Jump to content

User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Categories for REDIRECTs

Copied from User talk:Kleinzach You removed the categories from the REDIRECTs for Die ideale Gattin and Die Tangokönigin as "confusing"; I don't think they are. Those titles need categories as they are not just REDIRECTs from other spellings but refer to a somewhat different work. If someone looks up the Category:1921 operas, Die Tangokönigin ought to be found there. Similarly, the title Die ideale Gattin ought to be part of the Category:Operas by Franz Lehár. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages (last bullet point) and all of Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects; I indicated as much in my edit summaries when I added categories to those pages on 5 January when you created them. I suggest to restore the categories you removed.. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick reply. Very surprised as I thought these were just placed in error. (I didn't see your edit summaries.) I've never seen redirects ever categorized before. Will restore, however I think this should be discussed on project pages as there many other similar redirects. I've been working on French theatres recently, which go through numerous name changes, presumably you think these should all be categorized as well? I think this needs clarifying. --Kleinzach 07:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC) P.S. The reason I used the word 'confusing' was because categorization implied (to me anyway) that the redirect was actually an article. I went to them because I thought the article titles had been italicized, contrary to usual practice. I hope that makes it clearer. --Kleinzach 07:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I only followed the guidelines I quoted, which seem sensible to me in cases where the redirected title refers to something slightly different from the the REDIRECT's target article. If various incarnations of a theatre have different characteristics from the main article, like year of construction or architectural style, appropriate categories for the REDIRECTs seem useful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sure you are correct on this - hence I immediately rolled back - but I don't think anybody else in this part of the encyclopedia is doing this. I am not hugely enthusiastic about it because it makes it impossible to count articles via categories. I also think it's going to be difficult to define exactly when cats are needed to the point where other editors understand the idea. I think we should at least alert other people to this, but where? WP:CM? Maybe Music? --Kleinzach 08:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Wherever – I have no preference. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

German titles

Hello Michael, only if you feel like translating and/or explaining more German titles of pieces: Lyndon Watts played Klaus-ur, a competition piece dedicated to some Klaus, and will play in a few hours Migrant. Remembering "outdribble", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We know from the Schott notes that the work is dedicated to someone named Klaus; the notes also mention that the piece is like an exam – de:Klausur (Prüfung) (and not urig). But de:Klausur has of course other meanings – de:Klausur (Kloster) / Enclosed religious orders and de:Klausurtagung / a closed gathering. Whether any of these apply depends on the nature of Klaus and his relationship with Holliger and the piece itself; I doubt it. Then there is the suffix "-ur" which is normally used as a prefix: as in Urheimat, Urreligion, Urschrift, Urausgabe (not to mention Ureltern) where it confers the meaning of original, authentic, or proto-; again, probably a blind alley.
If you feel the need to explain the title, a footnote along these lines might work: "Klaus-ur: dedicated to someone named Klaus and an extremely difficult examination of a bassoonist's skills – the term Klausur is sometimes used in German academic contexts for such an exam." But it seems to be one of those terms and phrases which are extremely difficult to convey in other languages.
Side note: consider the translators of Georges Perec's 300-page novel La Disparition which was written without a single letter "e"; in German it's de:Anton Voyls Fortgang, in English A Void. Perec later followed this with the novella Les revenentes which uses only "e" as vowel, translated into English as The Exeter Text. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for more language insight! We had Holliger at the Rheingau Musik Festival, that title sounds like him. - Left: Migrant - Migrationshintergrund ... premiered yesterday, no feedback yet, there's also real life, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
+ the others, only for your entertainment:
Three Pieces for bassoon solo (2001/2002)
I. Matthewmatics (for Matthew Wilkie)
II. Mar(t/d)er aller Arten (for Christoph Gunia)
III. Klaus-ur (for Klaus)
Question: which category for an Australian teaching at a Swiss University of the Arts? - Completely different topic: did you watch Grychtolik recently? Would you kindly welcome the new single-minded user to WP? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Categories for Lyndon Watts might be: University of Bern faculty and possibly Australian academics, Australian expatriates in Germany, Australian expatriates in Switzerland.
Yes, I noticed the strange edits by 94.16.0.6 and Bax4aa74 at Grychtolik and I think that editor's edit summaries, as rarely as (s)he uses them, are totally unreasonable and the deleted text should be restored. However, since you added some text recently, it seems no longer a matter of simply restoring to a previous version, e.g. to this one by Jerome Kohl, because I can't tell easily whether your more recent edit was already present in that version. Also, I have no specific interest in the Grychtolik article, apart from trying to prevent vandalism or similar, but I will certainly support you if you restore the deleted text. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Watts is not teaching at the Bern University, the Musik department belongs to "Applied sciences" (interesting!), that's why I asked. Thanks for the others. - I don't know yet how to reinstall a former version, also think it would look better if a different person did it. What I added was part of the former version (just said differently), so nothing would be lost in going back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I wonder what's going on? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Münchener Kammerorchester

The more I look at the Münchener Kammerorchester the more I think Munich Chamber Orchestra should be moved. The recordings are done under the German name, bach-cantatas has it ... If you feel the same, would you move? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a REDIRECT at Münchener Kammerorchester (which has not many incoming links); that will at least ensure that readers will find the article. Further than that, I don't have a strong opinion either way, and I don't feel right now like hunting for the relevant guidelines regarding article names for foreign orchestras. I can find examples for either use in Category:Chamber orchestras. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking, either way, that's what I see also, Münchner Philharmoniker, name English, but German in the lead? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
That's the way REDIRECTs work; see Nordrhein-Westfalen. But if you feel that readers would be better served with the German name, go ahead, or ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but NRW is different:
North Rhine-Westphalia, North Rhine-Westphalia is ..., - but
Munich Philharmonic, Münchner Philharmoniker is ... (which is kind of nonsense because Philharmoniker is a plural). I guess I just adopt that, rather than moving, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
In addition: I would appreciate you looking at the new Awards section, specifically "Förderpreis"? "erfolgreiche Vermittlung", "Akademie der Schönen Künste"? - I wonder why there is no Article on Cannes Classical Award, found many times but not even linked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
"Förderpreis" might be "Encouragement Award" or more literally "Furtherance Award"; the first sounds a bit patronising, the second is more obscure but correct. "Akademie der Schönen Künste" would be "Academy of Fine Arts", I think.
For the Cannes Classical Award, see de:Midem Classical Award. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Academy of Fine Arts, Munich is for Bildende Künste, not Music, as far as I understand, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm on shaky ground here, but isn't "Schöne Künste" just a big word for "Kunst"? See how de:Schöne Künste redirects to de:Kunst. According to Fine art, music is part of it, but the article points out that there is some confusion. Maybe these terms don't translate back and forth in a linear manner. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
You are right in general, but Munich seems to have different academies, or not? And there's also Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities. And de:Bayerische Akademie der Schönen Künste, probably the one we are looking for, no English article yet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Adrian Adlam

One of the refs is a broken link. Would you find what was meant? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean the Winchester College one? As you observed, the page doesn't exist anymore. I suspect it covered Adlam's role there. There are plenty of PDF documents at winchestercollege.org which mention Adlam as a performer, but only this one mentions him as staff member: http://www.winchestercollege.org/dons-e-mail-addresses . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikitable

Michael, do you use Internet Explorer (as I do)? If so, do you have any ideas about the problem that I mentioned here? Best. --GuillaumeTell 22:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I mainly use IE8, and no, I don't see any extra vertical lines in the current version of the table in List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the East of England. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Bizarre. The bottom two, St Michael the Archangel, Booton, and All Saints, Cambridge, both have a line that I can see about 2 mm in from the left edge (in the case of the former, slightly overlapping the 1 of the date. And the same line with the same overlap appears in several other entries - e.g. working down from the top, the 12th century churches in Stamford, Stanstead Abotts and Steeple Gidding. It seems to be happening when the photo to the left is in portrait rather than landscape form. Perhaps I'm the only person on the planet who can see this?! Any suggestions as to where I could pursue it? Microsoft, I suppose, but ... BTW, my version is 8.0.6001.18702, Cipher strength: 128 bit, whatever that means. --GuillaumeTell 19:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Bizarre indeed. I'm using the same IE8 version, and I triple checked the page – no extra vertical lines anywhere. The usual advice in these situations, which you probably heard before, is to a) log off/on; b) reboot; c) clear cache; d) shrug. From a distance, there's nothing I can think of to add. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed

This is what Bots do. I was speechless yesterday when I found Kim Kashkashian tagged that way, which was formally even correct. I don't "believe" in inline citations, but the Bots and others, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Em dashes

I just now took the spaces out between the em dashes in After Aida, per Wiki style (not a look I personally like as a professional editor/proofreader). I'd rather use commas, personally, and may change them to that in the future. Softlavender (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Robertgreer has made a large number of technical changes to the links to the List of opera genres, see [1]. Can you have a look? I'm not sure why he is making such a big effort to change all of them. Actually I don't see the point of it. If I remember rightly you originally advised me how to set the links up, so you will understand this better than I do. Thanks. --Kleinzach 00:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed; adding {{R to section}} {{R to list entry}} to those redirects seems to serve some kind of administrative purpose (see notes at Category:Redirects to list entries and Category:Redirects to sections). I'm sure it doesn't interfere with their intended purpose. Why on earth the respective talk pages need to be created as redirects to Talk:List of opera genres seems impenetrable to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this. Some people have weird hobbies. Maybe this is just one of them? --Kleinzach 10:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Förderpreis

I added Förderpreis here and found it translated to Composers Prize (???), saying "known as", I wonder by whom. Could you perhaps improve that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thinking again, Composers Prize was probably not meant as a translation, although it takes the same position as a heading. But still: where does it come from and by whom is it known? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The (grammatically wrong) "Composers Prize" has been in that article since it was created by User:Rigadoun on 2 February 2008. As you observed, phrases like "known as" raise of course immediately the question: {{By whom}}? As it happens, the foundation itself calls it (correctly) "Composers' Prize", in German (Komponisten-Förderpreis or simply Förderpreis). I suggest to replace (2x) the current wording with "Composers' Prize". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking deeper, will change. Förderpreis seems to be more general though, also for institutions ... Would you find that as well? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't see anything wrong with "institutions" – and that's what the EvS-Stiftung uses. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I think I got it finally: they have Komponisten-Förderpreise and Förderprojekte, Composers' Prizes and Grant-in-Aid Projects (what a construction!), the latter are not yet mentioned at all in the article. Do you agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Tech question - Helvetica

Re the italics issue, I am seeing Helvetica (of some variety) when I read Wikipedia. Is that what you are seeing? Are some people seeing a different font — perhaps via an over-riding browser setting? Thanks for any enlightenment on this! --Kleinzach 12:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In Internet Explorer, the displayed font can be overriden with one click. I assume, other browsers have a similar feature. IE even allows to specify one's own Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) which allows for more radical changes in the display. Wikipedia-specific is Special:Mypage/common.css (or Special:Mypage/monobook.css or Special:Mypage/vector.css or whatever skin one specified in Special:Preferences), accompanied by their respective Special:Mypage/monobook.js (&c.) scripts. Additionally, I found that there are some differences in the way IE, Firefox and Chrome display web pages. even without tweaking them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, but let's assume that most people will not change the default. Will they see Helvetica? What font do you see? --Kleinzach 13:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the core of your question. Yes, all three browsers show the standard text in a non-serif typeface, Helvetica if you will – unless it's specifically formatted, e.g. by {{xt}} which renders text in Georgia, or in some customised user signatures. This kind of formatting can even be applied to article titles: notice this page's title when I apply {{DISPLAYTITLE:{{xt|User talk:Michael Bednarek}}}}{{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:Michael Bednarek}} -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I am seeing Helvetica — not another sans-serif — diagnostic C, G, J, Q, 7. (The edit box font is different.) --Kleinzach 14:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I left a comment for Kleinzach here. I've been trying to investigate this very issue (this discussion). I just saw your comments here now. The "look" of things can vary a lot depending on the computer/browser combo plus user settings in the browser prefs and/or Wikipedia prefs. Settings need to be adjusted for your own situation and personal prefs, and no one setting works for everybody. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigrid Thornton

Thanks for the advice. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Piero

Here is another German challenge + my first approach of a translation, opera title (Jens Joneleit): Piero – Ende der Nacht. Hörstück für ein Theater der wandernden Gedanken und Klänge (Piero – End of the Night. Aural piece for a theater of wandering thoughts and sounds). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO perfect. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! - Did you know that an opera on Borussia Dortmund is in the planning? My brother told me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

List of operas by Auber/sort problem

If you have a moment could you look at List of operas by Auber. Robert.Allen has been doing some useful work on it, clarifying theatres etc. He decided quite reasonably to remove Paris (because almost all the operas were done there) but that has messed up the sorting in some strange way. I also have reservations about multiple linking (of Eugene Scribe, Opéra-Comique etc.) which I think goes against a common sense interpretation of the style guides. Thanks. --Kleinzach 22:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

This also involves the Adam list, see Talk:List of operas by Adam. --Kleinzach 04:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope I have sorted it out (pun intended). Thanks for your patience and help! ;-) --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I take it, it's all good now? If not, let me know. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello Michael Bednarek, you are approaching 3RR on Franz Lehár on Anton Lehár and on Lehár (surname). Please review the policy. Note that if you should violate the three revert rule WP:3RR, you may be blocked for that.--Nmate (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please familiarise yoursef with the policy you quote and the nature of my reverts. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Section vs anchor tags

Someone has gone through the List of opera genres changing section tags to anchor tags, see [2]. Does this matter? Does it still function the same way? Thanks. --Kleinzach 00:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. {{Section}} is just a simpler version of {{Anchor}}; Anchor takes up to 10 parameters to set alternative anchors (e.g. {{Anchor|Azione teatrale|Azione scenica|Componimento da camera|Componimento drammatico|Componimento pastorale}} would create five anchors in the same spot), Section takes only one. Why Anchor used with one parameter should be preferrable to Section escapes me. The crusades some people choose ... -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reassurance! --Kleinzach 05:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Angela Gheorghiu

I wonder if you might have time to switch some columns on Angela_Gheorghiu#Recordings? As you will see the date column would probably be better on the left. Thanks. --Kleinzach 05:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Much better now. --Kleinzach 02:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Montag aus Licht

This newly created article has a portrait of the composer, not previously used on Wikipedia as far as I am aware, that has some problems. The thumbnail does not display correctly (differently with different browsers), and even the index image on Wikimedia Commons is problematic, though the full-sized image looks fine. You have worked some magic previously on problematic images from this same upload batch. Would you have a look and see if anything can be done to correct this problem?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Done File:Stockhausen Studio (1996).jpg for Montag, as well as File:Stockhausen March 2004.jpg and File:St. März 2005.jpg -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Marvellous! Thank you! (I really must learn more about how to deal with graphics.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine (American singer)

I've gone ahead and restored the maintenance tag calling for improved references on the above mentioned articles. I have spoken with the editor, resulting in content removal of the original research. (I disagreed with the essay-like description.) That said, the article needs significant improvement in referencing. The article is only supported by one review, one press release, and four primary sources. Additionally, there are unsourced statements in the article. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse 14:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, the article does need reliable sources. When I looked at the Template:Multiple issues, I was distracted by "essay-like" and "original research" which I didn't find applicable. I should have paid more attention to the quality of the sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Bednarek, hey, just a "thanks" for taking the trouble to look into this (after I posted on the project talks). I remain neutral on the issue - I'm just pleased you took the trouble to investigate and comment. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  09:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

List of theatres and entertainment venues in Paris

I'm now working on the List of theatres and entertainment venues in Paris, a list of present-day theatres. It presents some special difficulties with sorting. First of all there are the arrondissments. I wonder if there is an easy way of getting them in order? There are also the theatre names. I'm inclined to think the easiest way — both for us and for the reader — would be to leave it as it is and just put in sort tags for names with definite articles (to avoid sorting on 'Le' and 'Les'). What do you think? Thanks. --Kleinzach 03:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Bien sûr, pas de problème. I agree regarding the sorting of the handful of theatre names with "Le, La, Les". The arrondissements all need a numeric sort term to make them sort properly; do you want them linked to their articles (all in Category:Arrondissements of Paris)? The street address would have to be sorted by the street's main name, omitting the house number and signifier (rue, boulevard, etc.) right? Do you want them to be linked to their English articles (some in Category:Streets in Paris), and if not available, to their French articles? Should the columns "Present use" and "Notes" be made unsortable? You also mentioned this table on your page User:Kleinzach/Lists of operas; adding an opening date column is no problem; do you still want to add columns for other names? (The "Use" columns seems already to be implemented.) In which order do you want the columns? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Those are all the right questions! Obviously this is a work in progress. I've been adding the columns one by one when I have the data. Glad you agree about theatre name sorting. Ideally linking the streets (omitting numbers) and arrondissements to article would be good . . . Is it normal to omit rue, boulevard, etc.? If so would that contradict the theatre name sort? (French sorting can get horribly complicated and confusing for the reader, who will not understand the rules.) 'Present use' should be sortable as that will enable to reader to select opera, dance or whatever. 'Notes' are really a temporary, holding column. Maybe best to make it unsortable? Can we address the other questions later as trying to get everything decided in one go is difficult. --Kleinzach 10:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help so far. One future problem we'll encounter is the 'former names' info. It's amazing how often these names changed. I don't know whether there is an elegant solution to displaying them? Small type? Footnotes. Any ideas welcome. --Kleinzach 02:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Putting them into the "Notes" column seems the best solution so far. I have no sensible suggestion if you plan on adding more columns; small type only goes so far, and footnotes are difficult to follow. There is a way of collapsing parts of a table cell, displaying it only by pressing a "show" button, but that makes it impossible to search the page text for a former name and presents accessability problems for screen readers. For some data sets, a list may be more appropriate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, which implies a separate page to handle it. The sortability of the present page seems worthwhile to me. I guess it just depends on how much information we can usefully pack into it. For the time being I'll just fill out use/capacity and start date columns (I can do these myself on my word processor). Thanks. --Kleinzach 10:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you want me to add a blank column and place it your your userspace? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
A single column? No, I don't think I'd be able to use that . . . I usually either work in the word processor or on the article itself. --Kleinzach 12:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I misread "and start date columns" in the singular (see below about selective blindness). Anyway, I've got macros in my text editor which can add Wikipedia code for empty columns. Le me know if you want me to do that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, actually I've now added the columns. (I do them primitively with search and replace . . .) Fortunately they seem to sort OK. I've added an explanation to the lead. I'd be grateful if you can spot anomalies, since obviously this list is a one-off and quite complex. You will see how I treated 'second' halls. At the moment we are sorting on the number of seats in the 'first' hall. Actually, I think that isn't a problem. The content is time-consuming to collect. If you are thinking of adopting some theatres and filling in some blanks, please don't hesitate! --Kleinzach 10:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Second

Hi there,
"Avoid referring to an artist's second album or single" - the preferred word is already in the guidelines, so the second sentence is unnecessary.
Thanks,
Bouncehoper (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right, and I reverted my edit. I don't understand why I didn't see those words in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music). My only defence is that I was distracted by the previous edits which removed the sentence altogether, but my wife can explain my attacks of selective blindness much better. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

LOL, no problem. I think we all have selective blindness at times!
Bouncehoper (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Hi - I just rollbacked (rolledback?) La Bohème (Leoncavallo) to the correct capitalisation and was going to add a note to the miscreant's page when I saw that you'd already done so. I should have checked his/her User contributions first. Sorry about that. (I forsee yet more fruitless discussion of the matter, however.) Best. --GuillaumeTell 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Italic title without brackets

Hi Michael, How does one italicize a title such as Lucia di Lammermoor discography using DISPLAYTITLE? (I'm assuming Template:Italic title will not work for this type of title.) Robert.Allen (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

DISPLAYTITLE explains the limited ways how an article's title can be manipulated with the magic word {{DISPLAYTITLE:…}}. In this case, the code is {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Lucia di Lammermoor'' discography}}, which I added to that article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Obediently I tried that trick on a Bach cantata {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Am Abend aber desselbigen Sabbats'' BWV 42}} but seem to have overlooked something, it looks as before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
(A comma was overlooked. The text of the article's title and what's used in {{DISPLAYTITLE:…}} must be identical, only formatting is allowed. For details, see WP:DISPLAYTITLE. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC) )
I see! Should we start the discussion again, then? Because that comma doesn't really belong there, it is not part of the title and only there to separate the title from the BWV#. Is there a way to do the same trick in the text? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand. The comma does belong there to separate the BWV from the title; it (the comma) is not italicised in the article's title nor in its text. What trick do you want to apply in the text? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict:) I never thanked you for all the links in the Liturgical functions! - Back to the comma: if the italic shows where the title ends and the number begins we don't need the comma in the article name. I observed a template for handling names of ships with partly italic, partly not. Some cantatas don't even have that comma, s. BWV 172, the ones with a title ending in "!" or "?"ending. My question: should we treat them all the same, without the comma? Certainly not if we have to code "''[[Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen, BWV 66|Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen]]'' BWV 66" to see Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen BWV 66. Dreaming of a template which you have to feed only with the number and the full thing appears, including a link ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The text of the title, italicised or not, should conform to normal standards which require that an opus number be set off by a comma. The special case of titles ending in a punctuation mark is a very special case indeed, and the current practice of omitting the comma there seems sensible. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael, thanks! I had tried this, but I must have typed something wrong, because it didn't show up properly in Preview, so I didn't save the change. I just added it to Ariadne auf Naxos discography, and it worked, so I think I'm comfortable with it now. It's really fairly straightforward. Thanks again for the all the help. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Jasmine (American singer)

Re. {{Jasmine Sagginario (born September}} (edits changing it both ways)

This is just a quick, friendly note to 3 people who've recently edited that specific portion - Djc wi, Michael Bednarek and Cindamuse

That article has, recently, been problematic - bordering on edit-war. (Sorry, some of you will already realise that - but I'm just being neutral in commenting here),

Therefore, please exercise great caution in editing and reverting - and if there are any problems at all, please discuss them on Talk:Jasmine (American singer) - especially before repeating edits.

I remain neutral and uninvolved; I'm just trying to avoid trouble - particularly, trying to avoid a need to 'protect' the article from editing.

Thank you for your understanding, all the best,  Chzz  ►  07:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

  • (Placing my reply on the talk page of three editors) A closer look will reveal that there are no edit wars taking place on this article (between these three editors). An additional review will show that there has been discussion on the article with two editors working together with the third new editor to corporately bring the article into compliance. Working with these other editors has actually been a positive experience in community editing. Nothing problematic here, but appropriate, effective, and good faith edits on the part of all editors involved. Thanks again, Cind.amuse 08:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sutherland

I have rv the "Technique" paragraph because the Voice section is full of hagiographic quote, but she was renowed for her flawless technique--except her diction and sometimes her intonation, it was perfect. So, I want to reintroduce this paragraph. SemiramideSutherland (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(Responded at User talk:SemiramideSutherland Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I, Mikhailov Kusserow, hereby award Michael Bednarek with The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for outstanding achievement in countering vandalism. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Baffled?

Talk page stalker here.;-) You revert vandalism and warn the perps (even better). You deserve the barnstar. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Pic Shchedrin

Composer Rodion Shchedrin comes with a pic showing him together with his stunning wife. Someone says the faces are too dark. I heard and noticed you do miracles in pics, could you improve it? Or find another one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't perform any manipulation of Jerome Kohl's images of Stockhausen, I just opened and saved them in a program which enforced the necessary standards (at least I think that's what happened). I think you will get much more competent assistance from the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab, particularly from the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. As the image File:Scedrin-Plisecka1.JPG is used on many Wikipedias, I suggest not to overwrite the original but to upload it under a different name. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Kasack

Die Stadt hinter dem Strom has some more translation challenges such as "sich in der Unendlichkeit verlieren", your Sprachgefühl appreciated. For the plot I followed the book rather than the German summary, same. Do you know other novels in the same (inner) emigration context on en, other than Doktor Faustus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't do any better than the current translation. As for literature reflecting on 33–45: the compulsory reading of Draußen vor der Tür killed any potential interest in that genre for me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. - Travelling in Hungary, awfully slow lines, also vacation. But this is certainly different from Nachts schlafen die Ratten doch, even fuuny at times (took it on the trip). A conductor quoted from it to prepare us for a Mozart Requiem, back in 1987, not forgotten, Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Richard Kastle article

Please read the second last sentence in the speedy deletion post on the Richard Kastle article. Do understand that removing it would be a violation to the rules of Wikipedia!!!

Thank You, Randyrhoads1fan (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit summaries: please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's deletion procedures; this article has been proposed for speedy deletion many times and been to AfD, so it can't be PROD'ed again. Detailed response at Talk:Richard Kastle#Proposed for Deletion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Deborah Conway

Thanks for your recent edits at Deborah Conway. I'd just returned there and was about to fix my shoddy ref work – a previous attempt at editing didn't take – and do some similar work when I saw its all done for me! I'm still going to continue improving the article and don't mind if you wish to join in.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Conway is a bit outside my usual area of interest; I only wanted to record her position with the Queensland Music Festival – attempting to fix the references was just a by-product. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

BWV 173a

I was asked again for translations of Bach cantata titles. Typically what I find is fine (at least one), but for (BWV 173/) 173a I find just "Most illustrious Leopold" for "Durchlauchtster Leopold", a superlative of Durchlaucht, which takes me to "Serene Highness", addressee Leopold of Köthen. If we don't have to count syllables, what would it be? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"His Most Serene Highness Leopold" seems closest, although I like "Most Illustrious Leopold" just as well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I will mention both, of course, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Next (175) "verblendete Vernunft", I get "dazzled", "blinded" and "blind" reason, like "blinded" best, but think that is "geblendete". But perhaps English doesn't differentiate? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
"Deluded reason" might be closer. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Paulinerkirche

Trying to improve Paulinerkirche, Leipzig, where Bach also performed and which was destroyed in 1968 (!), I face my lack of words for church architecture, and that article doen't help me too much. "Dreischiffig", "Langhaus", certainly more to come. Do I get it right that English has 1 nave with aisles (funny link), where German has 3 Schiffe? A translation of the essence of the memorial plaque would also be a good idea, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I know only very little about church architecture. I can only suggest to read Architecture of cathedrals, basilicas and abbey churches and related articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
PS: The article needs {{Commons category|Paulinerkirche (Leipzig)}}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for both! How do you feel about a translation of the plaque? And is "dynamited" the best word for "gesprengt"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I tried the template, but it didn't work, so I did it the old way. I loaded some pics to the commons of de:Unionskirche (Idstein), new experience, article to come, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
For my version of the plaque's translation, see File:Gedenktafel Paulinerkirche Leipzig.jpg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I wonder if a hint at the translation or the translation should appear in the article. Unionskirche, Idstein now open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
"Blow up" is better than "dynamite". Better enough to change article and DYK?
Unionskirche: if you look at Idstein#Unionskirche, there is a ref (#8) for an Idstein painting (compared to Rubens) which doesn't work for me. Now I found on the parish's web what may be meant, a "map" of the paintings, and you can see them one by one when you click on the map. How can I use that, all php and in German? I tried to explain in External links, but perhaps you have a better idea? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I reinstated the link to the map and gave some instructions how to use it. If you want to link to individual images, e.g. The Wedding at Cana, this will work: The Wedding at Cana. You'll get the URL by selecting the image from the map and then right-cicking in the image: your browser should provide a method of obtaining the image's URL (in English IE it's under "Properties"). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I am very impressed by your overall improvements, even finding Dirrrty! You read much more thoroughly than I ever did, thank you! - Blow up? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Idstein: I am quite surprised that the dog latin is considered encyclopedic, smile. Is building-"sins" really good for Bausünden? The pics: people not knowing German will have to click at random, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that "Sita vsvilate inis taberce inis" is humorous only for German-speaking people.
Re: the map of the Unionskirche: Random? Yes, unless the operators of that website can be persuaded to provide an English map as well. On the other hand, I suspect that these days not many German-speaking readers would know what some of the descriptions, e.g. "Heimsuchung", refer to. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You are so right. Magnificat. The operators of that website translated Evangelische Kirche to Evangelical Community, so I better don't ask them. I included one more of my pics to Unionskirche, 2010 (it was too dark in 2011). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Missing words: Lazarett, Langhaus (didn't find a term in "Architecture"), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
"Lazarett" = military hospital (not a lazaretto). I've never heard of "Langhaus" in church architecture, but there seems to be no English word for it, so nave + aisle(s) will have to do. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Fly (Opera)

Rather than result to a revert war and insults, could you please indicate on the article's talk page (the appropriate place for any comments) what exactly you disagreed with in a few simple copy edits? Some of the edits you've removed (simply, it seems, for the sake of removing them) clarified awkward sentences and tightened up the language.PacificBoy 15:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:The Fly (opera). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Unionskirche, Visitation

Thanks for above, taken. Heimsuchung: did you look at that one? I am tempted to add a few words on the approach of these painters: Mary coming with a servant carrying her sizable suitcases, to Elisabeth, residing in a property with gardens resembles the formal gardens of the Idstein Residenz. It would make sense if a reader could see the pic without having to click a few times. I see possibilities: getting it from a free license source, taking a pic (but lighting is always difficult in that church), taking a pic of a postcard. I don't know enough about licenses, do you? - And what would be the term for the Residenz? (Seems not to work for interwiki. Well, you know it's 5.1.3.) Probably not residence? (Yes, I visited Lazaretto.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the direct link to the image of Mariä Heimsuchung: http://www.ev-kirche-idstein.de/web/media/unionskirche/3-heimsuchung.jpg at the Unionskirche. "Residenzschloss" might be "feudal castle" or "residential château/palace" (see Idstein#Residence palace. -- 13:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again! For the pic, could we get from one click to no click? Residence palace sounds like a word by word translation to me. I wonder if Schloss should be a redirect to Château, it seems a very similar concept, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Those images at Unionskirche are of a very low resolution and they can't be uploaded to Commons because their copyright is held by the photographer. Wikipedia already has an article on Schloss which has the necessary cross-references. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I realised almost immediately after I wrote the above yesterday that I was wrong. Plain reproductions of two-dimensional images do not enjoy any copyright under US law; see: Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Consequently, these images can be uploaded to Commons, although I still consider their resolution too low to be of value. Which aspect in which article did you intend to illustrate? There may well be more suitable images already at Commons. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Look at the beginning: Mary's suitcases, Idstein's gardens as property of Elisabeth, - no other pic will show the latter. There is a postcard, but probably also of too low resolution. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me at Schloss, the cross references are helpful, but the text about Wasserschloss is too funny, in miserable grammar. Residenz actually is "more" than a stately home, but is close to Stately home, - what an understatement! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
More amusement: "Concept: If a château is not old, then it must be grand. A château is a “power house”". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The Visitation image from the Unionskirche, Idstein is now at File:Heimsuchung, Unionskirche.jpg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Taken, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Revisited, with thanks again for the enormous task of linking the Wikisources in the Bach cantatas list, taken from now on to the cantatas and Messiah (working on it), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

SDG

Compare a comment which applies to the English version as well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing Skype formatting

Thanks very much for doing that! I must have missed your edit and had to scroll back through and find it. Anyway, Kleinzach has moved the chart to La Grande-Duchesse de Gérolstein discography, and the Skype formatting is showing up again. Would you mind fixing that iteration as well (the Cat number of the DVD)? If so, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Discographies in 'operas by . . .' cats.

Re La Grande-Duchesse de Gérolstein discography, up to now we have never put discographies in 'Operas by . . .' cats. Why do you think we should do this now? --Kleinzach 05:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Two reasons: the discographies mostly started their life as part of the opera articles, where they were naturally categorised along with the work; the subject of the splitted discography is still the opera. Secondly, when I look at a category, Operas by foo, I like to be able to go directly to the discography instead of taking the circuitous route via the opera. Categorising opera discopgraphies may not have been practiced generally, and I'm not fanatical about it, although I do find it useful in grouping related articles and navigating them. But as my edit has been rather rudely summarily reverted, the point is now moot in this instance. -- 13:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose the definition of the 'Operas by . . .' cats could be enlarged to accommodate your idea, however all the discographies would have to be so categorized. . . . However I now see reviewing is now being introduced in the La Grande-Duchesse de Gérolstein discography. I've mentioned this on the talk page. I think that's a much more serious step in the wrong direction. --Kleinzach 03:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

RMF, another pic q

Tatiana von Metternich wrote books, so did her sister. The latter's diary is a source for the first's article, so I inserted its title page, not looking at the license. It was promptly removed. How would I get a title page of her own book, preferably with a pic, on the commons, with a similar license? (Amazon ext link) (The editor who removed is away, or would ask there.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor Δ's (who seems quite taken with this kind of editing) edit summary was quite correct: non-free files can be used only in articles where a rationale on the image page (File:Vasilchikov Diaries.jpg) has been provided. Strictly speaking, that is not the case for Marie Vassiltchikov, so I expect the image to be deleted there too sometime. The only article with a possible rationale for that image would be one about that book. The best that can be done for Tatiana is to provide {{External media}} or a simple external link to a picture. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I understood the removal of her sister's book. But I thought if her sister has the title of her own book, Tatiana might have a title of her (T's) book. (Wrong, you say.) One that pictures her would serve 3 purposes at a glance: showing her, that she was portrayed, and that she was a writer. I don't see why that is not relevant to her article. - I have pictures of her, but not really presentable. I also have one of her watercolours, but guess to take a picture of that is also not a good idea. The external link to Amazon is already there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose you could try adding the cover of a book by Tatiana to her article, provided you give a non-free use rationale by one of the methods mentioned at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I will. Congratulations to the promotion of "your" pic of Visitation, today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Christmas Oratorio

Sorry, wrong season, it's about all-season Messiah that I come across "All include a tenor Evangelist as narrator and parody earlier compositions, although the Christmas Oratorio is by far the longest and most complex work". Please, can you word that to reflect that the Easter Oratorio doesn't have an Evangelist. Not much left for "all" once you take away one of two. If it was easy I would do it myself. Perhaps leave the two others altogether? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the simplest thing is to drop that part of the sentence from the Christmas Oratorio, which I have now done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sonntag

Will do, by Sonntag at the latest. --Smerus (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Klingon-language operas

Category:Klingon-language operas, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 04:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Cite book" parameter at The Robbers

This is tiny issue, but just in case there's something else going on: I revised your parameter name usage (from authorlink2 to author2-link) because the links weren't showing when I looked. I was impressed that you'd taken the trouble to check for those links! So I looked up the documentation (at Template:Cite book), and discovered the form that I used. However, your parameter name is are now working fine, and I have no idea what's going on. So after all that - thanks for your work - cheers, Easchiff (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's odd; I'm pretty sure I checked that the links were working when I made my first edit, and now you confirm that they are working for you as well. Software glitch? Whatever... – It took me a while to find the parameter |authorlink2=, so I was mightily surprised by your change, now explained. I wouldn't normally revert or edit articles for such formalisms, but I thought I might refer to The Robbers again for the use of this parameter and then finding the undocumented |author2-link= would probably confuse me. All the best, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on the citation format for translators, so I've been into that template's documentation lately. I see that both the form you used, and the form I used, appear at different points in the documentation. It's a problem for another day. Best, Easchiff (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Messiah structure

Thanks for looking at Part I, taken, very helpful! - Would you please look at Messiah structure also, just inserted those Jennen's "scenes", of historic value but hard to take. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Messiah Part II expanded, if you feel like it. - I completely support all praise for you concerning diligence, but hope you understand that I will never issue prefabricated love messages. These little hearts appeared almost exactly when a contributor took BWV 76 to prep (remember: "brotherly devotion") and disappeared under pressure, - actually the reason to write on "rejected", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
I award You the Barnstar of Diligence, as I have repeatedly got to know You as a particularly helpful editor. Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for providing the link to Wikipedia:Page_name#Changing_the_displayed_title - I'll delete Template:Quoted title. GoingBatty (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: List of mathematicians (A)

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

First Lutheran hymnal (1524)

Please check my attempt to again translate old German in First Lutheran hymnal (1524), which I think might be moved to First Lutheran hymnal, as there will be no other first. (I didn't start it but can use it.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Messiah Part I

Thanks for looking at the hymnal! Would you look at Messiah Part I once more, a helper changed the table (and more), I restored some (simpler # columns). Helper split not only the #s, (Nov and Bär), but also "form" and "voice" in two columns, now I am unhappy about the result "Chorus (all)" and have no idea what (all) is supposed to mean. Not familiar with tables: is there a way to say "Chorus" once for the two columns? Or what can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Surname pages are SIAs & thus articles and not Dabs

   Thanks for your attention to Odebrecht (surname). It is not a requirement to split surnames out of Dab pages, tho IIRC it is never inappropriate. It is always desirable if there is interest in listing people who cannot currently have WP:DabRL-compliant entries, since (despite the frequency of using surname pages a lot like Dabs) -- as articles -- they are free to list people (w/ or w/o links) who do not (at least yet) have WP bio articles.
   (I think that on reflection you'll agree that what i've cited is a real difference, not just an artificial distinction: readers who follow a link to Odebrecht (disambiguation)) should not be led to believe that we have no article on what is currently the primary topic, nor (worse) that we think "Odebrecht" is not among the reasonable meanings for that title. The very title "Odebrecht (surname)" itself clarifies that "Odebrecht" is more than just a surname -- in fact, it also implies that we don't consider its primary unqualified use to be as a surname.
   I am not sure it was ever explicit, but i think that formalizing the SIA concept (already a logical extension of previous practice re named storms and ship names) was understood as addressing the problem of how to serve users coming from works written for people with enough specialized knowledge to think of "Odebrecht" as clear in those contexts, without distracting those coming from WP articles whose authors wanted to get their contributions done ASAP by relying on enough eyeballs for getting all their ambiguous links properly bypassed. (E.g., our editors seldom use a bare surname for referring to a person -- unless that person's stature is like that of Shakespeare or Freud.)
   BTW, thanks for catching my Bethlehem/Golgotha confusion; i think my imagination turns first to the image of a li-ght/-fe fading out as you watch it, unless i explicitly take time to counter it!
   Thanks again.
--Jerzy•t 20:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michael_Bednarek/Archive_5&oldid=1146354967"