Jump to content

User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 →


2024



Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Like 2019, remember? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Kraków

Kraków has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Beer

Portal:Beer, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Beer and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Beer during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Schierbecker (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February music

story · music · places

Thank you for your support on the talk of The Night Watch. As that is overly watched right now, I just tell you here that I can't believe I didn't pass it sooner, such with joining WP:QAI, but then came the first FA, and the first TFA, and when that was on the Main page I was sure I had given it already ... - my memory. Better late than never. - I was on exciting vacation, see places if you are not afraid of peaks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Seiji Ozawa. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see you weren't a bureaucrat anymore. Thank you for your near-4 years of service. Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 07:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Queen of Hearts! Yes, I was becoming uncomfortable by some of the recent demands of Crats to get involved in auditing live RfAs, and felt I am now too old and slow to be helpful there, so there was little point in remaining a Crat as there is little else to do. What is really needed is more active users stepping forward to become Crats rather than keeping old, slow folks like me.
As a result of taking off the Crat toolkit I have felt less "responsible" than I have for some time, and happier to spend my time on Wikipedia simply reading (and editing where I feel it is appropriate and needed), and occasionally helping out on closing a tricky discussion (I've always enjoyed that), or doing some minor, non-urgent, non-controversial admin task. SilkTork (talk) 11:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Bureaucratship Anniversary!

Precious anniversary

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my story today? Max Reger was the last composer where I had to overcome opposition to the infobox I wanted for an article I stand for, for his then upcoming centenary of death. In 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My story today will be about Aribert Reimann, and tomorrow J.S. Bach. - Please give me one example of what you mean by a "disruptive infobox" in your comment to Wugapodes' propasal to end the infobox wars. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed your question earlier, Gerda. I would say that an inappropriate infobox would be one that people would object to and wish to remove. The principle of my objection is that I don't feel Wikipedia should ever be in the business of imposing absolutes, especially in issues where there are clearly two opposing schools of thought. Flexibility and discussion is the way forward, tiresome though that can be at times. These are not wars to be won, but subtle issues to be agreed upon. SilkTork (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
story · music · places
You gave a very general answer, but I'd like a real case, just one. For example look at one of Rossini (discussion archived), Rinaldo (opera) and Vivaldi, the three latest cases I don't understand. Vivaldi might be the easiest: not the whole infobox was removed but the link to his works, edit-warring 4 times. To my simple brain, a connection from a composer to their work (which are only on a different page because too many) would be most wanted. The thread was continued on the general MoS infobox talk as you may have seen. - On Bach's birthday ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I began to upload vacation pics, in case of interest. - There was agreement on a compromise infobox for classical composer, drafted in 2008 and released into Main space in 2010: {{infobox classical composer}}. It has served Bach and Beethoven since 2015, and Mozart for a year now. For me, the community has spoken clearly in the Mozart discussion, by number and quality of arguments. How would following that by now established model of compromise be disruptive? Where is subtleness in removing its key feature? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A general answer is all I can give, really. Infoboxes are not something that really drives me one way or the other. I don't get the passion that some people have against them or for them, so I can't really get into that sort of mind space. But I do know that people do get passionate about them, and that there is a debate, and people disagree. As such, it would be inappropriate to come down firmly on one side or another. If life were different, and instead of the WMF that we do have, we had the WMF that we have always wanted, we could use some developer time and money on setting up Wikipedia so that there was a British language version and an American language version, which would auto-default to the country you're in, or could be set in preferences. That would save a lot of silly editing back and forth over the spelling of colour/color, etc. And same with infoboxes. Set it as a preference, and those who like them, could have them on every article - or just in categories they chose, and those who don't like them, wouldn't see them at all, but would instead be shown just the lead image and caption. Problem solved. I'd probably set it so that I see them - at least on articles about albums. I find them very useful on those, and use them all the time. I think I tend to use them on articles about plants as well. Oh, and military articles, they are very useful. I probably use them a fair bit without really being aware of it. SilkTork (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of not seeing them was solved, see the script created in 2023, and introduced in Talk:Robert le diable#Bad manners (look for "tada"). I see very little passion about infoboxes, really. We had years without any RfCs, and I'd like to return to that. Make music, not infobox discussions. I'm too tired for more right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. I haven't tried the script because infoboxes don't bother me, and as I say above I find some of them useful. But that script should be advertised more for those who do dislike infoboxes. But, then, I suppose, they would dislike them by proxy for all readers, and so wouldn't be happy with a personal script. SilkTork (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I also haven't tried it because infoboxes don't bother me ;) New day: I think you believe me when I say that I am interested in music, not infoboxes. Music includes those who make it, composing and performing. For some reason that I don't understand, infoboxes for composers became a problem, but for performers not so, which was in 2010 - while I joined in 2009 and didn't notice. I wonder why that was so, still. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh, Gerda, people get astonishingly dogmatic about so many petty things on Wikipedia. Well, not just Wikipedia, but the internet in general. Someone could write a doctorate on people getting obsessed with petty details on the internet. I like this: [1]. Many of our longest running and biggest disputes are on petty details. Should it be The Beatles or the Beatles? I took part in that debate, and supported the Beatles because that's what our guideline said, and it's simply a house style. Not that important. But I do think it would actually make more sense for it to be The Beatles simply in order to differentiate The Beatles from the Eagles, so readers can easily see which bands include The in their name, and which don't. SilkTork (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My wound in that direction is A Boy was Born which is as it is published (and composer BB may have wanted the two capital Bs), but others argued "house style". I go outside now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain Gerda. You may console yourself with viewing the manuscript, on which, in Britten's own hand, the title is shown as "A BOY WAS BORN". So the way the title has been published was not in Britten's control anyway, but down to the vagaries of whichever "house style" has been in fashion! [2]. SilkTork (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but no need for consolation ;) (I should have said scar not wound.) - I doubt that Britten was against the publisher's version. The image was removed from the article. - My little consolation was that when I had removed the DYK nomination for Christmas and they urged me to bring it back because they were short on Christmas hooks, I insisted that the published version be used; also, there's no mentioning of the other version on Wikipedia. - Back to today: how do you like my vacation pics? I managed half of the third day. - I don't need consolation for Vivaldi, but help: I find it impossible that at present his infobox - after the list of works was taken away on grounds I fail to understand - has no indication left that he even was a composer. We'd have different ways to say so:
  1. bring back the list in some form, as in Bach (2015)
  2. say it on top, see Percy Grainger (by Brianboulton, 2013)
  3. say it in para occupation, see Max Reger (by me, 2016)
I don't use the term "disruptive" often, but do disconnect a composer from his list of works looks disruptive to me, and if we'd really have guidelines recommending that we should change them. However it looks like just a misunderstanding of the guidelines. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some days later in the vacation, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Arrested Development

Arrested Development has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification User:Thebiguglyalien, however this is not an article I have meaningfully edited. My sole involvement was to decline a GA nomination back in 2011. SilkTork (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Khereshwar Temple (March 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, SilkTork! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive_67&oldid=1217573187"