User talk:Opus33/Archive10

Category:Mozart in fiction
Category:Mozart in fiction, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Philip Belt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Narra. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. Opus33 (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you following me?
Please adhere to the rules and don't undo all improvements.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

OED Definition for "Symphony"
I would like your help tracking down which edition of the OED you used for our article on "Symphony". You used an online edition with definition 5d. I found both symphony def 1.2 and symphony orchestra, but neither had the def 5d you reference. Can you provide me with the URL to the edition you are using? (I'll watch this page for your reply, so you can answer here.) - DutchTreat (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * the online ones you quote are at best ODE or some variant rather than the OED itself. The latter is usually subscription only but weirdly I seem to be able to see this without logging in (erm - sometimes) - I am not sure why as I usually have to use a library login at the OED. So maybe you can also see it on that link; otherwise, 5 is "Music" and 5d says:


 * 5d. ellipt. for ‘symphony orchestra’.
 * 1926  P. Whiteman & M. M. McBride Jazz xiv. 287 The unknown composer has to pay to get his compositions played by a good symphony.
 * 1934  S. R. Nelson All about Jazz v. 87 Symphony work, although of the highest ton, is not very lucrative, and most players have additional sources of income.
 * 1968  Globe & Mail (Toronto) 17 Feb. 23/4 The former manager of the Vancouver Symphony.
 * 1977  Times 23 Apr. 11/3 The seven arias skimpily supported by the Barcelona Symphony.
 * hope this helps, best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, DBaK, this is indeed the entry I meant. I hope this works for you, DT.  Opus33 (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Wonderful, DBaK and Opus33! Exactly what I was looking for. I don't have access to that link for the OED since it's behind a paywall, but I'll still use it for those that do. Thank you both. - DutchTreat (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Contemporary harpsichord, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mikrokosmos. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Adam and Eve
Thanks for paying attention to the use of Template:Adam and Eve. As a non-theologan, creating this new template was no small endeavor and I would appreciate any further feedback you might have on its content or use.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear Tony, Your collection of cultural references to Adam and Eve is huge (impressively so), and it is sort of overwhelming in a article like The Creation (Haydn), for which all these references are at best marginally relevant. I suggest rechanneling this research effort into one of two possible directions: (a) perhaps an article on cultural references to Adam and Eve?  (b) perhaps a category about them.  I hope this helps.  Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

dates
Hi, I'm mystified as to why you'd want dmy dates in an American article. Americans object, and I wouldn't dare go against that. There was a practical resolution to the issue many years ago, which seems to work well. The only issues arise when there's, say, British–US citizenship. Tony  (talk)  11:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Mozart
Regarding this edit of yours, your edit summary was as follows: "I'm really leery of accepting a large number of edits from the same editor, some of patently dubiously quality, all at once. Please discuss them on the talk page first." The edits were not made all at once, but rather over the course of four hours, using separate edit summaries for separate edits. I can see now that those four hours would have been better spent doing just about anything. In future, when an editor replaces "citation needed" tags with reliable references, I would advise you not to revert unless you have an actual reason. At this point, my best course of action is apparently to avoid the articles in which you take an interest, which I hope you will appreciate. I am really leery about using that article talk page to beg for permission to replace "citation needed" tags with reliable references, and to otherwise answer a revert of patently dubious quality. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ethnic enclave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Gerda. Opus33 (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Austro-Turkish War (1787–91)
I removed the Maynard Solomon source, since he is not an historian nor does he have any specialization in the time period in question. If you wish for the information in question to remain, I would suggest finding a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your courteous reply. There seem to be two issues.


 * Appearance of Solomon's words in quotes, without any citation of him. This seemed like a scholarly crisis I ought to fix right away, so I did.
 * Credentials of Solomon. It's true he is not a military historian, but as a social historian of Vienna I think he's pretty well informed.  He's certainly an award-winning scholar in his area.


 * For the moment I propose to leave Solomon in, and promise to poke around for additional sources in the next few days to shore things up. I hope this works for you.


 * Sincerely,
 * Opus33 (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no problem waiting for you to find reliable sources, however, do you have proof that Solomon is a social historian? From what I could find Solomon is a music producer and has written popular biographies of classical musicians, which hardly qualifies him as a social historian. If the conditions in Austria were as Solomon states then I am quite sure there are academic historians that have written about this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Haydn Symphony No. 94
It is also known as the "Symphony with the Drum Stroke" in English as well (so as to differentiate it with the E-Flat Symphony No. 103, or "Symphony with the Drum Roll"/ "Drum-roll Symphony").

Disambiguation link notification for June 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 555 Norma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norma. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Images of The Creation
I love your image selection, especially the nightingale! Any leviathan? - What do you thing of nominating it for GA? - We just sang it in April, in an international collaboration ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Gerda. There is a Leviathan, look again!  GA:  oh gee, it's almost entirely unsourced an needs a million references; better to wait ... Wish I could sing The Creation again; seems unlikely though.  Regards, Opus33 (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Understand. Tell you a story. One of my choirs had wonderful sponsors, twin sisters without children who gave A LOT of their money to make our performances possible. When they turned 80, we assembled on the staircase to their apartment and sang "Stimmt an die Saiten" for them, who were moved to tears - and sang along from memory! (which they couldn't in choir at the time, - the group had some unwritten law that as a women you had to go at age 65. Now, with the conductor 60 himself, that's no longer obeyed ;) ) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * My conductor is over 80 but fortunately doesn't persecute the female players; we need them! Opus33 (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hoboken
Hi Opus33 - I'm too busy/lazy to edit the Hoboken article, but may I suggest: In addition to creation of the Haydn catalog, I'd say Hoboken's other major musicological contribution is being one of the creators of the Archiv für Photogramme musikalischer Meisterhandschriften. The others involved were Robert Haas and (somewhat nominally) Schenker. While that it an accomplishment in itself, Schenker considered himself the "spiritual" founder since he promulgated the use of composer's manuscripts and early editions whenever possible as a device in editing music, something he obviously communicated to Hoboken. Although Urtexts certainly existed in the 19th century, the 20th century trend is traceable to Schenker who made it a serious issue with his publisher, Universal-Edition. I found this article (Heinrich Schenker and the Photogram Archive) which discusses it from Schenker's point of view, but I bet there's something about Hoboken's participation, especially since Hoboken was tremendously wealthy at a time when Austria was experiencing serious inflation, his money provided the power to get things accomplished. Hope this helps. - kosboot (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Argh; I see you already added much of the info. But just my point about the broader implications of the creation of the Archiv - that studying music manuscripts has become the standard practice when editing music. - kosboot (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Kosboot. I'll read that source, keep editing and try to get this across; I agree it is important. Regards, Opus33 (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was looking at German Wikipedia's article. It mentions that Hoboken studied with Otto Vrieslander.  It doesn't mention that Vrieslander was a Schenker student, and probably one of the influences that led Hoboken to Schenker. - kosboot (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Panonia
Incidence area of the tamburica is from Sava and Danube; hard to be the Balkans by any criteria. Marijan Nevis (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

German male painters
For the first point - I didn't replace anything, did I? The diffs show a category added, but I didn't remove the by-century category. Unless it disappeared somehow regardless - can you show me where that happened? I certainly didn't intend to remove it.

For the second point - well, there actually is a category,, and the idea is that there will be both, male and female, in due course. Looking at Dora Stock, I see that she was not included in any of the categories for women artists, which I've rectified. So it's not that I'm singling out men...it looks like a lot of the women artists haven't been categorized in the category tree for women artists. That's something that I can rectify fairly easily with AWB, and I'd like to do so when I have the opportunity. Tonight or tomorrow, most likely. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. Opus33 (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits of Mozart's page
While I concur with most of your recent edits, I believe you are wrong to remove the sections on Freemasonry and the selections from Wolfgang's letters to Leopold. The Freemasonry discussion is appropriate, given the seeming incompatibility between Freemasonry and Catholicism. Wolfgang's letters to Leopold are also relevant to Mozart's religious beliefs. Indeed, an advocate of a "facts only" approach should realize that the letters themselves are facts, while your justification for removal on the grounds of Mozart's "need to placate" indulges in the same non-factual speculation that you claim to oppose.Schlier22 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Favorite or favourite
Posted to IP talk page: Favorite or favourite The general rule followed in Wikipedia is that if an article is begun using American English (favorite), it should be followed consistently. Or if begun using British English (favourite), again it is followed consistently. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Milkunderwood (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this, MU. Opus33 (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Clicking on images
Hi! Sorry I jumped in quickly to undo your edit on Stafford, Dolton about adding click through to image captions (WP:CAPWORD applies), but I thought it easiest to do so before you made any other edits. Concidentally I was just about to add my comment about the pixel sizing (see next edit to that article). You're right though, Lobsterthermidor does take some good photos to illustrate the topics he's interested in; and travels quite widely to do so. —S MALL JIM   23:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You are just so wrong -- WP should serve all its readers, including the least tech-savvy. Sorry to be rude.  Opus33 (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rude is OK :) but please don't edit war! I'm happy to discuss this, but I don't see why you've undone both my changes which were in accordance with MOS/policy (WP:CAPWORD and WP:IMAGESIZE). Could you explain why you think I'm wrong? —S MALL  JIM   00:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, on a topic like old English country houses, the readership is likely to be older and non-tech savvy. Just because the tech-wise young people who wrote this part of the manual think it's trivial to click on a thumbnail to find the full image doesn't mean that this is so for all readers.  I think a little kindness and consideration for the non-tech-savvy readers is appropriate.  Opus33 (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a thoughtful sentiment, but can you imagine all the warring that would take place if we allowed value judgements on the aesthetic qualities of photos within articles, or on which articles are likely to attract older and/or less tech-savvy readers? If the images contained some non-obvious detail that was particularly important to see enlarged, that might be a valid reason to advise readers about clicking through, but that's not the case here. If you feel strongly about this, you need to start a discussion about changing the last bullet of WP:CAPWORD. Regarding the article under discussion, I don't think it's important enough to revert you again, though someone else may do so.
 * I take it, though, that you have no quarrel with my second edit, where I removed "200px" from the images – this actually helps logged-in readers because it allows them to change the default image width via their Preferences, if they wish (because of poor eyesight, an extra large or small screen, etc). The default width is 220 pixels, slightly larger than the unchangeable 200 pixels that Lobsterthermidor has always specified. So I'll reinstate that change.
 * I hope this closes the matter? Best wishes, —S MALL  JIM   11:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no, not entirely. It was an error to restore the 200px specifications and I have removed them. The other matter was wording inviting the non-tech-savvy to click to see legible versions of the images, which (as you will see if you take a more careful look) are extremely uninformative in their thumbnail size.  Here, fairness is at stake. The rule you are enforcing is not the result of voting by an elected Wiki-assembly (no such thing), but the result of whoever happened to gather at the talk pages for the Manual of Style. In this case, I think that small group, whoever they were, was being quite insensitive to the needs of non-tech-savvy readers and I would prefer to continue acting in the defense of the latter.  Yours sincerely,  Opus33 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the 200px thing. Regarding the rest, I'm not "enforcing", I'm just offering some advice. If you intend to add "Click on image to see full-size version" (or similar) to many other captions, I'd advise you to get consensus first. If you don't, you'll get more messages like mine: it's not just me that you need to convince! —S MALL  JIM   20:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your forbearance. For now I hope I will succeed in getting away with this venial wiki-sin; if more people notice it (you are the only one so far) I will do what you suggest and engage (quixotically, I suspect) in lobbying for reform at the MOS. Opus33 (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

About Wolfgang Zuckermann
Thank you so much for your splendid work on Wolfgang's profile. I can make some contributions there but want to check with you first. Might we try this via mail for now. I am eric.britton@ecoplan.org and I am particularly interested to check with you on a profile in process on the Sundance Festival of the Chamber Arts ericbritton 17:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting in touch! I am Wiki-anonymous (so no email) but am happy to communicate with you here if that's ok. I have two things to say:


 * I can do editorial/cosmetic stuff to Sundance Festival of the Chamber Arts to put it in standard wiki-form. Let me know if this would be all right.
 * I must say that Mr. Zuckermann is not an easy biographical subject! There are huge periods of time in which publically-available materials say nothing about him. So if you can enhance the content of Wolfgang Zuckermann that would be great.


 * Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

About the Sundance Festival of the Chamber Arts

 * Thanks so much for your kind help in this. As you have certainly understood this is the other half of a search for supporting documentation and references to bring it up to the WP standard. It's quite frustrating actually since the only one who seems to have "preserved" any vestiges of this is myself, the world's worst organised person.


 * I decided to do this as a gift, as a hommage to Zed who is now in his 95th year. His mind is supremely lively, cantankerous (always!) and his economic body impressively resilient, but I also want to keep him busy. I will be very careful in my contributions and any eventual editorial changes to reflect the truth.


 * I have to day I was a little sorry to see the photo of our early work on the theater taken away. I like visuals and am looking for something better. But that may take a bit of time. In the meantime I would like to bring it back. It is after all very evocative of what we were doing.


 * Cordially, Eric Britton ericbritton 12:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Eric,


 * Thanks again for your efforts so far. Surely you are better equipped than any other WP editor to amplify our Zuckermann coverage and I hope you will continue!


 * The business of the construction picture is delicate -- it was another editor who removed it, and I put it back in a way meant to avoid getting into trouble with him (specifically, I made it a clickable thumbnail, with just the construction image; you can see it here). I can try to get something closer to your original intent if you like, but experience teaches me that there are a lot of editors on WP who go around enforcing format standards, which can be frustrating. Thanks for your patience with this.


 * Yours very truly, Opus33 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear Eric,


 * Thank you for your recent edits. May I put in a plea for one more?  Right now, the listing of repertory for the Sundance festival for 1968 is identical to the listing for 1967. Could you perhaps look at your records and figure out how to fix this?  Many thanks, Opus33 (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)