User talk:Dr Steven Plunkett/Archive 2

Archive 2: Talk, June 2007

I am sorry, but I made a mistake :). I corrected the documentation here. I also fixed your archive that it uses the correct page names and templates. I hope you like it. Sorry for my error. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 02:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Karl Erb
Impressive piece of writing! Sorry if I jumped the gun on this! The article showed up in our list of new opera articles. Links, capitalization, opera titles etc are always a bit tricky, also umlauts etc. One easy reference is The opera corpus which shows the titles under which articles have been published and the links (which may be hidden e.g. Falstaff under Falstaff (opera) etc.) -- Kleinzach 00:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 1948 published photos may be tricky. The copyright limit used to be 50 years for England (and probably Germany) but WP seems to be working on 70 years. I think you would have to get permission from the publishers - but do get a 'second opinion' on this if you like! -- Kleinzach 03:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Record of Singing/Frederic Austin
Sorry I seem to have missed your note, but I have done a brief edit of Austin now. It occurs to me that we might put up some ofyour articles for 'Good article' or 'Featured article' status later, but we would need illustrations. I wonder if you have access to photos?

Re Record of Singing, adding disc titles would be a huge work unless someone has already keyed them somewhere. Do you know of any sources? Incidentally did you know that Mike Richter put the collection on a CD-rom? Do you have that? Best. -- Kleinzach 01:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tietjens
Looks good. I have done an edit. -- Kleinzach 02:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirects
First of all see La Fille du Regiment. I've made a redirect. We are in favour of doing this as much as possible to aid searching. If you follow the link you will see how it's done. It's also noted on the Opera Project page -- Kleinzach 13:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You write: the main thing being that if I find a lower case title and feel that there should be a redirect to it using capitals, its okay to add one, without altering the main article title in any way? Yes that's absolutely right. -- Kleinzach 23:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization
We follow native rules as used by Grove. (This is simple because people can refer to Grove if they don't understand.) So we follow German rules for German titles, French titles for French etc. In those cases where there are more than one national system, we follow Grove. No one is trying to re-invent any wheels here. (And it's important to get the accents right.) See WikiProject_Opera. Let me know if anythng is unclear. -- Kleinzach 13:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fernando de Lucia
Thanks that's great - after all he is a major figure. Any name which is still red is available. You can just go for it. If someone is working on an article they should at least start a stub. -- Kleinzach 23:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Default sort
If it's possible to use a Defaultsort tag it makes things easier. It looks like this, and it enables the article to be sorted correctly in the categories. -- Kleinzach 23:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Opera terminology in De Lucia article
. . . .I have added to Fernando a dissertation on the technique of bel canto as it is often applied rightly or wrongly to his singing. I believe it is not nonsense, but it may not suit the article or your project, and I haven't so much as checked if there is an article on bel canto yet (or can belto, either...)! But something of this kind is needed because de L is in that special place between both traditions and active in both, and one can't just say it without explaining oneself. . . . Dr Steven Plunkett 00:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I have had a look at it and understand the logic. First of all this is important stuff and we do need it. The only question is how to present it. WP is different from print because of the way we can interconnect articles. IMO definitions of opera terms are best kept in separate articles where they can be linked to by multiple articles. This is what we have at the moment:


 * although there may be other articles which exist which are not on the table (I'll check this.). Anyway short articles on filare il tuono, roulades, trills, gruppetti, portamento, coup de glotte or whatever would be worthwhile - and we'd be able to keep de Lucia strictly about de Lucia. Does that make sense? -- Kleinzach 01:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Answer yes, I think. Also you will see that table above is gradually expanding as I have found new articles to be listed. -- Kleinzach 01:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now finished adding to the list above. If you have time to review the articles that would be excellent. They look variable. I am sure you could do a lot to improve them if you had time. (Incidentally this table doesn't include genres which have their own separate box). -- Kleinzach 02:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Coup de glotte
As you have probably seen this is now ready for your article. Makemi removed the re-direct for you. Let me know when the article is finished and I'll add it to the table above. -- Kleinzach 23:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good - or, if I am honest, way above my head! -- Kleinzach 04:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing redirects
Actually there is nothing difficult to it. A redirect is just like an article page (unlike categories which can be tricky). All you do is click 'edit this page' and change the redirect code, which looks like this  #REDIRECT La bohème to ordinary text. -- Kleinzach 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

List of Wagner singers
I am now working on a list of Wagner singers for the Wagner project. If it's not too much trouble I wonder if you could have a look and give me some ideas/comments/whatever? The list is here. -- Kleinzach 01:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your reply (which I will respond to on my page to keep the conversation together). As you will have seen I've added an introduction which I hope answers some of the points you and Voce di Tenore raised. Thank you also for the additional names. That's a huge help. (Do join the Wagner Project if it looks interesting. We only have a few members at present!)-- Kleinzach 06:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Szigeti
Oh, so that was your doing on Kubelik, was it? ;-) Thanks for the Szigeti tips--I have most of that info already, but I still appreciate your help. I'm not at home at the moment, so I don't have access to any of my violinist books (or a library to mine the shelves) but in a few days I should be able to significantly expand the article and maybe--finally--get it somewhere near FA-caliber? Cheers, K. Lásztocska 17:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You should have seen what I sounded like when I was the newest of newbies--on second thought, don't. :) As for Thalberg...yes. Have you met Anonymous Scholar? He's an...interesting fellow to put it mildly. His mission in life seems to be to "prove" that Franz Liszt was not Hungarian and did not clim to be, and he's spun some pretty unusual tales (some that even border on outright defamation of poor Mr. Liszt) to back up his "case". But I don't want to recount the whole ugly story here--check the archives of Liszt's talk page if you're interested... K. Lásztocska 17:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Rædwald
Dr. Plunkett, I've just done a fairly large expansion of the article on Rædwald. I know you worked on this, and are an expert in this area. Would you be interested in taking a look to see if there are any obvious mistakes or omissions? I appreciate any time you can spare.

I am still looking at some additional sources and may add some more material, but I think the main changes I was planning are now done. I've marked a couple of things with "citation needed" tags; if you can let me know of any sources for those points, that would also be very helpful. Thanks for any help! Mike Christie (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dr. Plunkett, I don't blame you for any negative comments; and I certainly don't mean you to go through and correct my mistakes. I hope to do that myself and will certainly take all your points to heart.  I hope I haven't annoyed you too much with my expansion of that article; I'll happily return it to the way it was if you would really prefer that.  However, I'd also like to have a go at improving it.  I realize you are an expert on this, but I would like to cite sources and also introduce material from other sources.  I'll take a good look through your points and will do what I can to clean everything up.


 * If you'd prefer me not to let you know when I've made another pass, just say so; otherwise I'd be happy to let you know and take any criticism you're willing to spare the time for. Thanks again for the detailed comments. Mike Christie (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing -- as I try to fix the problems you identified, I'll post notes on my page under your list. That way you can take a look if you are interested in seeing the results.  As I said, I really didn't mean to offend you -- I was just trying to add some additional sources to what you had written; I apologize if you are annoyed.  Mike Christie (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted to your version of Raedwald
Dr. Plunkett, I've reverted to your version of Raedwald and will leave it that way. I saw you'd deleted Raedwald from your list of contributions to the encyclopedia, and it isn't worth it for me to cause that much annoyance to a valuable editor. I'm sorry I stepped in without talking to you first.

Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for that note; it makes me feel a lot better. I have to leave the computer for a bit, but I'll think about it and see if I can come up with a better way to work on it.  Perhaps if I put the expanded version on a subpage of my talk page and worked on it there?  If you would be willing to comment, that would be wonderful -- I am well aware that you know this material inside out and I can see now I should have asked you about it first.


 * I just saw your second note. Yes, let's talk on the Raedwald talk page.  Got to go now; back later.  Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Steven! It was nice of you to leave me a message. As you can see, I am working on the obscure topic of rune stones. It is great fun to write an article on a group of runestones, then to go rune stone hunting and finally to see the pictures in the WP articles. It is both exciting and fun to take a trip into the countryside, looking at a road map at the same time as you drive on a narrow and twisting country road, and later to ask a local who happily points to small grove a few hundred metres away and says "I think you'll find it yonder", and you actually find it. Well, within a radius of 70 km from where I live, I can find almost 1400 runestones, so it's a shame not to take a few pics of the most notable ones ;). Also, it gives an impression of "this happened in real life" when I stand in front of a rune stone where someone brags that he received the Danegeld three times. It is like a 1000 year old letter from someone who was *there* when it happened, who saw Thorkell the Tall, Skagul Toste and Canute the Great with his own eyes, and I read the runes next to a small random countryside church. My last project is the Greece Runestones, and I hope it is interesting to others as well. Please, if you have the time, don't hesitate to correct my English.--Berig 21:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)