ;) - I will be completely away for hours now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the ref. Surprised it was not already mentioned. The sentence seemed incomplete as it was and I went to the ref to resolve. Jmar67 (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
October
... with thanks from QAI
Thank you, didn't look close enough! Also for article improvement in October! - See my talk today for great music that we sang yesterday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Márta Kurtág

[edit]

On 3 November 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Márta Kurtág, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hungarian pianists Márta Kurtág and her husband performed together for 60 years, often from his collection entitled Játékok ('Games')? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Márta Kurtág. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Márta Kurtág), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Here's my ideal candidate for arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kutsch/Riemens

[edit]

Klarwein, or others: when you see a Kutsch/Riemens, try to find the most recent entry, by searching (Google) for "Klarwein, Franz Kutsch": https://books.google.es/books?id=dsfq_5dFeL0C&pg=PA2400&lpg=PA2400, then replace the dated ref by one found in a recent article such as Ignaz Saal. I'm on vacation, or would do it myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt:Looks like you're in Spain. At any rate, enjoy the Urlaub. I have updated the KR ref. Jmar67 (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo !

I've just published this page and although it's not a monster I know it needs proofreading (nearly 15ko). Do you feel like doing the job? You'll notice I've changed my old way (p. 45, 48) for the one you indicated (pp. 45–48). LouisAlain (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The new page has just been reviewed and not a single iota has been changed. I question the utility of these reviews... LouisAlain (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an initial pass and will verify a few passages against the German article. The text is very well written and appears to be an accurate translation. The page number suffixes "f" and "ff" should be preceded by "pp." because multiple pages are involved. But the template formats them as "p." because there is only one parameter. I will look into fixing that. Jmar67 (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to review the page. Had I been more attentive I would have avoided some mistakes but as you know, after 3 or 4 hours working on a text, the attention to details vanishes in the haze. Thanks again. LouisAlain (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dürr and Jones

[edit]

Dürr wrote the book, Jones translated. Due to the elapsed time, he also updated. I think for a very general statement, he only translated. I suggest I explain that once, and say only Dürr from then on? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sfn's cite both. These are, after all, the translator's words. I would prefer avoiding names (including Rathey) at all in the running text and cite by title, or rephrase to just say "critics", with the appropriate sfn's. Jmar67 (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to that but - on FA level - quotes have to be attributed. - Your solution to the RV question was marvellous, btw. The same that Alakzi found, only I failed to apply it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the attribution must be by name in the text? Why is that? Where is that policy stated? Jmar67 (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know that I'm not a policy person ;) - I was asked in FAC reviews, but have no time now, - have to still write that article that would be nice for Christmas - but which year? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Choral setting

[edit]

Could it be that you don't know the difference between a "choral setting" (from choir) and a "chorale setting" (from chorale)? Anyway, a "chorus setting" doesn't exist. Please fix it, I'm on voluntary 1RR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting the sentence, which I thought was yours in the first place. The word "setting" in this case is a present participle, not a noun. It is not about a choir-based setting (Satz) but rather a chorus that sets (festlegt, vorgibt) the mood for the rest of the piece. I have reworded accordingly for clarity. Jmar67 (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giving thanks

[edit]
Thanksgiving
Cassia javanica, Torremolinos
... with thanks from QAI

Happy Thanksgiving! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Der Ring in Minden ... finally appeared today, - thank you for participating in finding the best hook, "... to listen to the music at the end" which would be a good motto ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, Torremolinos. Click. Jmar67 (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was last year, - this year was El Escorial and Àvila. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

[edit]

Block indent

[edit]

Many thanks for finding that gizmo. It's excellent, and I shall use it henceforth. It makes the page look elegantly laid out. Tim riley talk 16:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

[edit]
Vision in 2020
missing Brian

... for improving article quality in December! There's a peer review open for Clara Schumann and a FAC for Jauchzet, frohlocket!, DYK? We miss Brian who would have helped. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ps: fyi, I copied most of the above little ibox history to the project page, - you can get rid of it here if you like ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

[edit]

the pastor?

[edit]

Not sure about the change, because many churches I know have more than one pastor, and I don't know about Weissel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gutes Neues Jahr! I anticipated your comment. The German article says "zum ersten Pfarrer... ordiniert". Not clear what ref is supporting the sentence here. I feel the need for a grammatical article. Lack of an article strongly implies "the". Could also be "a pastor". We could compromise on that. Jmar67 (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volpelius

[edit]

... and elsewhere: everytime I write St Matthew Passion, which is often, I hesitate because for German Protestants, there is no strong concept of sainthood. I would hesitate even more to use a word such as "saintly". A Catholic church will be called after a saint, such as St. Thomas, ABCtown, but a Protestant church will simply be called Thomaskirche, which I believe should not be translated using St. Thomas (or, worse, St. Thomas's). A gospel reading in church will be announced (even Catholic!) by "nach Johannes", - no St. or St. Food for thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just correcting grammar but changed to "holy". Interesting point, I will digest it. :-) Jmar67 (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

[edit]
January
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving articles in January! Today - 20 in 2020 - is a birthday, she is pictured on the lower choir pic, enjoy listening. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Auch ein Steinbock. Vielen Dank, und nachträglich herzlichen Glückwunsch! Jmar67 (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not my birthday (yet), and I don't talk about myself in the third person ;) - 27 January is the birthday of the conductor (I'll return to most of the decoration then), and Mozart, but he doesn't like Mozart. Next program has Stanford Beati, among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would love to sing in that choir. Jmar67 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! - In 2006, we travelled to some cathedrals in England, listening to how they do it. We got instructions in Salisbury Cathedral by the Master of Music, sang If Ye Love Me to him, and he smiled, and said "What is the most important word in the first line?" - "Sing towards it", and explained that they do such anthems and Bruckner motests faster than some on the continent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing this typo [1]! Please could you do the same in the page 'da capo'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.171.74.24 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this. It does not appear to be a typo using the Italian IPA. Sorry. Jmar67 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

[edit]

Could you copy edit this article?

[edit]

Hello! I have nominated the article you previously copy edited as a GA. Thanks again for your work.
I have also nominated Vulgata Sixtina as a GA and the article has already been copy edited. However, I have added a few other info since then. Could you copy edit this article? Just know that I will change things you wrote in the article if I disagree and that it is not out of disrespect for your work. As a sidenote, I wrote the article using British English. Veverve (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: I would be happy to look at that article. Jmar67 (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's left to do, in both articles, according to you? Veverve (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished my initial pass through the files and will monitor future activity including the GA reviews. Let me know if I can help on these or other articles. It is good working with you. Jmar67 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for what you have done! Do you think Template:Contains special characters should be put on both articles since both use Template:Script? Veverve (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no experience with that and will have to educate myself. Can you provide some info? Jmar67 (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Using {{Script}} displays special fonts, however those fonts must be already present on the computer of the person viewing it or else it only displays a normal font. You can look at the conversation I had here for more info. Veverve (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate where this affects the article(s). Jmar67 (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It is also cited in the Oxford Vulgate New Testament, where it is designated by the siglum S."; "and in the Oxford Vulgate New Testament (also known as the Oxford Vulgate), where it is designated by the siglum C." Same thing in the Leuven Vulgate article: "The 1583 edition of the Leuven Vulgate is cited in the Oxford Vulgate New Testament, where it is designated by the siglum H" Veverve (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should try to reproduce these characters, considering the dependency on resident fonts. They should be explained in the referencing works. I would just say they cite the respective versions with special printing marks. (Why OVNT twice?) Jmar67 (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think keeping them is a better choice, because it displays successfuly the siglum used in the OVTN and that if the viewer does not have the font intalled, it still displays a letter. Hence why I asked what you thought about using Template:Contains special characters (each passage citing the OVNT is for a different article). Veverve (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't see the value of indicating the sigla in the WP articles. They need to be explained in the books that use them. Jmar67 (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? It is a sigla, it does not need to be explained; they are not explained in the OVNT, they are simply mentioned to give their meaning. Veverve (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are they not used in the books to indicate sources and explained there as to their meaning? Jmar67 (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are, e.g. this way "C = Vulgata Clementina, Rome, 1592." Veverve (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as useful to note that in the WP articles, at least to give the specific sigla, even if we could reliably reproduce them. Jmar67 (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Do you think putting an image of the Codex Carafianus would be a good idea? Veverve (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks interesting. Jmar67 (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


How would you solve the fact Metzger states two different numbers here? I checked both sources and yes he indeed contradicts himself. Veverve (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would just drop the second one. It's clear there were a large number. We don't know the criteria in each case. Maybe it's Ehrman's figure. Jmar67 (talk) 07:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a simple fix. What do you think of it? Veverve (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does not fix anything and is redundant because both are named as the authors. Jmar67 (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Bröcheler

[edit]

Re: John Bröcheler, I don't think we can say that this excerpt was recorded for the series, because I believe the idea of the series came later. They happened to have it, - no idea if they recorded the whole thing, perhaps for their own records. They could be quite proud. I was there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just rephrasing what was there already. Check my update. Jmar67 (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
February
Alte Liebe
I Will Mention the Loving-kindnesses
yes, good, thank you for all these little improvements, - Valentine month --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I couldn't follow the link. Whose funeral? Jmar67 (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too private to say exactly, in the church pictured, with music and reading as listed. When I wrote Alte Liebe I had no idea she'd die so soon, - battle with cancer for close to 5 years. Life is short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

[edit]

Song?

[edit]

Continue from Purcell. I understand that the German Lied is not the English lied which is an art song on German text. I thought so far that the German Lied is in English song. It seems to be not so easy, In German, we have Chorlied, which would translate to choral song, but the two Purcell settings would not qualify as such. Chorlied would (only) be a Lied with harmonisation. The funeral sentence is no lied, - Purcell made the melodies/themes. The article song says: "Songs with more than one voice to a part singing in polyphony or harmony are considered choral works." which is worded a bit ambiguously, - I conclude that such a thing is better called a choral setting/work/composition, than song. I wonder what an article choral song would say if we had one, and was seriously surprised how often the term is used in Wikipedia articals. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Choral song" is short for "choral arrangement of a song". It strikes me as somewhat redundant because, to me, all choral works fall into the category of song, being a composition with music and words intended to be sung by one or more people (my definition). I guess it is a question of avoiding the word "song" for certain genres, to avoid the association with "popular song", for example. As I said, I do not think "choral song" (or even "song" for that matter) is appropriate for the Purcell piece. Jmar67 (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
May be my English, but this sounds like a contradiction. Lied, the German one, is only used for something simple and rather short, - pop, or folk, or art. There even is de:Liedform, describing a typical Lied structure, - a form which can also be used in other music. Anything more complex would not be a Lied in German, certainly not everytink sung (=vocal music), be it motet, cantata, gospel, chanson, oratorio, anthem, canon ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Song is a very broad term in EN. German tends to be more specific, which may be a factor in your uncertainty. Not sure where the discussion stands, but I think I understand your concern. Jmar67 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I asked my choir director about "choral song": "Choral song- probably is a differentiation from just a solo song. Like for example- Schubert or Schumann wrote many songs that would have been sung in German singing clubs or in salons. Often they were either sung by one person and a piano or by a choir." Then he gives Schubert's Sehnsucht, D. 656, as an example. Jmar67 (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All true, but that's exactly what part song is. Brahms also wrote many. But while - at least according to the definition - part song is purely secular, in German we have Geistliches Chorlied, same thing for hymns, and many of Bach's and others' settings of hymns are chorales, - which may actually be the closest term, - while the German Choral means hymn, to make it even more complecated. The Deer's Cry (Pärt) is not a Lied, nor song, listen. I think Lied implies that the piece is text driven, with a melody on top which is closely following the words. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having difficulty following. Is the problem the use of "song" in a religious (geistlich) context? What exactly do you object to? What contradiction are you referring to above? One interesting point for me is the reference to "with more than one voice to a part", apparently meaning a structure like TTBBB, which my friend says is the voicing for the Schubert piece. That is, a compound form involving separate parts within a part. What is the term for this? Jmar67 (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trying harder to explain: part song has no German equivalent. In German, we say Chorsatz, secular or sacred, whatever combination of voices, SATB or TTBB. For some reason, part song in English seems to be only secular, so I think the English word for a Geistliches Chorlied would be chorale. Can you follow this far? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More from director: "A chorale is a form of hymn- I believe it originated in Germany before Bach. It was just the melody that made up the hymns in Protestant Germany - later harmonized. Part song- that is the secular form of a motet for example. It would have secular words or a secular story or poem. Jmar67 (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, but if you read chorale vs. Lutheran hymn, you'll see that it's not so here, where chorale is used for the musical aspects of the thing, irrelevant of the text. As if Bach hadn't composed exactly to express the text, so in the St Matthew Passion four different harmonizations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Patrick's Day

[edit]
Pärt: The Deer's Cry

decoration + music with thanks from QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for consistent clean-up and copy-editing, borrowing her smile --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BCW

[edit]

The name of the website is Bach Cantatas Website, afaik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I restored the title in the cite entry, but the text reference should stay lowercase. due in part to the definite article. Also, the URL is bach-cantatas.com. Jmar67 (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

[edit]

An alternative

[edit]

Instead of this, why don't you spend the time you're willing to invest in trawling obsessively through copious amounts of laborious archives to bolster up your argument to implement something nobody wants, and instead, expand on a stub, or create a new article about something, or review a WP:GAN? That way, we can all benefit. Just an idea. CassiantoTalk 21:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter

[edit]

or: the resurrection of loving-kindness --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and today Credo, or this is the day from Psalm 118. - I hope I didn't intimidate in the Hensel-Mendelssohn discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following it. You are entitled to your opinion and are more qualified to judge this than I am. Jmar67 (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, relief. I unwatched, though, intimidated ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were apologizing for intimidating me. I have said all I can say there and have better things to do at the moment. Jmar67 (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

[edit]

Bacquier

[edit]

Thank you copyediting, this and anywhere. I didn't write the Bacquier article, so please don't tell me things about the wording, - mostly not by me. I added references, and added them to the prose first, recordings later, so K/R a lot, - that's considered reliable by the watchers of WP:ITNN. I had no time to check, after recordings were done, if those refs were possibly better for the body of the article, and still have no time right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May

[edit]
May · Mary · Monteverdi

Thank you for article improvements in May! - DYK our list of people for whose life I'm thankful enough to improve their articles? - I have a FAC open, one of Monteverdi's exceptional works, in memory of Brian who passed me his collected sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

today a composer pictured who wrote a triple concerto for violin, harp and double bass, in honour of the composer who died and my brother who plays double bass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the translation

[edit]

Thank you for translating Herdgeschehen at the Reference Desk on May 22nd :-)
-- Communpedia Tribal (talk) 02:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

[edit]

Acts and scenes

[edit]

Perhaps it's too German, but when I hear "three acts and five scenes", I'd think the scenes come in addition to the acts. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that many readers would interpret it that way, but I do appreciate your comment. I would probably translate it as "in drei Akten über fünf Bilder" (improvement welcome), because that is the feeling I have. It occurred to me that the acts and scenes (plot) are not described in the article, unlike the German version, which is interesting. If I were not working on mobile, I would venture adding that here. Jmar67 (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked around. Falstaff (opera) doesn't mention the scenes, not even in the lenghty Plot, but has subtitles for a new location for a new scene. Così fan tutte has no scenes in the lead, but says "Scene 1" etc in the plot. The German Falstaff has "Erstes Bild" etc in the Handlung. What do you think of just dropping the scenes in the lead, especially when no plot section is there? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I noticed in initial CE that the act/scene discussion was missing but never followed up on it. Jmar67 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June

[edit]
June
Vespro della Beata Vergine

Thank you for improving articles in June. I can proudly present a FA, quite a gift after a year without, and a FL is in the making, comments welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

[edit]

Claude Mercier-Ythier

[edit]

The link goes to Wittmayr until that one has an article, at least in German. Pointless to say he learned from someone, if that someone hangs in the air. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Do not understand. Why should the Schott reference link to Wittmayer? That's an error. Jmar67 (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand. Sorry. Thou shalt not copy and then forget to change a title (or url or whatever), note to self. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you in July

[edit]
July
pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

Thank you for improving articles in July! Now a FTN is open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably wrong translation, but "focus" is not right. "Ausgangspunkt" is "point of departure", says my translator, but how to use as a verb that something departs from somewhere, but goes goes quite somewhere else, at times far. For a trip, the location where it starts if not its focus, almost the opposite. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipated some disagreement because I knew it was not a literal translation. I was not inclined to try that in this case because, for clarity's sake, I did not want to describe it in those terms. I did not have the text at hand to determine why the idea of Ausgangspunkt (I was thinking "geht davon aus") was used. I intended focus to mean "with an initial focus on", which would evoke "starting point", but that did not come across. So that is a translation error on my part. Jmar67 (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, compare - as many do - Geh aus, mein Herz, und suche Freud. For that one, it would be right, 7 stanzas of nature observation before he gets to what he really wants to say. In this on, Freuet euch der schönen Erde, it's just saying that the Earth is beautiful and full of wonders and worthy to be enjoyed, - no focus on nature, neither at all nor in the beginning, - more like a jumping board to what this guy want to say: about the joy "at God's heart". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I am making too many assumptions. I don't know what the sentence was trying to say. Maybe it was OK as it was. Were you trying to contrast it with Geh aus? That was not clear. Please phrase it in German. Jmar67 (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same hymn? I made the change in Das Jahr steht auf der Höhe. Jmar67 (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I came to say that sorry, we were not at the same hymn ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January

[edit]

Exquisite copy-editor, will you return? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-02

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-03

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-04

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-05

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-06

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 10:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-07

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-08

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-09

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-10

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-11

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-12

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-13

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-14

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-15

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-16

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-17

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-18

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-19

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-20

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-21

[edit]

16:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-22

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-23

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-24

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 14:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-25

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-26

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 16:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-27

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-28

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-29

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-30

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 02:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-31

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-32

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-33

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 05:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-34

[edit]

15:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-35

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 13:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-36

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-37

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-38

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-39

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 16:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-40

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-41

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 14:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-42

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-43

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-44

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-45

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-46

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-47

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-48

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2023-49

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-50

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 02:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2023-51

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 16:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-02

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-03

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-04

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 01:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-05

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-06

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-07

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 05:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-08

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 15:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-09

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-10

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 19:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-11

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-12

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-13

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-14

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-15

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-16

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-17

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-18

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 03:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-19

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-20

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-21

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-22

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 00:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-23

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-24

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-25

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-26

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 22:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-27

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

[edit]

Tech News: 2024-28

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery 21:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]