User talk:Kleinzach/Archive 25

Albert Vanloo / Bots altering headlines hierarchies
Hey Kleinzach. I agree completely about human editors being superior to bots, which is why the bot isn't altering the outline of the article at all. Instead, it's merely adjusting and filling in gaps where the article jumps from a level two to a level four, for example. I'll just have a look at the example you posted. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case of Albert Vanloo, I am happy to uphold LivingBot's edits. For accessibility, consistency and other reasons, it is advocated in the Manual of Style that heading levels not jump. Presumably it was a style issue that was driving the jump from level two to level four? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should answer you here? Yes, it's a style issue. Level 3 can be too prominent for section headings. -- Klein zach  12:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (Replying to your reply at my talk page) I think a slight awkwardness between headings (change to which would be better sought through global means) is a small price to pay in return for enabling thousands of readers and listeners a better experience and even a more functional one. Maybe the headings in that article would be better served as emboldened text or merely paragraphs. The MoS advocates not linking headers, anyhow. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding linking headings ("for Alexandre Charles Lecocq" etc.). Many Opera Project lists are done in this way, so I think you should contact them about the pages in general. I think their reasoning is that they are using bold rather than headings per se. I started this page myself, but I didn't originate this style of formatting, which exists on many other opera pages and lists.


 * Anyway my view is that in general, correcting mistakes is OK for a bot, but making value judgements about the way an article looks is really not what a bot should be doing. I hope I am making myself clear about this. -- Klein zach  13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I know where you're coming from here, and it's an issue I've given a great deal of thought to. If we look at it from the bot's point of view however: it's correcting a mistake, and then a human comes a long and makes a style judgement about the way an article should look. The bot cannot make style judgements (it does not have eyes, for a start!); it can and will, however, fix a system that is at its core illogical and inconsistent in its eyes. To put it in perspective, of the nearly 3 million articles on Wikipedia, only 16,000 feel the need to jump straight from level 2 to level 4, or level 3 to level 5, or (etc). By the way, the Manual of Style advocating not jumping in this manner is here and the W3C (responsible for the happy running of the internet as a whole) advocate the proper nesting of headings here. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Most WP pages are typographically awful, so I don't think numbers mean much here. . . Where in the MoS does it advise against what you call 'jumping' levels. I couldn't see any specific item about this. Can you give me the actual reference? (The W3C are surely not referring to Wikimedia, are they? They're talking about html.) -- Klein zach  13:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where I linked to on the MoS, bullet 7, sub-bullet 2 ("primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on."); for the W3C: they are referring to HTML, which is what Wikipedia is ultimately served to you and me as. Level two headings become h2s; level 3 -> h3s and so on. Albert Vanloo's html now jumps from h2 to h4, breaking the W3C's accessibility guideline. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's look at this (MoS, bullet 7, sub-bullet 2):

"* Unspaced multiple equal signs are the style markup for headings. The triple apostrophes that make words appear in boldface are not used in headings. The nesting hierarchy for headings is as follows:" "** the automatically generated top-level heading of a page is H1, which gives the article title;" "** primary headings are then, followed by, , and so on."

So it doesn't actually say that the hierarchy has to be consecutive. There's nothing at all about what you call 'jumping' heading level. Let me give you a friendly suggestion, I think you should contact the Opera Project before you use your bot to make any further style changes. They are reasonable people and may try to accommodate your views - providing you consult them before you make any changes. Good luck with that. BTW I've changed the coding of the Albert Vanloo so there should be no cause for any further disagreement there. -- Klein zach  14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be more than happy to do that, although my reading of said bullet point does point towards singularly incrementing heading levels (my words in square brackets, purely to indicate how I interpret the guideline): "primary headings are then, followed [next] by , [then] , and so on." I'm interested that you disagree, but there's really no point splitting hairs. For the record, I like what you've done with Vanloo's article and I'll put that to WP:OPERA. I'll let you know how I get on. Cheers, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 14:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your own interpretation of the MoS. In my case, I take the MoS exactly as it stands. I don't make inferences. Anyway it's fine for you to have your own opinion. What is absolutely wrong is to use a bot to force it on other editors. Bots should never be used to do something that is controversial, so please stop running the bot to change headings. -- Klein zach  22:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

skipping heading levels
I've responded at the VP and Jarry's talk page. I agree with you. Tony  (talk)  13:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Both you and Tony are invited to comment on the RfC I've drawn up (conversation was getting repeated). Feel free to expand the "Negatives" section as you see fit. Cheers, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 14:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Die Fledermaus synopsis
Kleinzach - This is the user who edited the Fledermaus Summery today (I was unaware I wasn't signed in.)

I re-did the opera synopsis because it was inclompleate and misleading. The order of events was incorrect, and the character descriptions were wrong in several respects (i.e. since when has Eisenstein been a Baron?)

I deleted the "Musical Numbers" for two reasons: One, because the titles were in English, not German, and thus misleading, and also because they're not very necessery. If you wish to put them back in, I won't fuss, but please put them back in German.

Thank you for your time,Ringkichardthethird —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ringkichardthethird (talk • contribs) 05:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you convert the musical numbers to German? I think that's a good idea. Until then they should stay because it's considered vandalism to remove material instead of correcting it. Amplifying the synopsis is fine of course, no problem there. And Eisenstein, as you point out, is not a baron.


 * Can you also sign your messages? It's done with four tildes like this ~ . -- Klein zach  05:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll correct it. Ringkichardthethird (talk) 07:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While I'm all for authenticity, I think the exclusive use of German for the musical numbers would be unhelpful to most readers in this case. I believe this work is usually performed in English in English speaking countries. I suggest to give the titles in both languages, although that might make the prose a bit unwieldy. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe shorter forms? It's worth remembering that while Anglo audiences may see the work in English (though there are lots of international German-language productions), they will listen to it on CD in German. (In any case many people will just know the tunes and give up on the plot altogether.) -- Klein zach  08:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here is that there are several widely-used english translations (I myself have sung at least three) so which english titles would you like us to use? I think German is the way to go here. I'll edit momentarily. Ringkichardthethird (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Kleinzach - May I ask why you deleted ALL of my edits to this page? Not to disparge your writing, but I feel like my synopsis gives a more complete and accurate representation of the version of events. Also, could you please tell me where exactly you are getting the idea that Alfred is a singing teacher? In my copy of the score, and in every production I have ever seen, in English or German, he is referred to as an Opera Singer (in fact there's a prominent [and untranslatable] joke about his profession in the third act.) Give me a convincing argument and I'll back down, but otherwise I'm changing it all back. Ringkichardthethird (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: "Alfred": For a start, this libretto says so, as does the German Wikipedia article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The truth is, despite the above mentioned sources, performance practices generally have Alfred as a professional Singer, not a teacher. So in my opinion, he should be referred to as such in this article. Ringkichardthethird (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Ringkichardthethird: To clarify again. By all means make improvements to the synopsis - but don't delete information. Add what you think should be added — but without removing the musical numbers. Regarding Alfred, he is described as a singing teacher by Andrew Lamb in Grove. Andrew Lamb is probably the leading specialist in this field. This is an encyclopedia so we are not following 'current performance practice' though naturally it can be explained in the article. We are following the composer and the librettist. -- Klein zach  02:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deborah Voigt
Could you do me a favor to copy-edit the article since your last proofreading, I've expanded it up to be eligible for DYK requirement. I need your help. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Done. -- Klein zach  02:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help and input. If I did not read your concern about the neutrality matter, I may not edit the article. Thanks again.--Caspian blue 02:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm raising the matter of the !voting system at FSC again
Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates Tony   (talk)  09:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅. -- Klein zach  09:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the time and energy to pursue this now? We might propose new (stricter) criteria. -- Klein zach  04:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Tony   (talk)  05:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this OK:

-- Klein zach  06:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How 'bout this:

However, I've never much liked the simple numbers game, and FAC got rid of it some time ago, instead shifting the emphasis onto the addressing of legitimate shortcomings in relation to the criteria. What about:

PS What does "2" mean in the quote-box template? Tony  (talk)  07:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Let's go with your preferred version. Re the 2, I don't know but if you take it out the text shrinks and the box goes white. Not a nice thing at all. -- Klein zach  08:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall do. Thx. Tony   (talk)  14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Undine articles
Hi Kleinzach, If you want to know why i reverted the merge tags, look at the dab page: which says that there are two articles on the same subject. Then look at the leads on the two article:
 * Ondine (Ashton) a ballet choreographed by Sir Frederick Ashton on Dame Margot Fonteyn to Hans Werner Henze's music with the Royal Ballet (1958)
 * see also Undine (ballet), another article on the same work

Undine (also called Ondine) is a three-act ballet with music by the German composer Hans Werner Henze. It was adapted from a novella by Friedrich de la Motte Fouqué and it tells the tale of a water nymph who is the object of desire of a young prince named Palemon. The score of Undine is a rarity as it is a "20th century full-length ballet score that has the depth of a masterwork"[1].

''It was commissioned and choreographed by Sir Frederick Ashton in 1958 for the Royal Ballet. Ashton made the title rôle of Ondine (Ashton anglicized the heroine's name) for Dame Margot Fonteyn.The ballet has been described as a concerto for Fonteyn' and certainly at its first performances most of the attention was concentrated on her''. Other ballerinas danced it a few times, but it is really only since Sir Anthony Dowell as Artistic Director of the Royal Ballet persuaded Ashton to allow him to stage a revival, thirty years later, that audiences have been able to appreciate the overall ballet, rather than just the performance of Fonteyn. Other choreographers in Germany have also made versions of the work:

and

Ondine is a three act ballet created in 1958 by legendary British choreographer, Sir Frederick Ashton for the Royal Ballet to music composed by Hans Werner Henze. Ondine was choreographed by Sir Frederick Ashton as a vehicle to highlight the undoubted talents of British prima ballerina assoluta, Dame Margot Fonteyn.Someone described it as 'a concerto for Fonteyn', and certainly at its first performances most of the attention was concentrated on her. Other ballerinas danced it a few times, but it is really only since Sir Anthony Dowell as Artistic Director of the Royal Ballet persuaded Ashton to allow him to stage a revival, thirty years later, that audiences have been able to appreciate the overall ballet, rather than just the performance of Fonteyn.

(my italics to show text common to both articles) They refer to the same ballet - with just differences in focus. Why do we need two articles on this ballet? cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also proposed merging. So that's not really the issue. What I am objecting to is the merger of Undine (ballet) (3860 words/correct title/all choreographers) into Ondine (Ashton) (2200 words/London title/one choreographer only). Surely Ondine (Ashton) should go into Undine (ballet)? That's the only way it will work. -- Klein zach  09:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm of course not realy worried which way the merger goes, as I said on my original post on the merger talk, which you replied to there. (I have seen Swan Lake live, and the Nutcracker, but that is 'cos I like a certain Russian's music - even if i can't spell his name - but have no knowledge about this ballet) the reason i replace the merge tag is that it needs something there to flag up the discussion taking place. If it is the wrong tag then I do, naturally apologise, and will not revert any further, cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you be willing to (actively) support the merger of Ondine (Ashton) into Undine (ballet)? If so we could have a go at it. -- Klein zach  23:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really, as I said i don't really know enough about the ballet, or people concerned, to put up a serious argument about it. cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Spitzweg
Interested you have a picture by this artist on your page. Peter Damian (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's suitable as a logo for your proposed organization? I'm interested in your ideas. Given sufficient flexibility it might really be possible to create a niche for content editors. One thing I'd like to ask: why an 'association'? To me this implies an organization outside Wikipedia. Could it be a 'group'? -- Klein zach  09:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Established Editors
Hi, Kleinzach. Thanks for nominating me. I'm flattered. I've had a read through the discussions, and I'm on the fence about it right now. When I've decided which way to jump, I'll ... jump, I guess. Cheers. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most people are on the fence about this now, see the 'conditional acceptances'. A lot depends on how it is structured. Nevertheless those taking part in the discussions do have the opportunity of influencing the outcome. -- Klein zach  22:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx
Thanks, Kleinzach. Opus33 (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Established Editors
Discussion of objectives here. Peter Damian (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Stub sorting proposal
Hi, it doesn't look like my proposal is going anywhere, I think partly because my intent was not understood and also because some people seem to be very protective over the whole stub thing. I'll just let it drop for now as it cannot be implemented with the current system anyway. I mostly wanted to test the water and see what kind of objections that would get. I'm a little worried we seem to have people who think it's a good idea to perform the same tasks multiple times. Not just categorization but rating articles too. It's even more worrying that people flat out fail to recognize the same tasks are being performed multiple times.

I'll make sure to revive this if we ever get better category queries, until then, I think the only way forward is to campaign for that to happen or get the work done, though given the main issue would be server load, an outsider is limited in what they can do.

There is also a separate and more fundamental problem with categories: they are hierachical in nature, a relationship that cannot be handled well in database queries. For instance someone categorized in "american people" (but not in "people") cannot be readily queried as "people" at the database level even though "american people" is a subcategory of "people". There are ways around that, but again server load would be an issue. Equendil Talk 02:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Help! Undestanding and apply BLP guidelines
Hi Kleinzach - There is disagreement on the interpretation of BLP and what is a verifiable fact in the discussion of the Kathleen Battle article. It looks like both sides, both differing views have shared their views here two views on BLP. Since it looks like were at an impasse, I hoping we can get an administrator that can review both our understandings, then explain to us where either of us may be correct or incorrect, in order to resolve this. Can you help? From what you can tell, do you think we may need to involve another level of moderation? We all are working in good faith, but are coming to different conclusions. Thanks. Hrannar (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar
 * Sorry not to have replied before. In my view an admin is unlikely to help as an admin. There are a number of other alternatives but I think we should wait until the sockpuppet case ends (which should be soon) before starting anything. Meanwhile I suggest you draft a clearly understood statement of your view. In there is too much text and it isn't clearly laid out then you won't get anybody to take an interest in the case. -- Klein  zach  00:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

List of opera festivals
Thanks for your message. As you know, I've been expanding a bit, but am glad that you reverted his wholesale removals (Saint Louis, for example), so I left a note on his page to discuss rationale for removal on the article's "Ta;k" page.

I'll review the changes tomorrow. Viva-Verdi (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Opera singers/Format
Hi, Kleinzach, I'm asking your perspective on articles of opera singers. I must say that I'm quite surprised to know that articles of "current major" opera singers are really poorly written. I want to contribute to the field, bu I can't not find a "good" model for improving such articles. Could you direct me if you have some to recommend me to read? Thanks.--Caspian blue 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Difficult. There are no opera singer articles rated above B class. If you have a look at Category:B-Class Opera articles you will find about 20 articles, but the better ones are on historic singers like Emma Albani, Karl Erb or Jenny Lind.


 * For some time the better-informed and more experienced editors on opera (including members of the Opera Project) have tended to avoid high profile articles on popular opera singers etc. because of interference from fans, vandals, IPs, 'celebrity-specializing' editors etc etc. Kathleen Battle was a huge waste of time for some of us, also Plácido Domingo, Angela Gheorghiu, etc. Do you really want to work in this area? Most of the information for these articles comes from biographies, unless you are just going to do dsiscographies. Do you have access to any books on particular singers? -- Klein zach  03:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I only have a few recording released before 1930s, so I have a little knowledge and interest in historic singers. The recommended articles are also not my taste. I am interested in Wagnerian singers (many are missing), and established/rising singers, but so far Plácido Domingo seems to be the "best" article that deals with a "current major singer" among the worst. I don't think finding biography books is a big deal, so if I focus on one singers, I'm not sure why I have to worry about it. I just to want to find a fine model. If you see Renée Fleming, how the article is so poorly written. In 2001/2002 season, Fleming sang the title role of ... at the Met.... sang x at San Francisco Opera... In 2002/2003 season, she sang y at Vienna.....In 2005, she sang.... etc. The article misses "overview" and "flow" of her life and archievement. Since you seem to be a coordinator of the project, I hope you can guide me.--Caspian blue 15:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Re historic singes, that's fine. I didn't think you were interested. I was pointing out why they tend to be better than contemporary singer articles. I agree Plácido Domingo is probably the best of a bad bunch. If you want to do Wagnerian singers please see the list I made for the Wagner Project at List of article-worthy Wagner singers. Three contemporary singers needing articles are: Emily Magee, Günter von Kannen, and Eike Wilm-Schulte. You may be able to think of some others. Incidentally the German wiki can be a very good source for these articles. -- Klein zach  22:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful headups. The articles of Peter Seiffert, Siegfried Jerusalem, Kurt Moll, John Tomlinson, and Matti Salminen seriously neend "immediate attention", I guess. I'm also gonna create articles of some Korean opera/concert singers, such as Youn Gwangchul, so...well things to do are a lot...--Caspian blue 01:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)