User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Gidon Saks - The early years

Hello, just wanted to clarify some information on Gidon Saks's part in the Mikado. He was part of Brian Macdonald's wonderful performance of the Mikado at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in 1982-84. Also broadcasted by CBC. See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0163101/ and there is a wonderful clip on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0xamGC458g&feature=feedf

Lullan73 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Denise

Restored and sourced. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File Herr.Heesters

The File Herr.Heesters is no longer a copyvio, and has received permission from commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.144.173 (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The file Herr Heesters.png is not copyvio, as it has been reviewed by the OTRS team and assessed as free to use under the proper tag(s). The file may therefore be used for illustrational purposes on every wikipedia project, for instance as illustration on the Franz Joseph article. Smile4ever (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The image File:Herr Heesters.png is unsuitable as part of the lead for the article Johannes Heesters because it is not as good a representation of the person – which the long-standing previous image, File:Johannes Heesters.jpg, is.

The image is unsuitable for the article Franz Joseph I of Austria because it does not depict the emperor. It would be suitable for the article on the operetta The White Horse Inn.

Smile4ever might want to read up on User:Pierlot and his sockpuppets — some of these, including the original uploader of the image in question, have attracted blocks across all Wikipedias. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Klebe

Thank you for improving Giselher Klebe! Could you perhaps do that also for Andreas Scholl? I am running out of time for writing, concert program finished thanks to your input for the Messiah parts, now it's time for singing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

How would you translate "unverkrampfte historische Aufführungspraxis" (not for WP, of course)? Thanks for MoMA. Did you see mine? The sad story on Pure Reason, written in a rush for the day of the funeral, could also be improved by your translation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The main intent of my last edit to Giselher Klebe was to fill in some details to his Template:Persondata; while there, I added the photos from his German Wikipedia page and fixed some minor issues. It's not clear to me what you want me to do on the Scholl article.

"unverkrampfte historische Aufführungspraxis"? Literally: "uncramped historical performance practice", or "relaxed".

After a quick look at Anna and Bernhard Blume – the text at looks just fine. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I will meet them (our orchestra for Messiah) and can perhaps ask why thy chose a cramped wording. Possibly to suggest that some historically informed performers make historical correctness a cramped religion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

discography organization

Hi Michael--

At this page, and further down in the discussion (it's confusing, because I inappropriately raised two different issues under the same heading), Kleinzach has suggested that you have a "script" recommended for organizing discographies.

I'm not a musician - I'm just trying to catalog a fairly large collection of classical CDs and LPs. It seems that nearly every discography I've been looking at is organized differently, some better, and some pretty dreadful. The present issue arose from the Arthur Rubinstein discography page, which I find especially bad - if you're interested, I had posted a message on that article's talk page quite a while ago, which only yesterday has finally been responded to.

Is there an easy way for you to post what Kleinzach is referring to as your script? And further, since discography pages in general differ so wildly from one to another in their organization and utility, would it not be possible to turn this into a WP recommended format?

One particular issue is the distinction between recording dates and issue (P) dates, which many editors seem either to not understand, or to ignore. One suggestion bandied about recently is to provide two separate columns, which if nothing else, may at least bring the distinction to a new editor's attention. Of course many recordings don't provide recording dates, but they ought to be shown whenever they are specified. I've run across things recorded in the mid-20th C, dated as their reissue date in the past 10 years.

Any help will be greatly appreciated. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please let me know what exactly you want me to do to the table in Arthur Rubinstein discography. The script Kleinzach mentioned is available at User:Michael Bednarek/WTROC; it can reorder, remove or add table columns – that's all: it doesn't care whether the table is a list of operas (its most frequent use, in collaboration with Kleinzach) or a discography or whatever. It does not apply any style or format, it just shuffles columns.

Most users are not comfortable using Visual Basic scripts, so I'm offering to run it to your specifications. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. From what you say, and glancing at your script, I get the impression that Kleinzach and I may have misunderstood each other to some extent - I thought he was referring to a standardized format with predetermined column headings, for organizing discographies in general. In any event, with regard to the Rubinstein discography in particular, this was set up by a different user who appears to be pretty possessive about it. I think what I'd like to do is prepare an alternate formatting (that will involve much more than simply swapping columns back and forth), and see how amenable he may be to my suggestions. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I was assuming that you wanted to move the recording date column to the left of the table, but maybe it's more complicated than that? Have you looked at other discographies? Do you have a model? --Kleinzach 22:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kleinzach-- No, I don't have a model at all. My general experience has been that nearly every discography I've looked at so far is organized entirely differently from all others. I'm especially dissatisfied with the Rubinstein discography, but this has much more to do with what information is provided, or rather, not provided, than with how columns are arranged. I do think it would be very useful for WP to provide a model discography layout, though, so they aren't so disorganized and "homemade" looking. And I think, as was mentioned, that the model should provide columns for both recording date, when known, and separately for (P) date. In addition to the obvious places for other personnel, I would include recording venue if known, and for publisher (original and reprint). Does this make sense to either of you? Milkunderwood (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit: At least a model layout with labeled columns would tend to make new editors think about providing such details. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

For that matter, it would also be useful to similarly have a standardized format for List of Compositions - if there isn't one already. And a suggestion that links/notices of such lists of compositions be placed in a findable place in a composer's article. Sometimes they're at the top, sometimes at a section on Music, and sometimes neither. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's part of a note that I had left fairly long ago at the Discussion tab to the Rubinstein discography:

2) About dates and other info: RCA released Rubinstein recordings multiple times under different catalog entries, and I personally don't see any point at all in providing the supposed release dates of the Collection, whether it's 1999 or 2000.

What anyone would want to know is the recording date, not the re-re-rerelease date of any specific reissue. And the actual recording dates (including month and date if ascertainable) of each separate performance, rather than a date spread for everything that's on any given disc.

Also the actual names of the individual performers in for instance the piano quartets, rather than just saying "members of the Guarneri Quartet". And, where ascertainable, the recording venue - what recording studio or concert hall? - or at least what city? If you look at a disc's liner notes much or all of this information will usually be provided.

For instance, the Brahms G minor quartet No. 1, Op. 25, and the C minor quartet No. 3, Op. 60, were together recorded "December 27-30, 1967" with no more specificity of date provided on RCA Victor Gold Seal 5677-2-RG, (c) & (P)1988, nor is the venue specified, but these notes do tell you that John Dalley was the violinist on #1, while Arnold Steinhardt was violinist on #3.

Collection Vol 74 tells you that the Brahms A major quartet No. 2, Op. 26, was recorded on December 27, 1967, with Steinhardt on violin, in Webster Hall, New York City. Together with the Brahms on Vol 74 is the Faure C minor quartet No. 1, Op. 15, which was recorded December 28, 1970, with Dalley on violin, in RCA Studio A, New York City. Now obviously you can guess that the Op. 25 and Op. 60 were also recorded in Webster Hall, but you have no authority for making such an assertion, and so should not.

This is the kind of important information people would want; the (c) or (P) date is pretty irrelevant unless you're preparing a discography for RCA rather than for Rubinstein.

Milkunderwood (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, you might like to work on a standard format for classical discographies. You could look at Category:Opera discographies which are more developed than the CM ones, and perhaps talk to User:Viva-Verdi who has been working on them. There is also a guideline: here. --Kleinzach 02:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'm pretty tied up, but will try to get to this. I have noticed that several were done quite well, but now am not remembering where. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit: The opera guideline you pointed to is a good one, but I would still add a 2nd date column, to distinguish between recording and (P) dates. Personally I think this is a serious problem here at Wikipedia. I'll bring up that question with Viva-Verdi. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

My own preference would be for deleting the publication/release dates. I think they're just a nuisance. --Kleinzach 01:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Kleinzach, I agree they're a nuisance, but for these factors:

• Many issuers of CDs don't provide recording dates - Sony in particular is bad about this;
• I think it's useful to list the disc's catalog number along with the label, so release dates are relevant to that extent; and
• probably most WP editors aren't even aware, or are unconcerned if they are aware, of the distinction between the dates - but that if we had a form specifying separate columns it would at least bring the issue to their attention.

(Sony is bad about a lot of things, including this howler - I have two CDs and an LP here of the 1963 performance of Brahms B-b Op 67 by the Budapest String Quartet:

• on CBS MPK-45553 [Sony France] (C)1989 track timings (machine readings, not liner notes) are 7'49", 7'41", 9'21", 9'41", TT=34'44", which closely matches Columbia M2S-734 on LP;
• on Sony Classical 82876-78748 (P)2006, verified track timings are 7'48", 7'44", 5'58", 9'45", TT=31'27") - all three issues the identical performance. At least the liner notes timings are honest, which is what drew my attention to it. I haven't yet listened closely enough to figure out what Sony did here, and I not being a musician, sometimes it can be hard for me to tell.)

Milkunderwood (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael-- Hope you don't mind Kleinzach and me conversing on your page. :-) Milkunderwood (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

About Ern Malley

Hey Michael B - thanks for trimming, article+refs reads much better now! ---Shirt58 (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability (music)

Hi Michael -

I see your post in the discussion there, where you mention "minor works of major composers". I've separately posted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), noting that (until you had joined the conversation) everything seemed to be about "popular" as opposed to "classical" music.

Perhaps you might want to look at the Classical music discussions, including the quote from DavidRF's earlier post at a now-deleted discussion of Hilary Hahn's recording of four miscellaneous Mozart pieces. I'd be interested in any comments you might feel like posting. I didn't post at the Notability discussion, but would have agreed with the OP. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: DavidRF's full quotation is given in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#recommendations for deletion section of the Discussion page. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the vanity discographies of Hilary Hahn or the dross of Don Moen (which started the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Delete "Every album by notable musician gets own article" guideline?), but that is not important. The increasingly formulaic use of "lacking notability" as a stick, often wielded by editors with little exposure to the subject, concerns me. As I wrote: "The adoption of the proposed wording could lead to a similar raising of the bar for minor works of major composers, which would be most regrettable." See e.g. the latest example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallelujah Junction. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe. No. I think I understand your point, but you're not making the crucial distinction, at least not here, between an article on a specific recording of classical music, as opposed to an article on a specific composition such as Hallelujah Junction, and as opposed to a discography of Hahn or of Mozart, etc. Certainly Hahn should have a discography, as she does; certainly Hallelujah Junction as a piece of music should have an article, as it does; and that article does contain its own discography, as it should. The point is whether or not those separate recordings listed in the discography section of the article should also have their own articles. No, they should not, except to the extent that a specific recording may be not only "notable" but also have an interesting and informative discussion of how that recording stands out from the others.

Looked at this way, we're nowhere near a slippery slope. Not only are pop and classical music entirely different kinds of animals in the distinction between their originality of composition, interpretation, and performance, but the difference between being listed or mentioned in an article, as opposed to having its own article, is far greater still, and leaves no room for confusion. Things like the Hallelujah Junction article will come up for deletion from time to time, but they will in any case. If you haven't yet looked over at that classical music post, I wish you would, and read the full quote from DavidRF. You might want to post your reasoning over there also, to get that conversation going.

Here's the way I would classify it, always assuming "notability" in each category:

• classical music:
  • composer: article
  • composition: possibly an article if unique or distinctive; more frequently just a listing or separate discography under composer
  • performer: article
  • performance/recording: almost always only a listing or separate discography under composer, performer, and composition
• pop music:
  • performer/composer: article
  • performance/recording: possibly an article; otherwise a listing or separate discography
  • composition: almost always incorporated together with recording
  • composer: article if other than performer

Milkunderwood (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC) (edited Milkunderwood (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC))

RE: Edit summaries

Sorry to have irritated you (or anyone for that matter) - point taken. The bulk of my edits to Don Carlos were, in fact, removal of extraneous spaces, which is why they do not appear to show when comparing versions. I know that a good typist always puts two spaces between sentences, but Wikipedia can only interpret this as one space; so the extra space that would be needed on a typewritten or non-fully justified word-processed document is not needed. By my maths, I must have removed something like 49 of them. Emeraude (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Joan Sutherland, Steele Rudd, On Our Selection

Hello. Just edited a 2+ yr. old edit of yours @ Joan Sutherland. You linked her performance in the 1995 movie to Rudd's article, when an article on the movie itself exists. I changed the link to the movie itself. I'm curious as to why it was done to link to the author in the first place. Thanks for any reply. Tapered (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

When I added Sutherland's role in Dad and Dave on 4 August 2010, the article on the film Dad and Dave: On Our Selection didn't exist yet; it was created in October 2010. Thank you for refining the link. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, duh! One more metric to consider!Tapered (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Heinz Holliger

Thanks for your improvements! A new user would like a native speaker to have a look at Pillnitz Castle, could you do that? It's beautiful! (I wonder if it should be named palace instead of castle, but its website doesn't.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to catch up with quite a few articles which recently received some strange edits; Holliger was one of them. Maybe later I'll look at Schloss Pillnitz. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Others took care of Schloss Pillnitz, thank you. But if you have a bit of time, Bachfest Leipzig (not by me) might want a logo (de), and I am still not convinced regarding Mozart's Masses vs. masses, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mon coeur s'ouvre a ta voix

I noticed you removed Julie Andrews and Sergio Franchi's duet from Wiki this page, that I posted in the "In Modern Times" section. I am not sure I agree with you for several reasons. While it is unusual for what is a traditional soprano aria to be sung as a duet, there is nothing in the lyrics to limit this non-traditional performance. But, it is certainly a "Modern" treatment. Also, Julie Andrews' show was a critical succes, although it wasn't renewed for a second year. But having these famous singers perform the aria on national television was notable. I personally think it may have been bad taste for Julie Andrews to involve a guest in a "soprano" duet, but it is a matter of history that it happened. The other matter for notability is the fact that it a "very rare" video of a Sergio Franchi Franchi performance! In spite of his tremendous exposure on National TV, unlike many other stars, only 2 or 3 videos are available to the general public. One source is an Ed Sullivan video capturing 12 songs performed. The rest are 2 or 3 videos available on YouTube.. of which this performance is one. That's my take. Interested in your response. CatherineCathlec (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, so not sure why my Talk subject not showing up correctly. Catherine againCathlec (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Got it! Had a leading space. CatherineCathlec (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Note that Franchi's performance doesn't make this aria a Sergio Franchi song; this also applies to Vesti la giubba and probably to most of what's currently in that category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Michael. Are you aware that Sergio Franchi was an opera singer in South Africa and he made an Italian debut in Tosca before switchin to pop music to support his young family (wife and 2 children returning to Italy)? After I complete all the work associated with his discography, I will be doing a major revision to the stub article on his Wiki page. So, Franchi was an operatic performer in his early career. I agree that the "Vesti la giubba" article has a lot of trash, but then American Popular culture tends to "trash" a lot of subjects. Another point, why do you not consider Franchi's recording of "Vesti la giubba" a song? It has a page, like a song. Is "song" differentiated from "aria.?" Also, if a performance is captured for video does it not become a "song," and a "recording?" Interested in your responses. Thanks, CatherineCathlec (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My objection is not the "song" part of the Category:Sergio Franchi songs but to the attribution "Sergio Franchi". Songs or arias should be classified in Category:Songs by artist only if the artists recorded them originally or their recording is so well known that it is widely associated with that artist. E.g. 'O Sole Mio is much better known by many other artists than Franchi. It's even more obvious for opera arias: Franchi singing "E lucevan le stelle" doesn't warrant the attribution "Sergio Franchi songs". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I lookes at all your remarks and references on your removal of "E lucevan.." from Sergio Franchi songs. Clearly you object to Sergio Franchi's recordings from opera. You have me a disadvantage temporarily because I am new to Wiki Politics, classifications, contributions, articles, etc. Of course Franchi's popularity in America eclipsed his earlier operatic career, but he did appear in an Italian opera production of Tosca. As far as the song "O Sole Mio" is concerned, Sergio may have been eclipsed in later years by the younger Pavarotti and Domingo, but his album recording of "O Sole Mio" was considered a hit because it was on a Billboard Hit as number seventeen in his American debut album. There are still people who believe that Franchi's recordings of many Italian and Neoploitan songs are up there near the top.

As to all of the other categories referred to in your lists... Italian-Language songs, subcategories Arias by Puccini, ets; Italian Songs; Neapolitan songs; Italian folk songs, tec..... all of these "Categories" are Hopelessly Inadequate for the ammount of material that they should contain! Only ELEVEN songs in the category Neapolitan Songs???? Well, at least some start has been made, because it was not until Modugno (Volare a "one-hit wonder"???) and Rascel began to record and write songs that had an impact upon America, that English-language natives of America began to notice Italian song, and songs in the Italian language. Catherine18:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A recurring issue on Wikipedia is the use of categories to convey information that is not even in the parent article, let alone referenced. Categories should never be used that way. I'd suggest that if you do plan to use Category:Songs by artist, you additionally have a referenced annotated list in the article itself verfiying the information or create Sergio Franchi discography. Voceditenore (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Catherine, of course I don't "object to Sergio Franchi's recordings from opera"; I object to to the categorisation of every song or aria he ever sang as belonging into Category:Sergio Franchi songs. Otherwise, it is not clear to me what you want me to do or not to do. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Voceditenore: Left a reply for you on your talk page. I have completed the Sergio Franchi Discography, and it is on the waiting for review list. CatherineCathlec (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael: I am not sure why an editor would object to adding Sergio Franchi's recordings to the Song Wiki pages? That seems to be past practice. Tell me more. Thanks, CatherineCathlec (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean with "Song Wiki pages". If you refer to adding Category:Sergio Franchi songs to every song or aria he ever sang: that is clearly not current practice, otherwise every article about an aria or song would be swamped with such categories; please read Wikipedia:Categorization. The place for an artist's recording is his (properly sourced) discography; categories are used for the defining characteristics of a work, not for peripherals. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2011

Michael, by Sonk Wiki I mean Wikipedia pages on songs, by name. I have re-read the guidelines for Songs, and have come to the conclusion that you are completely right regarding Franchi's recordings. In fact, of the more than 100 song pages I have visited, there are far too many recordings listed, and I have added to the problem. I intend to undo and remove Franchi from the category on most of the song pages. Sergio Franchi clearly belongs on some of the pages due to his songs on hit albums. As I explained to someone else (Voceditenore), I started this misguided prctice because I was trying to use internal references in existing songs pages. However, this internal referencing did not need to go into adding his name to the Song page. I have already listed all of Franchi songs on his Discography (awaiting approval), and therfor his Main page looses nothing by removing his name from the categories on the "song wikis." Thanks for following me on this. Next time I will not be so "Bold" (as encoursged to new editors), and so slow to see the point. Again, sorry it took me so long to "get it." Regards, CatherineCathlec (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Good cleanup

I liked this very much. Which tools are you using, if any? --John (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. — The only "tools" I use are my eyes and my brain – not terribly fast, and not without errors, but all I have. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, thank you again for the good work. I see a few problems with that article. --John (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Motto

In BWV 169, the title line appears many times, how can I call that? Motto (Dürr: "... gleichsam als Motto zitierten Zeilen ...", "Inbegriff des gesamten Kantatentextes") is not quite it, looking at both article and dab, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't do better than the current link for "motto" to Epigraph (literature); the second entry at Wikt:motto is not bad either, but it's buried between a lot of irrelevant stuff. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Lonati, Vittori and Oper am Gänsemarkt

hello Michael, could you take a look at Loreto Vittori, and Carlo Ambrogio Lonati. Nobody discovered these new lemmas.Taksen (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You have to be more specific; what exactly do you want me to do? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Michael, as your English seems better than mine, and you are interested in the same topics, could you take a look at Oper am Gänsemarkt too?Taksen (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Opera lists

Just a note to say I've removed my name as maintainer of List of opera genres. Given the time wastage/aggro etc. I don't think I'll continue to work on this kind of material. (Specialized knowledge is a liability around here!) Thanks again for your help. --Kleinzach 04:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Notebook

Good question, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ein deutsches Requiem

Next biggy. I started by removing that Brahms and Schumann planned the same title "A German Requiem". I doubt that. It may be known under that title in English, but it was certainly not given by B and Sch. In de I read that Brahms compiled the text well before his mother died, - just one more item (of many) I would like to change, but how? Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure which difficulty exactly you have regarding the work's genesis. I didn't have A German Requiem (Brahms) on my watchlist, so your message brought me to a heavily disfigured article, and I voiced my opinion on its talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk)

Thank you, a good start! My difficulty is that the article makes believe (in a "romantic" tendency) that Brahms was inspired by his mother's death to write the work , - but he seems to have started the compilation of the text much earlier. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking about a table as for Messiah and The Creation, but still don't know how to call such a thing if not structure. In case of Brahms it could actually be within the article, at least as it is now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Table and a pic added, - at least a start, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for improving, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Grünes Gewölbe

Hi Michael. Gerda Arendt referred me to you. I have been working on the article Grünes Gewölbe for quite some time and did all the editing during the last couple of days. Now I am finished but I would like that an English native speaker goes through it. Could you help me with this? (You might find it interesting to learn about a cherry stone with 113 faces carved on it, etc.) It was so much work -- now I would like to see it getting 'polished' by correcting any English mistakes I did. Your help would be really appreciated! (BTW, the names of the rooms and the objects are from the museum guide -- help is more needed with the general statements, object descriptions, etc.) Thank you very much! --Linear77 (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Musikhochschule Hannover

I am looking for terms such as Trägerschaft, Studiengang, Hochbegabtenförderung for Musikhochschule Hannover, also think that highly gifted should link to something broader than Intellectual giftedness - not a great construct anyway, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

We currently have two backpackers from Germany occupying my study which is where my old Langenscheidt and my PC reside, and so I'm reduced to short Wikipedia edits from work. From the top of my head: "Studiengang" = university course; "Trägerschaft" (as in "staatlich"?) = don't know, infoboxes should give a hint; "hochbegabt" = highly gifted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Relieved that circumstances are not health or lack of it: thank you, - as you can see I found highly gifted, but am concerned that the redirect deals only with intellectual gifts which are not all thereis needed for let's say a pianist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Ref tag syntax

Greetings, Michael. I noticed you went to the trouble to add spaces after the name params, e.g., <ref name=xxx /> in place of <ref name=xxx/> (in Paris Opera). Is this important? (Either syntax seems to work OK with my Safari browser.) The name param is shown without the following space here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations. If this is important, perhaps we should change it in the linked guideline. Thanks for info. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not important, it's just correct XHTML syntax, similiar to the space in <br />. The link you mention further links to WP:NAMEDREFS where the correct form is shown; I'm going to correct Wikipedia:Citing sources#Repeated citations shortly. XHTML has some bearing on the way Wikipedia code is converted to the HTML code which a browser sees. Thanks for fixing the error I introduced in the "List of venues" table at Paris Opera. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with your decision to remove the comment tags from the sources. I used to like to add these, since it made it easier for me to see the individual items, but I've come to believe that they end up confusing many editors who later come along and want to add something. Plus, I've gotten much better at reading the source list without them, and it's no longer such a problem for me. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Es ist ein Ros entsprungen

Your improvement of the Brahms Requiem table (no taken to German also) made me ask if you might perhaps improve the appearance of the translations in Es ist ein Ros entsprungen. I also placed a question about the translation on the talk. For Christmas we will sing Sandström one, 12 parts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Same topic: what do you think of Motorbike Odyssey? I think it should say: Motorbike Odyssey and Motorbike Concerto are nicknames of the Concerto No. 1 for trombone and orchestra ... - another Moonlight Sonata (s. Ext link). - Different topic: I used "homophon" a lot (as in German), but now was offered "homophone" and see "homophonic"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your translation offered at Talk:Es ist ein Ros entsprungen#Literal translation is definitely valid; as the current translation is not wrong, I wonder if it's worth changing.

The Motorbike Odyssey needs to mention its formal title as Sandström's "Trombone Concerto No. 1"; the article name, Motorbike Odyssey, seems well supported by the titles of its references.

The word "homophon" doesn't exist in English. The German noun Homophonie, when related to music, would be "homophonic music". The German noun Homophon relates more to language and its English equivalent is "homophone". The German adjective homophon is in English "homophonic" when related to music, "homophonous" when related to language. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Will change the translation of "Ros", because Mitternacht - which has certain poetic connotations - is not mentioned. And will (eventually) change 100 or so Bach cantatas to homophonic, sigh ... - wish someone had noticed that sooner than Marrante yesterday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fritz Graßhoff

Fritz Grasshoff was started by someone who copied the complete works from German. Once they are there, I don't like to remove them. The playful artist of words (Graßhoff) created some lines which seem to defy translation, such as Halunkenpostille, Graßhoffs unverblümtes Lieder- und Lästerbuch, Bilderreiches Haupt- und (G)liederbuch ... - but are less fun untranslated. He himself sometimes wrote Grasshoff, especially as a painter, so I don't mind the page move too much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

More teasers: "Schräge Songs, halbseidene Lieder und wunderschöne Gedichte", "Der singende Knochen. Kurzgelochte Parahistorie zur echten Flötenforschung" ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Untranslatable for normal mortals. German humour doesn't have a good reputation in anglophone countries, possibly because it's so hard to translate; Morgenstern had a few very good translators, but writers like Fritz Reuter, Hans Reimann (whose EN article has a similarly pointless list of works), Eugen Roth (the phrase Ein Mensch… is untranslatable), Helmut Qualtinger, and later Heinz Erhardt, Loriot, comics like Otto Waalkes, everybody in German Kabarett, incl. FJ Degenhardt who left us recently, are incrompehensible outside Germany. Back to Graßhoff: I wonder how much value is in a list of his works here; after all, if a reader is really interested, s/he can click on the article's DE link. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the weiterführende reply! - I will prune the list, - it wasn't me who put it there to start with. Did you read about Morgenstern's Gruselett, to continue the list? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Günther von Schwarzburg (opera)

   You managed to violate both Be careful with edit summaries and Avoiding personal attacks with the same 7 keystrokes -- which isn't what makes your tag removal wrong. But the {{copyvio}}-placed comment "Please do not remove or change this Copyvio message until the issue is settled" should have should have alerted you, if insight into what appears to have been your state of mind did not, that the removal involved was unlikely to be constructive. In fact, Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Responding_to_articles_listed_for_copyright_investigation says

... only administrators, copyright problems board clerks, and OTRS team members should remove {{copyvio}} tags ...

and i can see that you are no admin (and i'm sceptical in the extreme that you hold either of the other two relevant statuses).
   I have on more general principles demanded restoration of the tags at the article's talk page, and intend to comment at the process page in due time. I trust that this time you'll cooperate with the due process.
--Jerzy•t 06:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Andris Nelsons

A lot of storytelling was added to Andris Nelsons, what do you think? (I reverted Hildegard of Bingen already today, could you perhaps take her on your watchlist?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Health and lifestyle

Like in other article on remarkably old people, does not Heesters long life by itself merit a section of it's own, like this. Especially considering his smoking and drinking habits, it is pretty interesting and not unseen in other articles. Sturmi (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

But not like this. I have now re-added in brief the two incidents which were mention in this version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Also, thank you for helping out with the quote. I replaced the old quote with a new, properly sourced quote. Sturmi (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Kent Tritle

Kent Tritle moved in N.Y. from Loyola to St John the Divine. A new user added resume-like prose, I reverted. Looking closer, the whole article is like that, and there is a remark on the talk page that it even might be right?? Too high for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just read the current version (29-Nov-2011 08:26) and I can't see any great problems with résumé-like prose or WP:PEACOCK. I can't imagine that such a dry list of his career can be seen as a copyright violation, but I'm obviously not an expert in that area. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

August Sander

Thank you very much Mr.Bednarek for your improvements at the article on August Sander. May I ask you if you have the time to help me to get the necessary license for the file.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:August_Sander,_self-portrait.jpg in a way that the picture can be shown on the August Sander article? Although reading through the corresponding help sections, I'm stuck. Following link shows the copyright holder and I don't see how the second last sentence in their Reproduktionsbestimmungen could be handled http://www.blossfeldt.info/wDeutsch/kontakt/anfrage_bild.php?navid=26 (The linked Susanne Lange is a mistaken identity and not the author Susanne Lange who published on August Sander) [[Phoebe krusenstern (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)]]

The condition you link to clearly prohibit any use on Wikipedia. Your only chance is to write to the VG Bild-Kunst in Bonn and ask them to release an image under a suitable license, e.g. Creative Commons without non-commercial of no derivatives attribute; see Commons:Commons:Copyright tags and related pages. Reading their conditions, I don't like your chances. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(moved to bottom) Nothing to be done.) Got it late, but got it! Feel free to delete my last contribution and thank you again, I learned a bit more Phoebe krusenstern (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Islamey

Michael, I don't understand why you have twice removed my edits on the page Islamey, the first standing from early August until your edit of a few days ago. The information which is there now is simply wrong - which is why I edited it in the first place. Indeed it contradicts the page that it links to on Ossias. My edit was:

The many existing editions have numerous ossias (alternatives) to passages; some easier, because of its immense difficulty (e.g. bars 238-241), and others more difficult (e.g. bars 206-217).

This is a piece of music I play often. Yes, I do mean on the piano, not on a CD player. I know it well, and I know when a passage is easier or more difficult than another. I have referenced examples with bar numbers in support. And the Wikipedia page on the ossia agrees with me. It is wrong to promulgate such false information on the ossias in Islamey when the evidence to the contrary is clearly put before you.

If it is simply my style of writing that you don't like, then of course you could change that. And of course you are welcome to do so, if you think you can improve on it.

I await your reply before re-inserting my edit.

Cerddferch (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but until now I coudn't understand your proposed wording, mainly because my score of Islamey doesn't have any "more difficult" ossias, only easier ones (it doesn't have bar numbers either). After re-reading Ossia, it's now clear to me what you mean. May I suggest a simpler phrasing, similar to that in the article "Ossia". Maybe:

The many existing editions have numerous alternative passages (ossias) – some easier, some more difficult.

It would of course be most helpful if a reliable source could be found supporting this assertion, either in text or as a score. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas cantata

Before introducing such a thing as Christmas cantata, I started in German, Weihnachtskantate, please check, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Danke für Öl ins Feuer! - For a special cantata (63) I would like an interior pic (or two - organ) of the Liebfrauenkirche on the commons. Can you do that or should I ask the author(s)? In case we create a stub for the church, what should be the name, the German sounds too general and too German? Someone just moved Marktkirche, Hannover, to a strange combination of German and English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the tone of the invective at de:Diskussion:Liste von Weihnachtskantaten just riled me.
The name of the category Commons:Category:Marktkirche Halle (Saale) at Commons seems reasonable for an English article about the church. You can use any picture, without asking, from that category – that's what Commons is for. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for both. 1) "Peace on earth"? Did you follow? 2) I saw later that there was a good one, not of the organ yet, but that's not needed for the cantata, BWV 63, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There are 3 pictures of the church's organs in Commons:Category:Interior of Marktkirche Halle (Saale). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I missed the sub cat. Others created the article under the official name, I added simple redirects such as Marienkirche, Halle - waiting to add Saale until the other Halles get one with an article. I am tempted to move Halle to "Halle (Saale)" which is its official name ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to the cantata: One of my critics - who didn't read carefully - improved the de MP to FA, incipits, coloured table, - funny timing but better than Weihnachtskitsch. I found several cantatas and don't know how to include this The Animals' Christmas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe: "A christmas cantata outside the classical music tradition was the 1986 project The Animals' Christmas by Jimmy Webb and Art Garfunkel." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Taken, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

FA on Sanskrit Wikipedia

Hi, i wanted to tell you that we generally tag some decent article with the FA tag in order to get some options for the article section of the main page, however we on't mark it as a FA till it has got a good size and is well referred. If you have any other doubt then feel free to ask me on my talk page here. Regards, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I see the purpose of the Featured Article tag in assisting readers to find other language Wikipedias whith in-depth coverage of the subject. When the tag sa:फलकम्:निर्वाचित लेख (Featured Article?) on the article sa:गुस्तावः मालेरः (Gustav Mahler) was applied to the English Wikipedia entry, I found that the Sanskrit Wikipedia entry could not possibly be a Featured Article – I wonder whether there was any assessment before applying that tag to the article. If it is customary on the Sanskrit Wikipedia to apply FA tags for reasons other than articles having passed some assessment process and having been judged of Featured Article standard, I suggest they find some other tags for those purposes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I suggest you try and get to know sa.wikipedia a bit better. It is still a young and small wikipedia, and it is witnessing a spurt in contributors and contributors. As with many young wikis, there is no centralized process for most things, including FA assessment. This is primarily because there are just around 15 active editors, and the concept of centralized committees reviewing articles has not yet evolved. It would be meaningless, really, to have any such committee, given the small number of active editors. In that scenario, generally, any sufficiently experienced editor can present an article with FA status. This is (informally) reviewed by any other experienced editor. Thank you for your suggestion; we are constantly in the process of evolving standardized procedures for many things, and we do hope that we will have a set FA criteria along with a FAR procedure in place in the near future. Regards, Lynch7 13:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the lack of a general structure does not mean that the article is deficient in meaningful content in any way. Lynch7 15:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I just blocked this user for this edit. I'm the author of the Josquin article and current on the recent scholarship -- now I'm sure this person is making this stuff up. Let me know what you think; it's been an odd case. Antandrus (talk) 01:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Now what? Revert List of Medieval composers and List of Renaissance composers to before 18 September 2011? The edits at Mozart family, where Luigi Cherubini was declared the 3rd husband of Constanze, did make me wonder about the editor's state of mind. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's sure tempting. Some of the edits were format improvements, and a handful were actual corrections (e.g. Obrecht). I'm honestly baffled by this person. It reminds me of someone we had a couple years ago -- do you remember Labrynthia9856 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Antandrus (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Händel in Halle

Do you happen to know which church in Halle is the one where Handel had a job for a while. Articles of his teacher and his differ, and I don't see a former Dom turned "reformed" anyway, Lutheran maybe. I happened to be on the Weihnachtsmarkt in Halle, eating a roll and drinking Glühwein under Handel's statue today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Found the Dom, and it was reformed, learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Grotian&Steinweg

The author of Grotrian-Steinweg asked me to get the pics from the German article to the commons. I would like to know how, but only next year. Could you help there sooner? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There are already some tags on the files which haven't yet been transferred to Commons, so it should be simple. It's too late now, but I'll try tomorrow. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I transferred the files File:Grotrian-Steinweg Concert-Hall Braunschweig.JPG & File:Flügel im Trümmerschutt.JPG to Commons; all the other images at de:Grotrian-Steinweg were already there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Info passed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both! The article now has a fine collection of images. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from London...

...and a very Happy New Year, Michael! Thanks so much for all your work at the Opera Project. All the best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Olga Alava

An article that you have been involved in editing, Olga Alava, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Cloudz679 20:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Mondschein again

Would you like to participate in the new round of the nickname sonata, Beethoven #14? (See my talk, or Milkunderwood, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that discussion and the previous one, but participated in neither. Unlike the proposal at Talk:Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven)#Requested move: Piano Sonata No. 1 (Beethoven) → Piano Sonata No. 1 in F minor, Op. 2, to which I objected for formal reasons, I don't care about how the article about Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 14 is named – although I agree that the first requested move in September was improperly closed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you the more for your enlightening comment there. I tried to sort facts and myths, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Very good (and I did read de:Giulietta Guicciardi for some background). However, how is a poor administrator going to decide this? It's obviously "no consensus", so the result will be "no change/not moved". Unless it can be demonstrated that the nickname violates general Wikipedia or local project policies, there's no other choice. Wikipedia does not well in areas where authority counts. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not in general, but this time reason won, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not the only one who thinks that the policy should be changed if it leads to something like this, but I will abstain from policy discussion. (Never read any of those manuals, survived by trial and error.) - The way an admin found a way in the former "move discussion" to think 2:1 votes represent the public is amazing, we call that Nacht-und-Nebel-Aktion, but she claims there was a week ... - In every decent delete discussion I saw so far more votes were requested in such a case. The even greater problem is the article itself, imo --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Tell us please (on the "Moonlight" talk) what is obscure about "quasi una fantasia". The question what Beethoven actually wrote was raised and is unanswered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:Moonlight Sonata. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that response, but nothing new, I stopped using the ambiguous redirect already. What I would like to know is if (and when and how) Beethoven wrote a line "Sonata quasi una fantasia" or "Quasi una fantasia". Same for "Luigi van Beethoven". Both is indeed a bit obscure, looking at the articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You already quoted the dedication from Henle, which starts with "SONATA QUASI UNA FANTASIA" and continues in German. Ricordi, 3rd ed. 1919, has:

SONATA QUASI UNA FANTASIA per il Clavicembalo o Piano-Forte, composta e dedicata alla Damigella Contessa Giulietta Guicciardi da Luigi van Beethoven Op. 27, No. 2. In Vienna presso Gio. Cappi

Comparing search results for the German and the Italian text leads me to believe that Beethoven wrote the Italian version on the title page. If he didn't write that, it was at least first printed that way, no doubt with his approval. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! That doesn't look obscure. What did I miss? I think it's a good description of the author's intention. How can we/you say that in the articles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What I meant by obscure was the application of "Sonata quasi una fantasia" solely to the Sonata No. 14, as you did in your original DYK nomination and as the REDIRECT implies. I think Voceditenore clarified it further at the sonata's talk page. The article itself does mention why Beethoven chose it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I got it. I found that redirect and used it, but will no more, it's an orphan if we don't count invalid hooks and user talk. Worse redirect - spelling-wise - seems Sonata Quasi una Fantasia, but a true orphan, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Narcissus of Jerusalem 116?

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_centenarians_%28religious_figures%29&diff=next&oldid=470016076 :

The source you listed (http://saints.sqpn.com/saintn44.htm) does not give any backing for its claim that this man lived to be 116 (which would make him the oldest man of all time, by the way). An extraordinary claim like this needs extraordinary evidence, and this does not suffice. Mr. Anon515 05:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I added in my edit summary: :"see also Narcissus of Jerusalem." That article has a number of further sources, as do the numerous articles on Wikipedias in other languages. There is no discussion on the article's talk page questioning his age. In my rare contacts with WikiProject World's Oldest People, I found them rather diligent about sources, so I assume they are satisfied with his list entry. If you want to raise this matter in detail, I suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People is probably the right place. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Anna and Bernhard Blume

No music this time, Anna and Bernhard Blume covers two people (one living, to make it more complicated), now someone moved cats to the redirects of the single names. It seems strange to me to have a redirect with personal categories, but I'm still learning. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that treatment is explicitly mentioned in Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects; the German Wikipedia does the same. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I never met one before. I am still concerned about "Living people", thinking it should stay with the couple as long as she lives, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Bach cantatas

Thanks for fixing what I missed! I left the positioning of the colour explanation where I found it. Yours makes more sense. I can't ask the author about his intentions, not wanted on his user page (I placed our organ in his list, considered Lokalpatriotismus - too bad the instrument is not old). You will remember the discussion about Weihnachtskantate. New year's resolution: translate his MP list also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Theater des Westens

Thanks for your attention! This was just started yesterday and will grow to comfortably have 3 pics. "Theater" is closer to the German than "theatre", "Hänsel und Gretel" is pictured that way and was certainly sung in German, why confuse? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

More pictures from Commons:Category:Theater des Westens can of course be added when the article's length allows it; I couldn't find any relevance in the article for Hänsel und Gretel, so it seemd a good candidate to remove the playbill – it disfigured the left side of the article quite badly. Whether "theater" is closer to the German Theater is neither here nor there; when referring to anything related to stage works, it's spelled in English almost everywhere :-) as "theatre"; see All pages with titles containing theater and All pages with titles containing theatre. Its usage on Wikipedia is exemplified by the name of the WikiProject Theatre. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, of course! The Hänsel und Gretel wasn't to point out a specific piece but the style, to return eventually. I found some info that may become refs. This time the German article references almost every line (offline), but lines about the succession in ownership and direction which don't interest me too much. I go for the music, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the box! Do we need the coordinates twice? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the customary usage of {{Infobox theatre}} or Wikipedia's treatment of co-ordinates. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I took London opera as an example, not knowing what these boxes are good for anyway, wasn't my idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Beecham Opera Company

Hello. Thank you for providing a rating. I saw your "...or should that be stub?" query in the edit summary. Personally, I couldn't say. In the next couple of days, I hope to try to help get the page into a state presentable enough to make a DYK submission. Regards, MistyMorn (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hauptstimme

Actually, I didn't write anything about your intentions, but you seem to have made an assumption about mine. Sorry for talking. Hyacinth (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion, including your answers to my questions regarding the term's translation and spelling, at Talk:Hauptstimme. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hat tips

Thanks for pointing out WP:NAMB, I don't know how I haven't run across it yet but I didn't even knew that there was a specific policy for hat tips. I also took the liberty of removing the hat tip from Thus Spoke Zarathustra to Also sprach Zarathustra (Strauss) to make it reciprocal, if one shouldn't hat tip to the other than the other shouldn't either. Cat-five - talk 14:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That edit has been correctly reverted. Quoting from the revert's edit summary: "it is not a matter of reversability, but whether reader might be looking for the other one." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	eyes and brain
	Thank you for your keeping watch on "my" articles - List of Bach cantatas, Christmas cantata ... - with your wonderful tools, eyes and brain. I was reminded yesterday of the very first discussion I had on Wikipedia, you asking: is Graham Waterhouse a classical German cellist? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like you to cast those eyes and brain on Adagio for Strings and Agnus Dei (Barber), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Agnus Dei: precious improvements again, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Adagio: good! I still wonder how the lead can say arranged same year 1936 (don't see that in the article), and how the composition section gets to "includes both the time signatures of 4/4 and 6/4". I don't have that score, but the other which has 4/2, 5/2, 6/2, - so says the lead. The line "The dynamics range from pianissimo (very soft) to fortissimo (very loud)." tells me about nothing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Tromboney

Thanks for catching the extra revert I did on the Cello Suites page, which accidentally put "tromboney" back in, after I'd already taken it out! When someone makes a bunch of back and forth edits as the anon editor did, it's easy to lose track. I do wish people would find something better to do with their time (and ours). Cheers.--TEHodson 10:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Unhyphenated ISBNs

Hi Michael, Many editors prefer the hyphenated form of the ISBNs, but they do not show up as targets when searching for pages citing particular ISBNs when using the unhyphenated form as the search string. I have been unable to persuade other editors that the unhyphenated form might be preferable. Do you know of a way to add the unhyphenated form to pages so it will be found by search engines, but not be visible to readers? Then in my view it would not matter as much, if we use the hyphens.

I tried adding an anchor with the unhyphenated form (see User:Robert.Allen/Busoni revamp), but a Google site search did not find it. My results searching with the hyphenated form in the Google site search worked to find the displayed hyphenated target, but with the unhyphenated string it did not find the hidden one. Using the Wikipedia Help search box, I was able to find both, and the hyphenated form seemed to work better in quotes, ie, it did not pick up irrelevant results.

Some sample searches:

• Wikipedia Help search of User space:
  • 9780828825863 [1]
  • 978-0-8288-2586-3 [2]
  • "978-0-8288-2586-3" [3]
• Google searches of en.wikipedia.org:
  • 9780828825863 [4]
  • 978-0-8288-2586-3 [5]
  • "978-0-8288-2586-3" [6]

I would like for it also to work with Google, Yahoo, etc. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It can be concluded from your experiments that Google doesn't find HTML code created by {{Anchor}}, which in this case is <span id="9780828825863"></span>. I find that not surprising. You could try instead hidden text, generated by {{Hid}} which, subtly different, should be <span style="display:none">9780828825863</span>. I have no idea whether this will work but it's a different approach. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

So this way it is not a parameter value. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to test it soon. (This is like a citation index issue. It may not be particularly important. I just feel like if we can, we ought to try to make it a bit easier, by reducing the complexity of the searches needed to find them. Unhyphenated ISBNs are all over the place. The hyphenated ones are quite a bit more difficult to come across unless you know where to look.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Michael, I made the change more than 24 hrs ago, and now Google seems to be finding the hidden ISBN. Just what we were looking for. Thanks! I will try to test some other search engines to see if this works generally. I'm going to assume it will, so, the question arises as to how this approach might be implemented. My inclination would be to try to get the people who write the Wikisoftware that recognizes ISBNs to insert the unhyphenated hidden one when the page gets saved down as html. Then I assume it would not appear in the editable text of the page, and these additional search targets would be completely automatic and hidden from editors. The question then also arises whether pages with displayed ISBN-10s could easily acquire hidden unhyphenated ISBN-13s as well as hidden unhyphenated ISBN-10s. Or vice-versa for that matter: could pages with displayed ISBN-13s easily acquire both hidden unhyphenated ISBN-13s, and if relevant, hidden unhyphenated ISBN-10s? (It is my impression that there is a simple calculation to interconvert the unhyphenated forms from 10 to 13 and from 13 to 10.) What do you think? I don't even know how one proposes such a thing, or whether it would get serious consideration or not. If not, then a bot which inserts these hidden ISBNs into the editable text may be the only approach. The drawback with this second option is that it might encounter a reasonable amount of opposition. The hidden ISBNs might regularly get deleted by editors who find them a nuisance, and I would not necessarily disagree, because all this extra text would clutter up the edit window and make editing more difficult. You are probably way more knowledgeable about this sort of thing than I am. Does any of this make sense to you? Does this seem like a good idea even? --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think having the Wikisoftware insert unhyphenated ISBNs as hidden text into its HTML output would be a great idea, much preferrable to the other solutions for the reasons you point out. The area where such a proposal could initially be raised is probably Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), although I suspect it will eventually have to go to WP:BUGZILLA/bugzilla. As for the algorithms involved in ISBNs, I'm completely ignorant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If a proposal is to be made, maybe we can suggest preventing wrapping of the hyphenated ISBNs at the same time (ie, the html equiv of "{{Nowrap|ISBN 978-0-8288-2586-3}}") I will think about this some more and try to write a proposal on one of my user pages. Perhaps when I get it worked up you will be willing to read it and make suggestions. BTW, one drawback I have noticed, is that my browser (Safari) does not find the hidden text when I search the page. I'm wondering whether this is the case for most browsers. Is there any way around this problem? Or can we just ignore it? [Update: I copied our discussion to User talk:Robert.Allen/Draft, so you can archive it or delete it when you wish. Maybe we can continue it there. Thanks!] --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching that page and I'm convinced that I can add nothing to what you and Rich Farmbrough are discussing – the technical details of ISBNs and of Wikimedia coding are way outside my area. Good luck. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Bitten by Britten

Many thanks for your typo-spotting in my recent Georg Solti discography confection. I was delighted to notice this morning that we had both overlooked "A Midsummer Bight's Dream" (which I have now rather reluctantly amended). Tim riley (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A list like that is bound to have many spelling errors. When I came to the article, my main concern was the missing DEFAULTSORT which made the article appear under "G". Once I was looking at the source code, I dealt with duplicate & trailing blanks with a global search & replace; that did indeed make a change in the "Bight's Dream" line, but I didn't notice. The infelicities which I did notice were rather by accident – whatever caught my eye while quickly scrolling through the text. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's all grist to the mill, and I hope you will perhaps be willing to run an eye over the main Solti article in a week or so after I have finished giving it a comprehensive overhaul on which I'm working backstage. Meanwhile, I am a complete ignoramus about codes. Ought I to be adding something to future new articles that I perpetrate? Kind regards. Tim riley (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to include the term {{DEFAULTSORT:Solti…}} which obscured the article's listing at Category:Classical music discographies, that's all. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Passion

Others fast at this time, I turn to the St Matthew Passion structure (no better name found yet), a table from de is in my user. Before going further I would like some general ideas. I think that we don't need a link to every Bible verse, because it's consecutive. If we don't place the table within the main article we should link the other authors, though. What do you think? Other comments welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for wording! What do you think of using the abbreviations for instruments, as in List of Bach cantatas? ft for flauto traverso, explaining and linking only once? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

When we get to movements, we will have to decide which system to follow. The present article en uses NBA (yes, I remember that it means something else for you), the table de has BWV first. In the case of Messiah I started with the recent edition, but switched to the older because Wikisource has that. There is no Wikisource for the Passion, or is it? I tend to use today's musicians' NBA. What do you think? - On the soloists: can you express more clearly that whoever has the budget (and room) should install different soloists and organ(ists) for the 2 "choirs"? Some recordings do that. In our last performance there was no money for more than 5 soloists and no room for two organs (pictured by me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I found a rather good structure of the Bible text in ref3. Thinking of the copy-vio searchers: do I have to reword that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't see how a simple collection of 16 headlines could fall foul of any copyright considerations. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I like to hear that. You have not experienced what made some afraid, though. (Relief: both articles mentioned were not pulled from the Main page, Christa Reinig, Great Dismal Swamp maroons. - The question concerning the movement numbers is still open, bach-cantatas has both: "NBA (BWV)", University of Vermont same, University of Alberta has only NBA, and I tend to do the same, - to have both seems awkward. Do you agree? I would then switch the first two columns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Mind you, I'm no expert on copyright questions; I just go with some half-remembered stuff about de:Schöpfungshöhe/Threshold of originality and what I consider "common sense". As to BWV and/or NBA: I don't see a problem showing both. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Common sense: two sentences perhaps a little to close to a source (and no answer yet as to how to improve them) initiated the editor to be blocked. My common sense tells me something is wrong. - The numbers: of course both show in the table, but in the prose I would prefer to have just one, to avoid "Crucifixion (55(64) to 60(70))". I will not get to single movements this year, but possibly next, then they might even become headings, such as 23 for He was despised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to refer to the movements' numbers in prose, I suppose the more detailed numbering system, NAB, would be better. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, good point, precious brain! (The Adagio article could still need some of it.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please look at the table again, I inserted a 3rd column for everything Gospel (but #1), what do you think? I wanted to respond to the no-colour request for the very personal reason, but left them, solved that differently. He retired with serenity, didn't have to be blocked on top. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

To go to the Main page soon, preview on my user. - Thanks for Der Handschuh, I didn't want to pick it up ;)

Thanks for your impressive additions on Der Tod Jesu! Singing Barber was exciting, Bach with Cranach made history, and you may be interested in the discussion of the pic de, making peace ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The passion table is now black and white. Late Easter eggs are to be found on my user/talk, enjoy! Corno da tirarsi is a red link I would like to see filled, possibly (for the moment) by a redirect - compare last edits on BWV 67, but I couldn't do that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I liked the coloured version better, obviously others didn't.
Corno da tirarsi is a fascinating story; only JSB used it, and only in a few works during his time in Leipzig – read all about it in the Diplomarbeit at http://www.barokensembledeswaen.nl/html_e/olivier.pdf (72 pages), and a few sentences at http://www.barokensembledeswaen.nl/html_e/hip_hip_corno_tirarsi.html (there's also a picture of a reconstruction). In short, the IP editor seems to have been correct – it's a corno (horn), not a tromba (trumpet). Bach also wrote for the tromba da tirarsi, and he would not have confused or conflated the two. Thus, a REDIRECT to Slide trumpet would be wrong. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

corno: I learned a lot but would still not know what to do? Write a shortish article? insert something in Horn (instrument)? Would you? - Colours: we wear just black on Good Friday. (The one who didn't like the colours in any table is not wanted in WP and silenced, - so it's also a little private act of respect. He designed the Easter image on my user, all colour!) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I would reinstate the IP editor's "horn" description at BWV 67. I suppose a short article on the "corno da tirarsi" would be a good idea. I may try to destil something next week from the Diplomarbeit I mentioned, unless you beat me to it. The summary of his paper is so well written, it'll be difficult to avoid close paraphrasing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Andris Nelsons

Nelsone appeared a third time. I wonder if it's something Latvinian, like ...dottir? I ordered tickets for his Mahler II at the Rheingau Musik Festival. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit summary, there's no evidence (except 1 facebook page which may or may not be his wife's) for "Nelsone" but plenty for for "Nelsons". I changed it again, added a reference, and left a note at User talk:21.trolejbuss. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you (but looks to me as if the user is one of the many unable to find an edit summary, hopefully will see talk), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Next round, next user with a speaking name, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Strange way of conducting a discussion (User:InLatvianFemaleNamesEndsWithEorA). Seems like your first hunch (2) was correct. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Latvian grammar has a difference between male and female names. The male names mostly ends with s or is, female names with e or a. In this case it is Nelsone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_declension — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21.trolejbuss (talk • contribs) 14:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither that article nor the article Latvian name contains any explicit mention of female surnames, which e.g. the articles Polish name and Eastern Slavic naming customs do. The latter article contains this sentence, relevant to this discussion: "The correct transliteration of such feminine names in English is debated: sometimes women's names are given in their original form, sometimes in the masculine form (technically incorrect but now more widely recognized)." This justifies the use of "Adriana Anna Nelsons" for his daughter and it explains the preponderance of sources for that use. The use of "Nelsone" for his daughter could then be seen as unnecessary and obscure officiousness. Compare this to the use of the name of Mariss Jansons' mother in his article. I'm not all that interested in Nelsons' article, and if some Latvian editors (or one with two names?) feel that insisting on their version of his daughter's name improves the article, I don't care anymore.
@Gerda: DYK that the concept of female surnames exists/existed in German as well, e.g. die Bernauerin? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Back then yes, sort of. But Nelson's baby is just born. I would only mention the first name until the girl is notable :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nadia Boulanger

Thanks for the edits - much appreciated. I must admit I hadn't read the WP:DASH guidance, and the curled quotes were due to editing drafts in MS-Word. Sorry about that. pgbrown (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Siegfried Rapp

Thanks for adding ru. I am travelling, or I might try to find a bit more on him in the sources Yoninah added (article and talk). How about you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Re. proposed deletion of Music of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky

Please see my comments on the talk page of this article. Thanks. Jonyungk (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation—I honestly had no idea I had applied for speedy deletion. Please see my comments about a potential solution that would sidestep the need for deletion. Jonyungk (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been a few days. Hope you haven't fallen off the planet. :-) Waiting to hear back on the above. Jonyungk (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for apparently having gotten on your nerve. Jonyungk (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all; some of us need more prodding than others. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

And thanks for correcting the template. That was the first thing on my To Do list this morning. Maybe someday I'll get making those right, also. :-) Jonyungk (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Publicity

Thank you ! :) I went on a massive de-pufferizing operation for this little beauty the other day. People never cease to amaze me. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Windmills of Your Mind, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Your assessment of my edit took all of one second and was unsurprisingly wrong. I took the liberty of reinstating my version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Sorted out my citation error! Thanks YellowFratello (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to improve Wikipedia's ISBN Magic

Hi Michael, I am finally getting around to writing a draft proposal with some of the ideas we discussed earlier (see User:Robert.Allen/Draft). I would appreciate your feedback and/or contributions (from any editor, for that matter). Please feel free to modify the proposal or leave comments on the talk page. (I'm especially concerned about errors or misunderstandings I may have.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Andre Heller

Hi - You recently added and restored the Peacock tag to the article about Andre Heller. The other two tags I can understand, but could I ask what, specifically, prompted you to tag it with peacock?

For context, let me say that I am not disagreeing with the inclusion of the tag, I just wanted some clarification. The primary contributor to the article (User:Jtamsin) is still quite new to Wikipedia and was a little confused by it, so he came to me for help (I'm the one who welcomed him to WP originally). I explained the refimprove and the linkrot tags to him, but I haven't been able to explain the promotion tag completely because I don't have all of the context. (I also addressed his continual reverts - he had never been introduced to the policy at WP:WAR.) I'm still waiting for a response from him, so I don't know how he has taken my advice to him, but I'd like to be able to answer his questions as well as possible. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to deal with this matter. I placed the template {{Peacock}} on the article because of these phrases:

• "he is still one of the most diverse [songwriters] in the entire German-speaking world."
• "[some works] are now considered classic titles of Austro-pop."
• "[title] became one of the hymns of the peace movement"
• "spectacular productions"
• "successful career"
• quoted "Architectural Forerunner of the World Cup" without attribution

There are many more statements in the article which are not outright peacock terms but which need reliable verification. I'm very fond of Heller's work, but that doesn't blind me to the requirements of encyclopedic writing. Heller's German Wikipedia article may have been the inspiration for Jtamsin, because it shows the same shortcomings; we should do better. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response. Hopefully we can address these issues - unfortunately, he might have been a little intimidated (not blaming you or anything; just making an observation) as he still has not responded to me, nor has he edited the article since this came up; I'm afraid we might have frightened him off. I've not seen much of the German Wikipedia (Ich kann nicht sprechen viel Deutsch), but he apparently thought that "I saw it on another version of Wikipedia" was sufficient verifiability and got a little disheartened when he found out it was a bit more rigorous. Thanks again - hopefully you can improve the article (I know next to nothing about Andre Heller and wouldn't even really know where to look for sources other than Google, which wasn't particularly helpful). Sleddog116 (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Michael and Sleddog116, Thanks for the feedback. I just want to say that I am a "she" not a "he" :-) I read the discussion. You didn`t scare me off, I just had to wait for the go ahead to continue editing and I also have other work. Unfortunately though, I do not have access to him directly and so I have no other way of accessing except using google, which as you said, is not very helpful. Yes, I am new to wikipedia and so I wasn`t to know that a translation from the German version was not enough or verifiable or that there were two different editorial policies--as I now know. The German one seems fine with using promotional language which is where I translated it from. Just a question: do you think I should stop editing now as it seems that I do not have any more references except from Google? I do not have any other access except to google and so I do not think I can contribute really further and probably needs someone who knows more about him? This would help me a great deal. I will continue rewriting and it would be great Michael if you can point out exactly which URL`s I need to change and which phrases need a citation. I really want to be able to finish this and not have a tag at the top. Just another question. How much longer do think it needs for me to for get it up to your standard? Or is it really someone else who has more knowledge of him, not just from wiki articles and google would be needed here. Your replay are appreciated. By the way, it`s not that I was intimidated, I was just wanted to know exactly what and where it needed improving. The above phrases put in bullet points help a great deal, I can now change this (they were not what I would have put, I took them from the German. Now I need more of these points so that I can see exactly what:which parts, words, links etc needs to be improved and how. Thanks. from a "she" :-) (Jtamsin (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC))

Hi Michael, I have changed the wording of the points you mentioned and given additional citation. Are all the peacock tags still relevant? even the one about the wording sounding like it is promoting. Bare URLs I cleaned up the links see the Notes section, so that they are no longer ‘bare url`s’ and have information of where the links are from including the date retrieved and author (When it can be found, in some cases these details are not available) Promotional Wording, I also re-wrote the wording (see below) and so it is less “promotional” (I took the originally wording directly from the German, so the German version is promoting as well-but the editors in German do not seem to mind this, nor do they pick up on the lack of citations or bare urls which is evident in the German version) Inline Citations, I included more inline citations by doing research on google, but as it was said google isn`t particularly helpful and more rigorous sources are perhaps needed--which I don`t have access to. If this is the case can you point out what more needs to be done. Otherwise I wouldn`t know where to start. (Jtamsin (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC))

Thanks for your response. It's now too late here to review this longish article but it looks like you addressed the points I raised. I'll try to have a look at it tomorrow. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Carry on, good sir!

		The Music Barnstar
		For your valuable and tireless contributions to music-related articles. I came across your contributions when helping another editor at Andre Heller, and said contributions do indeed merit this award! Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Seconded, thanks for additions to Der Tod Jesu for example. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

ISBN proposal

Hi Michael, I just wanted to let you know that I went ahead and submitted a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Proposal to improve Wikipedia's ISBN Magic. Thanks for your help on this. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Simone Young

Thanks for the tidy up of the Simone Young discography etc. --Design (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Natalie Dessay

Hi! Why did you remove the infobox from the article about the french opera singer? --Georgedes (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Classical music has formed the view "that the use of biographical infoboxes is often counterproductive on biographies of classical musicians […] and that they should not be used without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page." – see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Biographical infoboxes. The same view is also held by some other projects; of interest here are the Opera Project and the Composers Project. For a recent discussion about a singer, see Talk:Marian Anderson#Infobox. For a more general view, see WP:DISINFOBOX. All the best, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Marta Eggerth

Oh dear, we've run into this problem again... I had Eggerth under List of centenarians (actors, filmmakers and entertainers), because "entertainer" can encompass both singing and acting, whereas I didn't feel that "musicians, composers and music patrons" did due justice to her acting career. But I'm flexible as always. Thoughts? Canadian Paul 15:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I did check Special:WhatLinksHere/Marta Eggerth before my edit to see whether you had entered her in any list, but I must have overlooked the List of centenarians (actors, filmmakers and entertainers) where, as I can see now, you entered her at 03:15 on 18 April, so I entered her at 21:38 in the List of centenarians (musicians, composers and music patrons); sorry about that. I reverted my edits. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Compositions by W.A. Mozart

Thanks for looking over the pages edited/created yesterday, really appreciate the help. I apologize for some errors in the pages as, I am new to editing wiki articles, thus still learning the process. Thanks again.--ZSNES (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP issues

re: [7]

The talk page comments are evidence that the content in the article is being placed there to lead the reader to come to a conclusion that is not in the sources. I ask you to revert yourself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Responded there. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

100px

Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP

Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé Knowles) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Vier ernste Gesänge

I just started Vier ernste Gesänge, feel free to add to history, translation ... and start music and recordings. I plan a structure table, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source Rabbits in the arts

Michael, I know that. I also know that WP:copy requires us to give credit, and I want to do that. IMHO, I don't think the edit history and even the talk page is good enough. Given the wholesale use of their verbiage, I think it should be acknowledged somewhere in the article itself. Just the way it is done when public domain documents are used. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I put it in as an "Acknowledgment" 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no room in WP:LAYOUT for "Acknowledgment". The correct way is described at Wikipedia:Translation and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I suggest you remove that section. It is much more important to reference the text in that article properly, something which it, almost like its German counterpart, currently completely lacks. And please don't edit sections on my userpage that you didn't write, well-meaning as it may be. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This discussion was being reflected as a subsection of a discussion about Mozart. Please feel free to undo that "edit" as that was what I touched. Only. Sorry for intruding into your space. I will not be back. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)