User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 1

=Archive 1 (2005-2006)=

I Capuleti e i Montecchi
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as I Capuleti e i Montecchi, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.operajaponica.org/synopses/icapuletisynopsis.htm. As a copyright violation, I Capuleti e i Montecchi appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. I Capuleti e i Montecchi has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source. If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:I Capuleti e i Montecchi. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at I Capuleti e i Montecchi, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. -- Flapdragon 00:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the answer to your question about the I Capuleti copyright problem will doubtless be lurking on some project page somewhere, but I think the best thing would probably be to post on the Help Desk where some knowledgeable person will pick up your query. Sorry to have put you to this trouble. Flapdragon 01:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The entry's still there, and can always be recovered. Did you get any joy from the help desk? Flapdragon 00:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel exactly the same way. According to WP:CP it takes a week for the copyright situation to be examined; as an author granting permission you are requested to send a message to that effect to: permissions at wikimedia dot org. Sorry again that you've had this trouble; at least now that you know the procedure you will be able to submit other such articles easily, if you have a mind to. Don't be discouraged! Flapdragon 19:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The copyright violation procedure doesn't seem to have been correctly followed as the article was never listed on the Copyright_problems. This should have been done by the person raising the issue.  I've notified him, so it might be worth waiting to see if he does it properly - he should not back date it - and if he doesn't either revert it or request an admin to do so.--David Woolley 19:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The article has now been restored. Kleinzach 14:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Opera synopses
Hi...could you clear something up for me? You have added synopses to several operas that are copied and pasted from other places. Are you the author of those synopses? If not, or if you don't have permission to use them under GFDL, it's a copyvio. I assumed they were and deleted some of them, but now I'm wondering if maybe you wrote them for the other sites and then copied and pasted them here? If that's the case, could you please note that on the talk page and in your edit summaries so the copyright status of the material is clear? If I've edited mistakenly, feel free to browse my contributions and restore the pages, noting the copyright status. NickelShoe 16:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * On closer inspectiion, I'm not sure very many of these were you anyway. Disregard my comments if necessary. NickelShoe 16:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd really like an explanation. My opera synopses contributions to Wikipedia have been authorized and recorded. No one should be deleting articles without checking their copyright status first.

Moreover each one has a note attached explaining that they are used by permission.

Kleinzach 19:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, you misinterpreted me. I didn't delete any articles, I deleted sections. And it turned out none of them I deleted were yours.  I misread the page history of Le roi de Lahore, which you contributed to, but another editor had provided the synopsis for.  So I'm sorry for bothering you.  NickelShoe 03:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikiproject Opera
Greetings! Yes, you can "refactor" the talk page so the sections are in chronological order; it might be a good idea. Almost always the more recent sections are at the bottom. Wikiproject Opera is on my watch list, which is why I saw your post right away.

While I'm here, that's an impressive to-do list you have, and quite an essential one; I'm looking forward to your entries on singers and operas! There aren't many of us writing on opera these days, unfortunately. I'm doing most of my work in "early music" since when I came aboard there was nothing there at all. Best wishes, Antandrus (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have done a refactor. Please let me know if you have any comments.


 * My own contributions will be modest, but I have come here with some friends and I hope we can do something collectively to increase the opera coverage. - Kleinzach 20:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again! yes, you can either put the list on the project page, or even better, do something such as was done at WikiProject_Composers.  You'll notice there is a subpage /composers there, where we put a list of composers with articles that needed to be written, cleaned up, or expanded.  That's an excellent list, by the way; I'd probably add a few, especially early Baroque (Giulio Caccini, Francesca Caccini, Antonio Cesti -- e.g. Il Pomo d'oro, and a few others come to mind).  Happy editing!  Antandrus  (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ...and I went ahead and did it. The new link is here:  WikiProject_Opera/Operas -- linked from the main project page.  Hopefully we'll get some new writers aboard soon!  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think your suggestion is a good one: complete works of Offenbach on his page, and the better-known ones on the /Operas page.  (Listing of complete works on the composer articles is something that needs to happen sooner or later -- if we mean what we say about being a complete and thorough source.)  Like you I tend to use the Grove as my main source for such things.  Happy editing, Antandrus  (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes: I'm using the New Grove.  I have both the 20-volume 1980 set, and a subscription to the online 2005 Grove which includes the complete New Grove Dictionary of Opera.  Unfortunately I don't have the print edition NGDO (I do love to curl up in a chair with a book from time to time, rather than read a computer monitor, alas) Antandrus  (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject_Opera
>> Thank you for your Rameau titles. Are you a Rameau specialist?

I like very much Rameau

>> We'd be delighted if you like to do some articles on the Rameau operas.

OK I'll try

User:Darwiner111/Beethoven
The reason that that page is listed under German Composers is that it is in that catagory. If you click on the edit tab and scroll down, you'll see. This places the page under German composers. If you would like to remove it from the category, simply remove this line and the page will no longer appear in this category.--Shanel 18:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did come across that. If his original account was indefiniely blocked I don't understand why he wants to do it again--Shanel 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for alerting me. I'm not certain that there are any rules being violated by copying articles in a user space like this. It certainly shouldn't be in those categories, and I have removed them. You may wish to ask for further clarification at the administrators' noticeboard for advice, or nominate it for deletion at WP:MFD, although my guess is that it is not really suitable for deletion. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 21:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
I've reverted your edits to Orlando Furioso, but I wanted to explain why. While it's true that in Italian every word of a title is not capitalized, at the English Wikipedia we follow capitalization rules for English, in which proper nouns are capitalized as a matter of course. This is disputable and I'm not fully convinced it's correct, but it's not a small matter and should be taken up at the article talk page if it's going to be done. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that the opera of OF was not capitalized the same way. I've left a message about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.  In general I'm inclined to agree with you, actually, but I think the encyclopedia as a whole should be consistent.  Right now it clearly isn't.  In any case, I don't think it makes sense to change the occurrences of the title in the article without moving the article itself.  I may try to start a discussion about doing just that, however.  Thanks for your reply.  Chick Bowen 00:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you, as I said, nor am I suggesting that the opera articles should be changed. I would just like to give others the chance to weigh in before we start massively changing literature articles.  As I say, it affects a great many articles.  I'll contact the person who moved OF to its current location in the first place.  Chick Bowen 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is clear, and you're quite right about the opera titles. I'm sorry if I seemed to be suggesting otherwise--I really think you're in the right here. :)  Chick Bowen 01:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The Merry Widow
"Anna" is the widow's name in most English translations for the Glocken Verlag version of the operetta. For instance, both of the (United Kingdom) English translations for the Glocken Verlag version &mdash; libretto by Phil Park – and libretto by Christopher Hassail &mdash; have "Anna" as the widow's name. (I own copies of both Phil Park's libretto and Christopher Hassail's libretto, so I have quoted these libretti faithfully.)

I have attended several English-language stage performances of "The Merry Widow", all of which have had "Anna" as the name of the widow (with "Anna" being the widow's name in the printed programmes for the performances).

Also, the DVD of the 2001 production of the operetta by the San Franciso Opera, with Yvonne Kenny as the widow, had "Anna" as the name of the widow.

I am fully aware that the widow's name in the original German version of the operetta is "Hanna". Figaro 03:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Bohemian or Czech? Anachronism?
I'm fighting red categories. Red categories are worthless. For each I have to determine, usually only by looking at the article and linked articles, whether there is a better cat availible, whether to simply delete the category, or, more rarely, to build out the red category.

A quick scan of existing links showed me that Bohemia is part of the Czech republic. Also, while there are many, many "Czech people" categories, there are very few "Bohemian people" categories. There is not even a simple Category:Bohemian people generic category in existance. Putting those together, and seeing that there was an existing and well populated Category:Czech composers, the logical step seemed to be to put him into the more general category.

In the end, though, my only real goal is the removal of the red categories, one way or another. If you disagree with my move, and have a better solution that ends up with the article having no red categories, then please, please, go ahead, fix things. - TexasAndroid 15:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "problem". In the grand scheme of things, they are a comparatively minor problem. But red categories really do no *good*, and I've taken them on as a personal project, especially since noone else much bothers with them. Trying to clean up the category system is one of the places I try to contribute.

The categories are a way to find similar articles. To find articles that may be of similar interest to the current one. They are a navigation tool. Red categories are dead ends in the navigation system. They really serve no useful purpose. And so I slowly work to fight them.

As for how to create a new category, the way I generally do it is via the red links themselves. Clicking on a red category link takes you to an edit page for that category, where you can create and save it. To get the red link where there is none, I generally edit the page that I will want to put into the category, and add the category to it. If I know I'm going to create the category, it doesn't hurt to have the red category link on hte article breifly. Add article to category as red link, click on red link, and build out the category.

When building out the category, keep in mind how the category should look. Categories work just fine with no contents whatsoever, but in general, as a minimum, you should give the new category a parent category. The Fooian Fooers categories are generally put in the "Fooian people by occupation" category and the "Fooers by nationality" category. In your case, the "Bohemian people by occupation" category does not exist, so ti would need to be created. The BPbO category would normally go in the "Bohemian people" category, which also does not exist. This all would be to match the categories of the vast majority of other countries. So this would be three categories needed built to categorize one article. In the end, this is part of why I didn't build them out myself. This is a bit much. So I would suggest that if you really want it in such categories, build out only the Bohemian people one, place him in there, and then place him in the more generic (non-national) composer category. Just my suggestion. - TexasAndroid 12:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Really the only thing that needs to be in a category is a parent. A description of the purpose of the category is helpful, but not critical. With a few rare exceptions, categories are not supposed to be left orphans, which is why I comment about giving them parents.

The category system is not technically a tree structure, but in practice it ends up as one most of the time. It is possible to have loops, and perfectly possible for a category to be a member of itself, though that really serves no useful purpose, and is generally removed when found (the self-inclusion, that is).

Merging, deleting, and renaming of categories is handled through Categories for deletion. Basically, you tag the category itself, and list it on the CFD page. If it meets one of a very narrow set of circumstances, it can be Speedy Renamed, and sites for 2 days, just in case anyone objects. Normal changes sit for a full week to give that time for people to comment/object and generally vote. After the week an admin closes the vote and, if the deletion/rename/merge is approved, they set it to the bottom of the page to be worked. Since all three can often involve having to update many, many pages to reflect the new situation, Bots are generally used to do the actual work.

Take a look at the CFD page, vote in a few elections, get an idea how it works, and then feel free to start submitting your desired changes for the opera categories. Do be ready for people to possibly object, and be ready to justify your reasons for wanting the changes if people do object. OTOH, the people who hang around CFD are generally fairly reasonable, and are generally dedicated to making the category system better. So if you propose reasonable changes that will make things better, you're likely to get support, not opposition. No way to know in advance.

Not sure if I answered all your questions, but I tried. - TexasAndroid 15:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any software that would print out the interlinking directory structure, but that does not mean there is not such a thing. I would suggest asking about such on the talk page for CFD. Since you're wanting this to set up to submit CFD related changes, that would seem a good place to start asking about such a program. And if there's a better place to ask, someone will surely point you in that direction. - TexasAndroid 17:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the case of Florian Leopold Gassmann I would use category Austrian composers since he spent most of the time in Vienna (he left his hometown at age of 12 travelling to Venezia).


 * Distinguishing between Czech/Bohemian is kind a fuzzy because of changing meaning of these words over time. Generally I use Czech XYZ categories for people who had significant cultural (or other) impact in area of Czech lands no matter of when and of mother language. Pavel Vozenilek 02:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't know how he though about himself but concept of nationalities was fuzzy, especially in the chaos of Holy Roman Empire. Whoever paid best was the master.


 * If you expand the article with music related info (for which I do not know terminology) I may add some (colorful) details of his live as described in second link biography. Pavel Vozenilek 10:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

French language capitalization
Hi, thanks for your note on my talk page. However, I didn't change the capitalization from French to English form, I corrected the use of French capitalization. Please read the note I wrote about it on Talk:Jacques Offenbach; I think you'll find that my corrections are appropriate for the French language. – Ringbang 17:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Viktor Nessler
Hi. The explanation is simple. I noticed that there were two articles, one at Viktor Nessler and one at Victor Neszler. I merged them, incorporating the material from both. The 1911 notice is standard and was not added by me - it was already in one of the articles. I don't know anything about the subject, so I made an educated guess at which spelling was more common in English. Maybe I guessed wrong. The article can be moved to the other spelling, or indeed to any alternative spelling you think is more appropriate - the main thing was to avoid the confusion of having two articles for the same person. (If you need help carrying out a move, please let me know.) Deb 12:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your kind welcome, I appreciate it, and I'll try to do a bit more on Purcell works and the like, and maybe some on French Baroque stuff (I also love Rameau). Do you know of any good examples of a wikipedia recording list, or a page of guidelines? Most things on recordings seem to be on popular music, and their needs in terms of bibliography tend to be different than for "classical" music. Also, thanks for all your hard work on this project, I can see how much time and effort you've put in. Makemi 17:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wagner
I'm not in agreement with your comments, no, at least I don't agree that they justify removing the tag. Of course I do agree that he was a lot more than just an opera manager. Since Wagner's duties at Dresden involved more than conducting, I think the term 'opera manager' is valid, but rather more to the point,Wagner had huge influence on the staging of opera because of what he did at Bayreuth. Bayreuth is one of the most influential "events" in the history of the management of opera, so to exclude Wagner seems to me to be rather perverse. Paul B 14:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Opera Project/Montero
I'll do my best. Please review it when I finished since my English is not that good for writing. Thanks for the invitation, --Jdiazch 19:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Opera corpus
Well, it's not at all clear what you mean by the corpus that is supposed to distinguish it from being simply a list of operas by composer, which is what it looks like. Apparently the notion of limiting it to operas currently in the repertoire is disavowed, which would be one possible way of defining it. A list of operas that "merit inclusion in Wikipedia" is a circular definition, a self-reference that should be avoided, and ultimately an unsatisfactory answer.

I suppose one possible way to define it is to call it a list of those operas that exist, in the sense that the music itself is documented and capable of being performed, whether or not anyone actually does so presently. As opposed to operas whose composition may be noted in history, but are now lost. If that's the intention, it would be comprehensible. The article should still be moved to sentence-style capitalization per Wikipedia style, though. --Michael Snow 03:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies, that was hasty work on my part and as the Fibich article didn't exist yet, I overlooked the fact that it could be created. I've gone back and fixed the remaining changes I made there. --Michael Snow 17:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Šárka
Thanks for dealing with this. I spotted the unsatisfactory edits too late last night to do anything and have been busy all day today until now.

As you perhaps observed, when I added Fibich to the page I noted that what was really needed was a disambiguation page, so thanks for adding that. However, all it does is repeat the information on the Šárka page without mentioning Smetana or Jirásek.

The reason why I never did anything about it myself was because it is unclear whether the description beneath the dreaded Spoiler Warning relates to
 * the myth
 * the novel
 * the piece by Smetana, or
 * all or some of the above or
 * some combination of some or all of the above with either or both operas

I am still unclear about this, and it would be good if it was sorted out properly. My preference would be:


 * Šárka page: myth only and link to disambiguation page
 * Disambiguation page: links to the Šárka page, Ma Vlast, both operas and Jirásek
 * Pages for Ma Vlast, both operas and Jirásek: links to the Šárka page and the disambiguation page.  Note that the Jirásek page doesn't mention Wenches' War.

I'm prepared to try to sort this out, but won't have time to start doing so until late Sunday at the earliest. I could include synopses under both operas as part of the job - easy! But finding a good version of the myth and more info about Wenches' War and about Smetana's programme for his Šárka movement could be more challenging. I was thinking of asking User:Pavel Vozenilek if he has any thoughts as a start. Any other suggestions (apart from consulting Grove, which I will do)?

--GuillaumeTell 18:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there is a rule anywhere that says that if there are two operas with the same title we have to decide which is the major one. Is there?  Anyone would think that Wikipedia is a miracle of consistency and logic. This seems to me (and, I would have hoped, to you) to be a matter of no importance so long as they are distinguished somehow and people are careful to point at the one they mean.  A small survey by me of the Opera Corpus shows that the title of Armida (opera) belongs to ... Haydn!  If I was forced to make a choice, I'd go for the one by Rossini, but some might choose the Dvorak, and no doubt Buondelmonte would choose the one by Traetta, or Sacchini's (or even Salieri's) - we could waste hours arguing about it.  (Oh, and neither Gluck's nor Lully's Armide is designated as "(opera)".) Furthermore, the disambiguation page is exactly the right place for Šárka (opera) to point to, as there is more than one opera of that name.


 * Anyway, I'll try and sort all the Šárkas out to my satisfaction next week. I've already discovered that there are significant differences in the plots of the two operas.  Which one more closely resembles the legend?  Watch this space.


 * --GuillaumeTell 23:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've revamped the Šárka page somewhat, augmented the disambig page and improved the links from Smetana and Alois Jirásek. Will do the opera synopses later in the week (busy tomorrow).  Any thoughts?
 * --GuillaumeTell 23:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Opera Categories
What I did with the Opera Corpus categories was to change Culture lists to the sub-category Opera-related lists. I also changed the category Opera to Operas since the Opera Corpus article contains a list of individual operas and I thought it should be treated in the same fashion as the List of Operas article. Does that explain it? --JeffW 21:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you say that Opera-related lists is miscategorized under music-related lists. Operas is in Musical compositions which is in Music.  It's the same except I don't have the intermediate corresponding to Musical compositions which I was waiting to see if I need it before I add it.  --JeffW
 * But the category Opera is under Classical music, it's the first subcategory listed. In any case, Opera-related lists is the equivalent of both Opera and Operas since I haven't created a Lists of operas category.  Do you think I should create a Performance Arts related lists category and put Opera-related lists under that in additon to being under the Music-related lists category?  --JeffW 20:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Birtwistle
Hi, thanks for pointing me towards the Project:Opera, which I'd not yet come across. I'm not sure if I'd want to officially join it as a project, since my specialism is very much 20th/21st century opera, not the traditional stuff. That might make me a useful contributor, but I'll come back to that later.

You ask if I'm involved in some sort of promotion of Birtwistle. That's not intended to be the case at all. I'm simply starting where I'm best informed relative to the areas of Wiki not yet covered. I certainly don't have a single issue agenda here; I'll get round to Tippet and John Adams and Michael Nyman and Philip Glass etc. in time. Birtwistle has seven works that could be classed as operas, and only one had a page on Wiki, so that's where I've started. When I found this page I immediately felt that Birtwistle belong here. There are plenty of late 20th century composers who I do not feel belong here; but Birtwistle I do.

So, should Birtwistle be on the list of notable opera composers? Well, I would never have put Schoenberg or Stravinsky in such a list, and that's just looking at the 20th century names. I'm not sure I'd put Bartok or Debussy in it either, since both only managed one opera each. And I'm not so sure about Beethoven either, on the same grounds. In other words, I'd be interested in a discussion that distinguished between great opera composers, and composers of a great opera. But however we want to draw that circle, I feel there are some significant names from the late 20th century who have already established themselves and who deserve consideration for this list. Birtwistle is one of the most obvious, as a composer who has attracted international recognition for his dramatic writing, and who has contributed more than a single example. His music displays a control of vocal writing, large scale structure and dramatic music that merits his inclusion in this list. He's received commissions from all of Britain's major opera houses (and now a second from the Royal).

Looking back through the history of the page, I note that Birtwistle was once included in this list, added some three years ago. It was only when Karl Stas culled the list in Sept 04 that Birtwistle was removed. I note that several other composers removed by Karl have been replaced: Bartok, Beethoven Gershwin, Haydn, Shostakovich. Now I appreciate that lists can get long, and if I'd added 25 names, or even 5, there would certainly be concern. And maybe I should have included some justification for including Birwistle on the talk page, sorry about that. But this page can't be about personal taste, and unless it is to define in advance that it doesn't include opera composers writing after the second world war because we can't judge what is major then there are probably about 10 more names that once were in this list that should be there now.

So I take your comment in good faith, but just want to flag up a concern. I'm not keen to join a Project:Opera if the modern stuff is going to get questioned. One name, and I'm being questioned? You give me the impression that you're reading more into my contribution than seems warranted. JGF Wilks 23:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. To be honest, I've woken up wishing some of my comments above were not so robust. Apologies.

I agree that a list like this tends to take on a life of its own. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I wonder if some of the lists being created are now redundant once new features have been added/developed. All it needs is an AfD tag and this list can be gone within the week. Just an idea. JGF Wilks 07:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of fair use images from your userpage
Thank you for your comment at User talk:Durin/Removal of fair use images. When I do this, I leave a long edit summary which has a pointer to a lengthy explanation of why this was done. If I were to explain on talk pages for this for every userpage that I do this for, the amount of work to remove a single image would be huge. Instead, I leave the descriptive edit summary which reads: "Removing fair use image(s) per terms of Fair_use item #9 (please see User:Durin/Removal of fair use images for further explanation)." Since you left a message I am responding to, you have most likely read that page which contains very ample explanation of what I did and why. I am perplexed why you would think I did not have the courtesy to write and explain when I did just that on that page, which the edit summary referred you to and which you did go and read (or at least I hope you read when you went there). In particular on that page, I'd anticipated this response from some people and wrote a response to this concern at User:Durin/Removal_of_fair_use_images. All the best, --Durin 20:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Die schweigsame Frau
I have announced your article in the stub section of Portal:Germany/New article announcements. If you create more articles about German operas or opera singers, please list them there. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 14:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)