User talk:Alphaten

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


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

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

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

Cöthen
Cöthen, Coethen or Köthen? The present name on the English Wikipedia is Köthen (Anhalt). At Bach's time, it was Cöthen, but those times were not strict about spelling. The key thing is to make sure we mean the same thing. You could add a footnote to the many mentionings if you think that is unclear. If you want to do that and need help, ask here, - I'll watch. - Happy editing! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gerda, for your kindly welcome and suggested links.


 * No worries re: Cöthen/Köthen. However, for an anglophone reader of the article, "Köthen" jars in a Bach context, because the city/area is not spelled "Köthen" in any of the current published English-language Bach books. This _is_ a Bach article, and as such ought to reflect *standard practice* for the area of study (ie. J.S. Bach).


 * Some exemplars of up-to-date 'standard' "Cöthen" usage in a musical research context:


 * 1) The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (Stanley Sadie, ed. 2000) -- Section 6 under Johann Sebastian Bach = '6. Cöthen'


 * 2) 'Bach' in the Master Musicians series (Malcolm Boyd, OUP, 2001) -- Chapter 5 = 'Cöthen (1717-23)'


 * 3) 'J.S. Bach: A Life in Music' (Peter Williams, 2007) -- Chapter 4 = 'Cöthen, 1717-23'


 * 4) 'The Routledge Research Companion to Johann Sebastian Bach' (R.A.Leaver, ed., Ashgate, 2013) -- 4 main index entries under headword 'Cöthen'; p.198 - major section heading 'Cöthen (1717-23)'.


 * There is thus ample justification - and precedent - for changing the word from "Köthen" (modern geographical usage) to "Cöthen" (standard historical Bach usage)*. If there are no objections in light of the adduced examples of common practice, I'd like to go ahead with the change, possibly in other Bach/Cöthen related articles too. Looking forward to your further input. --Alphaten (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * \* [making clear, via links to the modern place-name that "Köthen" is meant.] --Alphaten (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and you are right. Feel free to add footnotes explaining that at Bach's time it was Cöthen, but as long as our article is Köthen (Anhalt), as today's common name, let's assume that it is the better known name. In article text, we don't have to use the historic name at the time. Many were spelled differently back then, and to say Munich for a medieval fact in München carries the same lack of historicity, also calling Wagner's opera The Flying Dutchman (opera). Wikipedia is full of it, and I see more important questions open. - Nice to meet you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, no - you still haven't grasped my point: it's not a question of "in Bach's time" the spelling was such; it is that in virtually all of the _modern_ English-language literature on Bach, the spelling is standardized to "Cöthen". It's a question of up-to-date common practice among anglophone musicologists and musicians, and thus the proposed change merits serious consideration as well as being justified. Again, please remember that this is the _English_ Wikipedia, not the German one... And you say "let's assume Köthen is the better known name" when, among anglophone readers familiar with Bach, it's clearly not. --Alphaten (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry for disappointing you. Wikipedia goes for the socalled common name in it's article names, and that is Köthen in the English Wikipedia. In this case, I don't even see confusion. - I have other problems to solve that are more urgent for me. Perhaps contact a project? Classical music? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not even contesting the main Köthen (Anhalt) article header; only recommending that "Köthen" be amended to "Cöthen" per common anglophone practice in English Wikipedia articles touching on Bach's "Cöthen period" (for reasons clearly stated above). You are obviously not anglophone yourself, and thus naturally take a different perspective on this place-name matter. By the way, what's a non-anglophone doing editing the English wikipedia in the first place? (Something I've never understood). --Alphaten (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not anglophone sources, it's what Wikipedia has as the common name, and again, I don't think any reader will be confused. No one was in the last 9 or so years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I really don't think you've understood me fully. But, in any case, who am I to beat fruitlessly against wikipedian currents until I drown? (I learned that lesson long ago) -- Alphaten (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Same for me ;) - There will be German sources saying Cöthen. - I advised you to argue not with me, but at a broader forum, and perhaps talk:Bach would be a place to start. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ps: I don't believe your concern belongs in the lead of Köthen, in that detail, - compared to all the things not mentioned in the lead. Please think about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll certainly think on your words, Gerda - again, we differ in perspective (myself being anglophone and a long-time reader of English Bach literature, most of which still says "Cöthen"). But then instead, I may log off permanently and simply go back to the occasional small anonymous edits, since I detest the bickering that results from attempting to effect one tiny useful and relevant change... --Alphaten (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * PS. Where _else_ to put the litte note on the modern English spelling of the place-name? - Important indications regarding spelling/pronunciation generally go in the first _paragraph_ of the lead section, even the first _sentence_, let alone elsewhere in that section, would you not agree? :) --Alphaten (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Many thanks indeed Blackswan19. I enjoyed creating this (my second) article, and your help on the text was invaluable: a great improvement on my original -- much of which was translation -- in most cases! Alphaten (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Cover - Miguel Delibes - Las Ratas.jpg
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Cryptozoology, Loren Coleman, and Pseudoscience
Here you state that "wikipedians believe the discipline is a 'pseudoscience'." In fact, it is the academic community that describes the subculture as pseudoscientific, as this section makes explicit. Particularly since proponents describe this particularly pseudoscience as very scientific, its status as a pseudoscience must be made clear where mentioned (see, for example, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE: "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such"). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine - do what you like. This was just a drive-by edit. I refuse to get embroiled in arguments as to what constitutes a 'pseudoscience' and who allegedly deems cryptozoology to be one. Alphaten (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover - Miguel Delibes - Las Ratas.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cover - Miguel Delibes - Las Ratas.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Pasqualati House
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)