User talk:Dronkle/Archives/2014/February

Infoboxes ...
Hi Peter! This is up your street. I've noticed that there's no. is (IMHO), not suitable, because there's no "vocal range = xxx" parameter. Is this worth creating and applying? Would we have to tread carefully not to upset the "musical artist" community? Philip Trueman (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * (watching) Philip, the infobox for (all) people is person, - more thoughts on User talk:Voceditenore, who took this photo, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You had me confused there, until I realised you meant, not , which is something else entirely. I don't actually agree, for the "vocal range" reason given above. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, yes, you are right about me confusing. Do you know List of infoboxes, with way too many different ones, and deletion requests failing? - I have to very careful now because this is the second entry in an infobox discussion and I am not permitted more ;) - If voice range is the only parameter you miss in, you could request it (so many parameters there that are rarely used, one more doesn't matter), or you could get it on top, pictured as in the linked example, and might hopefully get a subheader formally established, similar to operas such as L'Arianna. - With a dedicated infobox for opera singers, what would you do with concert singers who hate opera? With singers who do both. - In any case, what do you do with singers like Gabriele Schnaut, who started alto, was dramatic soprano, is mezzo now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't it better to have a profusion of infoboxes than a profusion of parameters to a single general infobox? "Bowling style" is meaningful for a cricketer, and "vocal range" is meaningful for an opera singer, but not vice versa.  In both cases I see no reason why the attribute should not be permitted twice if that's what's needed; doing that with a sub-header would get unwieldy.  If, as quite often happens, someone has two careers (or rather, is notable for two different things), then two separate infoboxes would be a better way to represent the information; I'm thinking here of those professional sportsmen in the UK - now, alas, an extinct species - who used to play soccer in the winter and cricket in the summer.  There will always be hard cases that are difficult to classify, but that should not stand in the way of orderly representation of the relevant information about the rest.
 * I am sorry, but not surprised, to learn that this has been a matter for heated debate in the past. If it is going to take an inordinate amount of time to achieve consensus on this then I'd rather do something else instead; but if there's a genuine prospect of agreement on a way forward then I'll be happy to contribute my time and effort. Philip Trueman (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  voice of opera and reason

Thank you for giving us so many aspects of an "obscure" opera I didn't know, and for sharing memories of operas and singers. I remember your help with the Rheingau Musik Festival and will order 2012 tickets now. Did you know that a photo I took of the festival's flowers for its benefactor made it to the Russian WP? (For more memories see my user page.) - You are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 23rd recipient of my PumpkinSky, - I ordered the 2014 tickets, including Murray Perahia and Maurizio Pollini, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive
It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:


 * This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
 * Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
 * The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
 * An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)