User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 37

Grand Opera

You might like to weigh in at Talk:Grand Opera#Precise terminology. Best. --GuillaumeTell 21:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

List of compositions by Francis Poulenc

Hi Kleinzach--

I notice this page of Poulenc's compositions was initially set up by you. It appears that your original page included dates, and that someone else later added "FP" numbers.

Many but by no means all of the entries presently have FP numbers, and usually dates; but a reader has to come down to the Ballet section to find that the numbers were assigned by someone named Schmidt, with no reference given. It seems that it would be helpful to note this catalog in the opening, above the table of contents, and if possible, to provide either a reference or a link. If you're familiar with the catalog, I wonder whether it's very incomplete, which would explain the various unnumbered and undated items. Also, the separate List of solo piano compositions by Francis Poulenc gives a very few dates, but no catalog numbers at all.

Might you have access to Schmidt, or otherwise to any other system of dating these subsequent additions to the list? Thanks for any help you can give. Milkunderwood (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to respond. I split this list off the main biography in January 2010. Unfortunately i don't have any access to sources, other than some CD notes. --Kleinzach 05:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at revising the List of solo piano compositions by Francis Poulenc as I found some relevant info. Best. --Kleinzach 06:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks - that's just what was wanted.

BTW, I wonder if you may have noticed my post of 8 September 2011, uncited critiques in music articles, at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music page, and the following discussions, including my example. I am again running into more and more of the same general situation, but do *not* want to become a "drive-by tagger". If you have thoughts on this problem, I'm sure we would all benefit from your insights. Classical music in particular lends itself to this kind of analysis, much of which may indeed be informed or expert opinion, but which is obviously not "encyclopedic" in nature. Milkunderwood (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read uncited critiques in music articles now. (I hadn't noticed it earlier.) I think your other respondents covered it all well. WP can be obsessive about referencing, taking it to ridiculous extremes. My own practice is to use {{Fact}} and similar tags sparingly — basically when I think there is something wrong but I can't check it or don't have time. Best. --Kleinzach 02:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Cello Sonatas Nos. 4 and 5 (Beethoven)

Hi Kleinzach--

I now notice that back in 2009 you had changed the section head in this article from "Selected Recordings" to just plain "Recordings" - before I saw this I had just moments earlier changed this head to read "Notable Recordings", because your truncating fix struck me as being a little odd. Is there a standard protocol between these three forms?

I'm not at all prepared to challenge the notability of Maisky or especially of Rostropovich, but would be tempted to add the 1959 Fournier/ Gulda set, as well as the 1970 live du Pré/ Barenboim set. Notability is always a slippery concept, but leading with Maisky is surprising to me. However, I'm not very familiar with reviews in general. My 1994 Penguin does give Maisky/ Argerich three stars, but is also quite critical of them. Both Penguin and Jim Svejda 5th appear to prefer Harrell/ Ashkenazy, which I don't know. I did add Casals as being notable, simply for his pioneering interpretations and recordings.

Also, in my edit header I posed the question Problem: "recordings" lists only complete sets of 5, but appears at Op. 102 page only - where to put? I wonder if you might have a suggestion regarding this - there is no single WP article covering the five cello sonatas together. Surely this same question must come up with other recordings of various "complete" works. (I am not volunteering to start collating this sort of thing myself.) Thanks again for your patient help to a non-musician and only occasional Wikipedian. Milkunderwood (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all I do think it's a good idea to add more recordings. The grouping of 4 and 5 together (without 1, 2 and 3) does seem odd, but I'm not familiar with these articles. By removing 'Selected' I was following discussions in WP:CM and related projects about problems relating to selection and notability on WP. See for example and [1] and [2] and [3]. It's not something I feel strongly about — you could talk to WP:CM if you want to talk about this in more depth. Does that answer your questions? Best. --Kleinzach 09:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Knowledge Network: Invitation to participate in our closed beta

Hello!

My name is Gabriel, and I represent a startup company called Planeto (http://planeto.com).

We are currently developing a new type of community we call the Planeto Knowledge Network.

We all have knowledge and interests in various forms, of different topics and areas. We might even be experts at something. Our Knowledge Network is an attempt to gather and connect people who have a passion, and would love to share that passion by communicating their insights and knowledge with other people with similar interests.

I found you here at Wikipedia, and thought you would be a nice candidate to join the invite-only beta and manage a domain of knowledge regarding Classical Music, which you seem very proficient in!

Sounds appealing? Send me a mail to gabriel@planeto.com and I'll invite you to our closed beta!

Have a nice day :)

Zedekiel (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up

Hi, I just want to say a quick thankyou for fixing up Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JRSpriggs. I was sure I'd put the correct closing tag at the bottom, but the edit history says I got it wrong. My apologies for the inconvenience. Jowa fan (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. No problem. I was just puzzled by what I was seeing. Best. --Kleinzach 01:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome Kleinzach. Wanted to touch bases with you about the environment at WT:RIGHT. I'm sure you observed TFD saboutage your proposal by suggesting that Reagan and Thatcher be ejected. A complete nonstarter. And how he is trying to derail my collaboration on Conservative Party UK by inserting a wedge, namely Palin, between American and British editors. TFD's motivation is obvious: he's fixated on seperating American and British conservatism. This has been his modus operandus for 5 months. He will support any initiative that breaks up the project. Defining the scope to exclude British conservatism, or American, would suit his purpose. In fact he joined only a week ago, at the suggestion of another editor, so he would have "standing" in discussions about the scope.

It's obvious that Binksternet actually believes the project is a fully operational vote-stacking engine and wants to destroy it. Of course he has never presented a single diff in 8 months, and his theories were rejected at MFD. Because he has no diffs of vote-stacking, he used the "problematic scope" as the grounds for his MFD.

The most vocal critics of the scope are TFD and Bink. And some members suspect their motives, for reasons explained above. My personal opinion is that the scope is fine and needs no modification. Noting that Wikiproject guidelines explicitly permit broad scopes. I hope this bit of background provides some context for the way the editors relate at the talk page.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Alan Hovhaness compositions

Hi Kleinzach-

I notice you've posted to the Hovhaness talkpage a few years ago, and presumably have at least a passing interest in him. Presently on his main page there's a Partial list of compositions, arranged by date of composition, and under that is what may be a more or less complete list of symphonies, arranged by symphony number.

It's my impression that even aside from the list of symphonies, pretty much all of these are weighted toward orchestral music, without taking into account his music for solo piano, etc. I don't have at my easy disposal any information on Hovhaness - easy, that is, in the sense that I'm not about to start researching him online - but I do have at hand three CD collections of various piano pieces: two on Koch, played by Marvin Rosen, plus one on Crystal, played by Wayne Johnson.

If it would be appropriate, I could list the contents of these three discs, organized by opus numbers (since I don't have their composition dates). The next issue might be whether CDs are considered to be self-referencing, by giving their full publication information. Then I'm not sure how such a section might be named, but I had thought perhaps Partial list of recorded compositions for piano solo (because there are also songs with piano, which I don't have here). Please let me know what you think: list or leave it?; ref only to CD info?; and appropriate subsection name? (As far as I know, from looking at Amazon, these seem to be the only three extant discs of purely piano solo music. So possibly the Partial could be omitted.)

BTW, I very much hope people aren't starting to think that I'm just trying to cause trouble at the classical project. My tone isn't always straightforward, and may be misinterpreted. I've really been trying to anticipate possible issues that perhaps ought to be considered in drafting a guideline. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you talked to Jerome Kohl? I really have minimal knowledge of Hovhaness. I've never made any significant edits to that article. Your idea of adding compositions by opus number sounds good. (I'd just add them to the list of compositions and omit 'Partial . . . recorded . . .' etc.) I don't think you are causing any unnecessary waves at at the classical project. Let me know if you are having any problems! Best. --Kleinzach 01:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - I'll post to him right now. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for referring me to Jerome Kohl (and for your kind note to me). He has been extremely helpful and patient with me in getting a list of Hovhaness compositions put together, at User:Milkunderwood/sandbox Hovhaness. Immediately above the List section on that page are six questions that are not really specific to Hovhaness as a composer, but do have to do with the extraordinary complexity of his catalog. My sandbox is of course open to public comment, and you (or anyone) are welcome to post your thoughts there. Jerome has offered to check all of the listed entries against his New Grove, and once that is done the composition list should be ready for posting as an article. I'm trying to get it in shape so that as few later edits as possible may be needed. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biological warfare

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Biological warfare

Hi Kleinzach, thanks for your helpful suggestions at the above discussion! ;) You'd said: "I'd be happy to change my opinion if someone could undertake to maintain it." I'll gladly undertake to maintain it. Do you have any further ideas on how I'd go about doing that? :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It would have been better if you had made your offer publicly and unambiguously on the Mfd page, but as promised I have struck out my earlier opinion. Any ideas? I'd go through all the news relating to biological warfare since 2009, or whenever you stopped working on it. Google may be helpful! Good luck! --Kleinzach 04:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, will do, thanks! However, I created that particular portion of the portal specifically to avoid recentism, and so it has selected dates from lots of different periods of time, not just the most recent years. We'd have to swap out one entry for each entry added, as well. Was there anything in particular that was recent, that you feel is very notable and worth adding in? — Cirt (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Notability (classical music)

I assume you've seen where your revert of the ((style advice)) at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines was in turn quickly reverted back.

Ravpapa is now ready to throw in the towel, but I still think this is a mistake. I also think it has been a mistake all along for us to have gotten dragged down with all the arguments with Robert, which was really just a sideshow.

I'm not at all familiar with any of WP's policies and procedures, but I'm convinced that a separate WP:Notability (classical music) guideline needs to be established, for all the reasons that have been endlessly pointed out and discussed. So do you have any idea of the procedure for doing this? Milkunderwood (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime, I have ventured far enough to find Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard#Mass of notablity violations in progress, and from there to Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects). Maybe towel-throwing-in is all one can do. At least (so far) we're not confronted with 500,000 separate 1-line articles on classical recordings. It's all very discouraging. (It was interesting to see at that discussion a name or two I recognized from the (music) debate, making much the same argument, to the general effect that if it's verifiable, it's notable. I guess there's no way to reach consensus on anything at all.) Milkunderwood (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you know Randy in Boise? That's what we are up against. I'll reply properly later. In haste! --Kleinzach 15:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Rossini and opera seria

Hi Kleinzach--Me again. I notice you've fairly recently edited at Opera seria. I've posted a question on the talkpage there concerning Rossini, if you might have any thoughts to share. Thank you. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've responded. You are right, of course. I've done a lot of work on opera genres in the past but it's turned into a snake pit . . . --Kleinzach 00:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

An article that you were involved with has been nominated for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Rietzel. SL93 (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

List of film scores by Nino Rota

Hi Kleinzach--I was wondering why there was a total absence of cites for this list, and assumed it had just been taken line-for-line from IMDb.com; so I looked back at its history and guess who, to my great surprise, I found. Hmm. No comment. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Foobarnix was working on this. I just did some copy editing work, splitting off the list from the Nino Rota article etc. If you are interested in the content/refs you can talk to Foobarnix. --Kleinzach 02:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it then. I've already been in converstation with him(?) with his wikitable, so I'll go back and ask about this other page. Thx. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of these lists and discographies started off as sections of biographies. (They were split off when the article got too long or unbalanced.) In order to find out the history you have to go back to the biography. In this particular case, Foobarnix concentrated on the Nino Rota discography, and made a fine job of it! --Kleinzach 07:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Kleinzach. See my comments at Milkunderwood's talk page--Foobarnix (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I just created the article Carolina Actors Studio Theatre (CAST). I would be curious to know what you think of it. Thanks--Foobarnix (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kleinzach - I've just now posted a new section at Foobarnix's talkpage, titled "the Nino Rota mess", if you wouldn't mind taking a look at it please. You may have different suggestions - or indeed think that I'm wrong. Thanks for your time. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should say that personally I have less than zero interest in Rota. I don't even remember how I had stumbled across this situation, except that it must have been related to creation of a sortable table, which I am interested in - as it pertains to Arthur (Artur) Rubinstein. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

foreignchars template

What would you recommend - should I

• 1 put up foreignchars for deletion?
• 2 wait till the present one is over?
• 3 or find some way of coupling it with the present one?

Presumably 2 is the most straightforward as if the present one goes through it should be simpler for the other one to be dleeted as well.--Smerus (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ignore all this, User:Bulwersator has taken the lead.--Smerus (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he did it all correctly. BTW thanks for initiating all this. --Kleinzach 22:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: May I nominate you? on User talk:RGloucester

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

Totally relaxed

Moxy isn't the bad guy here. You don't need to be so sensitive. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm totally relaxed. The Council isn't even the main subject of my attention. On the other hand, refactoring, reposting, moving around other people's messages, putting out patently false information are things that really have to be challenged. --Kleinzach 10:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed your notability tag from Valpy's article

I removed your notability tag from Michael Valpy. Let's go a bit easy here. He's got a lot on his plate with his class, let's not make things more difficult.Jaobar (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing the tag is fine, but you really should have done something to strengthen the article. Anyway please comment on the article talk page. --Kleinzach 22:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism bad faith issue

Hi, I wonder if we could have your response about this issue which I have raised on the Conservatism talk page here? Thanks. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

TFD already answered this [4]. This isn't productive. Please write to the project page, not here. --Kleinzach 06:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Lionel

Does shunning really work? I mean, if an editor contributes nothing to a wikiproject and spends all day bitching on the talk page, is shunning enough? – Lionel ^(talk) 12:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Lionel, that is most unjust. Whatever your view on "bitching", User:Kleinzach has contributed substantially to WP articles on opera. Tim riley (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

Scarabocchio, you might want to discuss stubs with Dr. Blofeld - also see User:Dr. Blofeld/Stub and development philosophy. Personally I'm pretty agnostic on the subject, but I can certainly see his point. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Stern

Hi Kleinzach-- You are the most recent editor whose name is familiar to me at the article on Isaac Stern, and that was a couple of years ago.

I'm somewhere between being surprised and astonished that:

• the article is so sparse; and
• there used to be a discography section (not the best organized, I grant), that was deleted 07:28, 22 July 2007 by User:Emerson7 (without noting the deletion in the edit summary).

I'm perhaps even more surprised that not only is there no article for Alexander Zakin, who was Stern's frequent piano accompanist, but his name doesn't even appear at all in a search of Wikipedia. (EDIT: In the meantime, I've requested a stub from User:Dr. Blofeld.) Milkunderwood (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I could reconstruct a Stern discography, but I have zero sources for anything else. And I sure don't want to fool around going to the bother of making a discography if someone is just going to turn around and delete it again.

Any thoughts? Milkunderwood (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No. I've had minimal involvement in this one, and nothing to contribute now. --Kleinzach 23:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to expand Alexander Zakin.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fedora

Why do you add a "trivia" tag to the pop culture section? It meets requirements and I have worked very hard to keep it at minimum. Those examples in the list can give readers better ideas of various models of the hat. Please reply my talk page. I'd like that tag removed. There is no way to fit that list into the article, there will never be a way. Thank you. Djathinkimacowboy 23:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections. The references wee unfortunately not minimal. --Kleinzach 01:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hello, Kleinzach. When you moved Suite to a new title and then moved the Suite (disambiguation) page to the old title, you may have overlooked the disambiguation guideline, which says:

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Suite" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done the redirects. Are you asking me to do all the individual links? It seems there are maybe 300 or 400 of them. --Kleinzach 15:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the many pages of "wrong" link and am not sure if the move was a good one. It certainly surprised me. It seems that "suite" is meant as "suite (music)" in most cases. Until the dabs are sorted out, "suite" should redirect there, imo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I explain my reasoning in the fit summaries. 'Suite' is not primary. Another editor pointed this out before me. See Talk:Suite (music). --Kleinzach 14:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That being accepted, shouldn't suite redirect to the (music) until the wrong links will be fixed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Suite was anomalous. It should have been fixed before. It wasn't so there was an accumulation of links. However it seems they are all music suites so I'll see if a bot can fix it. I think that would be the best solution. Incidentally this is the first time in 6 years I have ever been asked to fix links rather than redirects. There are wrong links all over WP and they are corrected gradually as people find them. In this case anyone who follows the link to the disambig page will still be able to select Suite (music) and go to that page. --Kleinzach 15:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a coincidence — R'n'B is a bot owner. Perhaps he can tell us how this can be done? --Kleinzach 15:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In response to your comment that "there are wrong links all over WP and they are corrected gradually", that is true but the situation is a little different when links that used to be correct are suddenly broken by moving and overwriting the article that they pointed to. However, my initial message was not intended as a criticism but rather as a friendly suggestion.

As to the bot question, if there is a consensus that all of the existing suite links should be retargeted to suite (music), I can have my bot do that in a matter of minutes. The problem with that approach, however, is that (although I haven't actually looked), I'd be pretty surprised if there aren't at least a few links for which this would be erroneous, and I doubt that a bot would be able to separate the correct from the incorrect changes. I'm open to suggestions (one technique that I have used in the past, for example, is only to change links if they appear on a page which is in a particular category or group of categories which strongly implies what the correct target must be; e.g., if a link to "suite" appears in an article in "Category:Music", then it is very likely referring to a suite of music). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I can spot any non-music links just by looking through the list. They would originally have been mislinks (to furniture or whatever), so I don't think there would have been many of them. I don't think it will be necessary to put categories into the script. Shall I go through the list? --Kleinzach 15:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed a few manually, Mozart, Bach etc. I think we make little mistake if we change all suite to suite (music) and sort the few which are not. - I remember how furious I got when William Waterhouse was made a dab page without announcement, - at least Suite is not a person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The non-music suites were originally incorrect. They pointed to the music. So by fixing them — I've just found a couple — the situation is actually better than before. --Kleinzach 16:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I was able to fix about half (200) of the links by using the category selection method; if and when you think you have found all the remaining incorrect links, I can run the bot through the rest. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I've checked the first 100 now. There were quite a few residential/hotel suites. --Kleinzach 16:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm a bit confused. Pages that link to "Suite" [5] still seem to have the same items. --Kleinzach 16:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"What links here" will only show you the first 50 links, by default. Are you sure you expanded it enough to see the entire list? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I mean I was surprised that none of the ones you did were in the first 100, but I do see some of your changes coming up in my watch list. I'm under a lot of snow (literally) just now but I hope I'll finish the check later today. --Kleinzach 00:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. My mainspace check is finished. (I'm assuming we will leave userspace alone.) Over to Russ-Bot! --Kleinzach 07:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Moonlight Sonata

Hi Kleinzach--The whole problem with this proposed move is that it was only back in September that a move was first proposed from Sonata No. 14 to Moonlight, and User:Danger granted the request without soliciting, or getting, any discussion. All this current discussion is about is simply trying to get it moved back the way it was. This same guy keeps trying to move all of the sonatas, first all at once, then one at a time starting with No. 1. He's been shot down twice on these before he finally found a friendly admin. Surely there's some way to put a stop to this BS. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a way. The 'controlling' guideline is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music). At the moment the wording is weak as it implies that nicknames are OK. I think it needs rewording so that nicknames are seen as exceptional, last resort, cases. How about trying a re-draft in your userspace and then running it past me? It needs to be precisely worded! --Kleinzach 03:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Per my request, User:Antandrus has now closed the parallel discussion at Sonata No. 8, with a pointer to the Moonlight talkpage, as both you and DavidRF had suggested. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Re my point above, I think you also might look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Guidelines#Title. Some rewording may be necessary if we are going to tighten this up. --Kleinzach 05:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Engine Charlie Wilson used to have a sign on his desk when he was sec'y of defense, not given here in either article at WP (how could they miss it?) and I can't remember the wording. It was in an article in Time, and is still online now, but behind a pay wall. It was something like this, but I'm leaving out a small word somewhere in this phrase: Non te bastardi carborundum. (The WP article has only a lot of bastardized versions.) Anyway, it's good advice to take to heart. Milkunderwood (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It is an honor:

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Need more be said? Season's Greetings and keep it up.... Djathinkimacowboy 00:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Political culture

Greetings. I see that there will be a merger. Are you going to add task forces and which ones? Let me know if you need any help at all.Greg Bard (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was just trying to figure out how best to do this, given that the structure is not the normal kind. Any ideas?--Kleinzach 02:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I referred this to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Kleinzach 02:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking if I were to do it I would largely copy from what is going on at {{WikiProject Philosophy}}. This is why I was wondering how far you would like to take it. Is it a good opportunity to set up task forces by era, and those kind of things I had proposed. I'm thinking that liberalism and fascism should not be a problem. I haven't seen any discussion of the proposal at socialism and anarchy.Greg Bard (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) so we can be clear about this? --Kleinzach 04:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a challenge to follow everything going on in a short time, so I'll look into everything after you are done working substantially. However, I can tell you that the liberalism task force had been an active wikiproject prior to being merged into WP:POLC, which I had hoped would revitalize one and vitalize the other. Will you be enabling the taskforce tags in the project banner? I don't think the assessment of taskforces will work otherwise.Greg Bard (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is Liberalism? I'm confused about that. Can you give me the link? --Kleinzach 09:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's right where you would expect it to be give the scheme: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Political_culture/Liberalism (i guess you moved it already).

But there's no talk page there. I don't get it. --Kleinzach 09:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I thought I'd comment here after wandering from the project talk page. The Liberalism project did used to exist and did have a talk page, but I can't find this (or the history of it) either after all the page moves. But the talk page banner, Template:WikiProject Liberalism, for when it was it's own project still exists and is still used in some cases. Is there a bot request to move change all these WikiProject talk page banners? Cheers, Zangar (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There haven't been any bot requests so far. I didn't understand the structure of Wikipedia:WikiProject Political culture from the beginning, which is why I asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Most of the page moves were done byJohnnyMrNinja. --Kleinzach10:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)