User talk:Robertgreer/Archive 2011


 * create a new section

Locked room mystery/mysteries
Hi Robertgreer — I've moved the article back to Locked room mystery. It's standard practice on Wikipedia to name categories in the plural but to have the key article as a singular — you'll find most category/article combinations work this way. Grutness...wha?  23:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dance template
Hello, Robertgreer. This discussion about Dance might benefit from your expertise. Would you please have a look at it and, if you have an opinion, leave a comment there? Thanks! Lambtron (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Dance terminology
Hello again, Robert. As you may know, I've been campaigning for improvements in the clarity and precision of dance articles. Your expertise in dance makes you especially well qualified to discuss this. If this is of interest to you, would you please have a look at this discussion? Thanks! Lambtron (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

my pleasure
It will be my pleasure to do so, but it will have to wait until Tuesday, the 22nd; I have a meeting with folks coming in from Boston and Albany next Sunday and must prepare. — Robert Greer 17:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your input would be much welcome on the discussion page... :) Crazy-dancing (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Clive Barnes
I cannot find where to comment on your proposed move of Clive Barnes (critic) to Clive Barnes but support it wholehartedly. — Robert Greer 20:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland
I know the style for ballet titles is usually just the work with ballet in brackets but as there is also an article on Alice in Wonderland (ballet) I thought it would avoid confusion to give the year for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (2011 ballet). What do you think? Of course there's now a redirect so perhaps we can leave things as they are. I could also put something on Alice in Wonderland (ballet). But before I do anything more, I'll await your reply (here please). — Ipigott (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland vs. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
Good point! Let me put About hatnotes at the top of the Alice in Wonderland and Alice's Adventures in Wonderland ballet articles cross-referencing them. — Robert Greer

Thanks
... exactly what I was planning to do. — Ipigott (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Klipsch cite
Hello. I'm curious about your edit here, which removed a "citation needed" tag and was marked as a minor edit (and which someone else subsequently reverted). I can probably find the hard copy of the magazine — the Stereophile web site is no help — but wondered if I was missing something. — Rivertorch (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It scarcely seems worth the trouble
The article's mention of Stereophile is all that's needed, but there are folks who drift around Wikipedia hanging tags on this and that, wouldn't know a proper citation if they stubbed their toe on one — and generally do nothing of any use. — Robert Greer (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't disagree, especially with the latter part. And thanks for making me laugh! In all seriousness, though, please don't mark such edits as minor; it's a function that serves no use on the watchlist when established editors do that. Cheers, — Rivertorch (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

minor edits
This is an area of which I'm ignorant. I consider most of what I do to be minor. What problem does it cause when I don't mark as major certain edits, and what sort of edits are they that can cause problems? — Robert Greer (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the disputes that rage daily among Wikipedians, it's well not to forget that what one editor considers minor might constitute a certified Big Deal for another editor. (Remember the aforementioned useless toe-stubbers.) In a nutshell, minor edits are supposed to be edits that no one could reasonably disagree with—e.g., corrections to spelling, grammar, broken formatting or links, or blatant factual errors such as those resulting from typos. Reversions of vandalism also qualify. The default setting, which for reasons I've never understood marks all edits as minor unless one unchecks the box, can be changed in Special:Preferences. Thorough guidance on minor edits is here. If an edit is flagged as minor and it was made by someone with a blue-linked talk page, I generally don't bother checking the diff when my time is limited, because I assume the edit isn't deeply problematic. (There are exceptions, but that assumption has proven correct most of the time.) So it's a time-saving signal that says, "Don't bother looking. Everything's cool", but the system breaks down when it's misapplied. Thanks for asking and not being grumpy ;) — Rivertorch (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

" ... what one editor considers minor might constitute a certified Big Deal for another ... "
You took the words (see 9:38 pm, 15 March 2011, Tuesday) right out of my mouth! — Robert Greer (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I knew that proposal had been made repeatedly, but I missed that discussion. Great minds think alike! — Rivertorch (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Petipa ballets
Thank you for re-Anglicizing Le Corsaire and La Fille Mal Gardée in Petipa ballets! — Robert Greer (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Swallow hole redirect
This edit that you made to the Swallow hole redirect last year had to be partially reverted. Just curious as to why you would place the R from plural Rcat on that redirect. – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  06:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

typo. by way of redirect from Swallow holes
I.e. #REDIRECT Sinkhole. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's cool. And so you won't waste any time in the future, the need for a space between Rcats and between Rcats and the target link has become moot. I was "brought up" with the idea that, due to a glitch in the software, there should be no space between Rcats or between the target and the first Rcat. Then I learned about 3 or 4 months ago that the software glitch had been fixed. I still have a "thing" about the "no-space" idea, and I do sometimes edit out the spaces if and only if I'm on the redirect page editing something else. I'll probably get over that someday; I thought I'd let you know, though, that it's really no big deal either way. Please continue your great edits, and Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  13:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we remove the Preference setting to "Mark all edits minor by default" ?
I saw your comment at the Should we remove the Preference setting to "Mark all edits minor by default" ? section and am substantially in agreement with your reading of the preceeding discussion.

The attempt by the perpetrators of this travesty — who now try to "make nice" with people actually doing useful work on Wikipedia — people whom they have previously dismissed as gnomes — is hypocrisy.

The reason that, as John of Reading wrote yesterday, This discussion was not seen in time by many of the "Gnomes" who tend to make a large number of valid, useful edits that are correctly marked "minor", is that it was — I am told — previously rejected, and its supporters seem to have planned a sneak attack.

Xenotalk posted the proposal Wednesday, July 7th, 2010, at 10:23 AM, and by Thursday, July 8th, 2010, 9:46 PM, there were 28 votes in support — and none opposed.

There were four more votes in support before the first vote in opposition appeared on Monday, March 14th, 2011 — nine month later.

Although the discussion had not yet been closed, John of Reading wrote two days later that "The preference setting was removed sometime in late 2010."

The same John of Reading who answered you in conciliatory tones yesterday.

This ballot was less credible than the most recent elections in Belarus.

I don't know how frequently this sort of thing happens on Wikipedia, though I did see much the same — on a smaller scale — last July, and it was perhaps more disturbing in that it involved what appeared to be the collusion of two (male) administrators who proceeded to ignore the admonitions of a third (female) adminstrator.

I mention the administrators' gender in that much of what transpires on Wikipedia has the ambience of a frat. party.

This sort of behavior is just one of the reasons that I tell my students not to get involved with Wikipedia.

And yet the Wikipedia leadership at the highest levels wonders why they can't engage academia!

I will continue to write — it serves my purposes to do so — but am certain that you can find better things to do in your copious spare time. — Robert Greer (MIT class of '75) 20:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ballet News
May I ask that the Ballet News article be restored, please (it was deleted per CSD)? Despite being an Internet-based publication it is a highly respected and thoroughly professional publication covering ballet throughout the entire English-speaking world. — Robert Greer (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

RB Cats
No objections to new sub-cat under RB banner Crazy-dancing (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Principal dancers of The Royal Ballet
Done. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about musicals categories
Since you created the "musicals by librettist" and "musicals by lyricist" cats, could you comment on our discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre? Thanks, Aristophanes 68   (talk)  21:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to La sonnambula (disambiguation)
I noticed that you edited La sonnambula (disambiguation) removing the primary topic from the top of the disambiguation page, and putting it in with the rest of the list. What was your rationale for doing this? Currently, La sonnambula is the primary topic (if you are not familiar with the idea of a primary topic, that link will help) for the term "La sonnambula". Because of this, on the term's disambiguation page, La sonnambula (disambiguation), the link to the primary topic La sonnambula should, per Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages), be at the top of the page as I had previously formatted.

I'm holding off on reverting your edit back to the proper formatting until I make sure that we're both at an understanding. If your edit was trying to imply that there was in fact no primary topic for the term "La sonnambula", then, as described at Disambiguation, the disambiguation page should be located at "La sonnambula" (rather than "La sonnambula (disambiguation)"), and the article currently at "La sonnambula" should be moved to a title with some kind of clarifier. Let me know what you were intending, and we can get things squared away. — Nataly a 16:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope this meets with your approval. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, okay, I think I understand the topic (and names of the various pieces), and why the organization is a little confusing. Am I correct in understanding that there is a separate piece name "La sonnambula", upon which the three pieces currently linked as articles are based? Just want to make sure that I am clear on the relationship between the articles.


 * There is, unfortunately, still an issue with the way that the disambiguation page is set up. When disambiguating a term "Foo", if the disambiguation page is located at "Foo" (as opposed to at "Foo (disambiguation)"), this means that there is no primary topic for the term "Foo" — that is, there is no article that would be, by far, the main article being searched for with the term "Foo". If, on the other hand, there were an article located at "Foo" (as there currently is, with an article at La sonnambula), and the disambiguation page as Foo (disambiguation) (again, as is the current case with La sonnambula (disambiguation)), this would indicate that the article located at "Foo" were the primary topic for all articles with the name "Foo".


 * This is the current setup with the term "La sonnambula". That does not mean that that is necessarily the best way for the articles to be set up — I am just trying to make sure that the formatting is correct based on the current situation, and that if necessary, we change the setup to better represent the articles.


 * In that vein, I have a few questions for you:
 * Could an article be written (even a stub) about the original libretto by Eugène Scribe? Alternatively, would it be most appropriate for that article to just redirect to the article about the Bellini opera (i.e., is the Bellini opera the original occurrence of the libretto, or did it exist before the opera?)
 * Is one of the current works listed (the Bellini opera, the Balanchine ballet, or the Herold ballet-pantomime) clearly the primary topic for the term "La sonnambula"? Would an article on the original libretto by Scribe be a primary topic? Or, are they all relatively equally likely to be searched for, and thus, there is no primary topic for the term?


 * Hopefully your answers to these questions will help us to figure out the best way to set up the disambiguation of these terms! — Nataly a 00:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be best just to move the page to La sonnambula as the Bellini and Balanchine are the works that actually get performed (and the latter possibly more than the former). — Robert Greer (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So, saying that there is no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should just exist at "La sonnambula" (and thus, that the Bellini opera should be moved to something like La sonnambula (Bellini)? — Nataly a 00:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

move La sonnambula to La sonnambula (Bellini) and La sonnambula (disambiguation) to La sonnambula
Precisely! — Robert Greer (talk) 00:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Great! I just did the moves/renames. I think I've caught everything that needs to be changed, but if I missed anything, do fix it or let me know.


 * The only think that is going to be left to do is to fix all of the links that now point to the disambiguation page La sonnambula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/La_sonnambula)... since we want them to point the appropriate article, not the disambiguation page. There are quite a lot of them, unfortunately. I can't start tackling it right at the moment, but I'll work on it soon — though feel free to work on some as well! Disambiguation_pages_with_links gives a little more information about the problem of articles linking to disambiguation pages. Hopefully we won't find that one of the articles is linked to the majority of the time, lest we question the primary topic decision... — Nataly a 01:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this has created a real mess and without any wider discussion except on one user's talk page. This should have been sent for discussion to WP:Requested moves. It is by no means an "uncontroversial move". Nor is saying that there is clearly no primary topic uncontroversial. "La sonnambula" + opera has 1.5 million google hits. "La sonnambula"+ ballet has less than 500,000 and many of these refer to the fact that Bellini's opera was based Scribe's libretto for a ballet-pantomine. The Bellini opera article was created in 2003. This move has broken over 200 links to it as well as breaking Template:Bellini operas (which I'll now fix). Frankly, I don't think it's good enough to say that both of you will get around to it when you can. Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "Hopefully we won't find that one of the articles is linked to the majority of the time, lest we question the primary topic decision" – You will indeed find that the overwhelming majority of articles now linked to La Sonnambula and La sonnambula refer to Bellini's opera, in fact, virtually all of them. — Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys are 100% right, and I 100% messed up. You can see my apology/explanation for stupidity at Talk:La sonnambula (Bellini), but yeah — this was completely my bad. — Nataly a 17:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why La sonnambula (Bellini) should be moved back to La sonnambula
La sonnambula (Bellini) should be moved back to La sonnambula. It's clearly primary. It's well established that operas, not their libretti, are the main subject. There are hundreds of examples on Wikipedia. If you check other encyclopedias (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Music, Oxford Dictionary of Opera, New Grove Dictionary of Opera) you will find that the opera (La sonnambula) is primary. —  Klein zach  10:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To facilitate this I've moved the disambig page back to La sonnambula (disambiguation). I hope this will help to unravel this mess. —  Klein zach  11:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've now opened a Requested move discussion at Talk:La sonnambula (Bellini) to move the article back over the redirect to La sonnambula. — Voceditenore (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Pages with templates in the wrong namespace
Hi-just wanted to let you know that User pages and redirected talk pages do not usually require the Template:R from abbreviation. It seems that the auto-categorization function of the "r from abbreviation" template, and its sister templates are meant for main space redirected articles only. Lest, the other editors who work on Wikipedia maintenance and cleanup tell me, that the WP maintenance & cleanup categories would be too full of other namespace pages that really don't need to be there, if they too are tagged. Consequently, there is a Wikipedia maintenance category — Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace, that has a lot of the talk pages of the NYCB articles in it. I just wanted to let you know that I've been cleaning out that maintenance category, by removing the redirect templates that aren't supposed to be on the talk, user and other WP pages. Please don't be alarmed if you notice that those pages are being un-tagged! Thanks — Funandtrvl (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Firebird casts
Hi Robert, I see it has been two years or so since you created the article List of Firebird casts. (Has it always had this name?) I find the relationship of this article to the article on The Firebird to be confusing. It seems that when you created it, it was really about New York City Ballet casts for The Firebird. If you intended for other editors to add cast lists for other significant revivals of the ballet, this does not seem to be happening. At some point it seems that User:Alfietucker came along and added the Paris premiere cast, which is kind of where it stands now. I was expecting to find the cast list for the premiere in the main article on the ballet. My gut feeling is that is where it really belongs. I'm curious what your views on this are? — Robert.Allen (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Mariinsky
Original casts usually are included in the main article about a ballet, so go ahead! I recently saw the Mariinsky performance of Fokine's original choreography at Covent Garden and may add the list of casts, but I live in NY, see mostly NYCB and consequently the Balanchine/Robbins. Nobody owns an article — and very few people write about ballet on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter — so I'd be delighted if those who live elsewhere and attend ballet would post about whatever they see! City Ballet keeps me busy. — Robert Greer (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Где могила Тумановой и её матери
Отей Тумановой - Владимир Дмитриевич Хасидович умет в 1962 году похоронен в Голивуде. А где похоронена Тамара Туманова? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulyatikov (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Tamara Toumanova
I'm sorry, but my three years of Russian in high school are so rusty that I do not make any mention of them at the top of my user or talk pages. Can you write me in English, please? — Robert Greer (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

9mm Winchester Magnum
Please stop changing the category for the 9mm Winchester Magnum. It is NOT a rifle cartridge and thus does not belong in the Winchester Magnum rifle cartridges category. Please leave it in the Pistol and rifle cartridges category. In both the cartridge infobox and in the article it is clearly stated that it is a HANDGUN cartridge. I do not understand why you keep changing it. If you don't have much knowledge of firearms and cartridges, please don't take it upon yourself to change something because a program suggests it.  — KySharpshooter (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

mea maxima culpa
My careless mistake. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ordinal suffixes — American Ballet
Hello Robertgreer, thanx for your work and please look at this:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Ballet&action=historysubmit&diff=447914476&oldid=441047581
 * Ordinals
 * w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

We do not use the superscript. The superscript of the most common text fonts and computer systems is not the same as the traditional typography for ordinal suffixes. The superscript breakes the text-line far and ugly to next upper text-line. And the source code is wasted by sup/sup.

And 22th is a senseless character string, it should be 22nd (21st, 23rd, 24th, 31st ...) This error can't appearing with dates, if we do not use suffixes in date format. Keep it simple! Best regards. — Diwas (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

22th
Mea maxima cupla. — Robert Greer (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Errors appearing everytime, but if we keep it simple, some of them have no chance or they will be easier to find and correct they. (Don't look at my english.) Greetings — Diwas (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ballet-stub
Greetings! I see you have recently created one or more new stub templates or categories. As it states at Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types be proposed prior to creation at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. This helps to reach consensus about whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, where comments are welcome as to any rationale for this stub type. Please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first at WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Grutness...wha?  01:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Ballet-stub vs. Ballet-dance-stub
Mea maxima culpa! I was not aware of this — but was merely eliminating the intermediate -dance- from the template. Again, mea culpa. — Robert Greer (talk) 01:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * S'alright — though, for what it's worth — the additional -dance- was deliberately added, as this is a subtype of dance-stub, and to keep a plain ballet-stub name clear in case we needed a specific stub type for individual ballets. — Grutness...wha?  02:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Millepied Article
Hi Robert, I saw that we disagree about some edits to Benjamin Millepied's article, and wanted to know if we could reach some sort of consensus. I expanded his career section and added a bunch of his dances (post 2008 mostly). I'm worried that the introduction you reverted is too Natalie Portman centric. It seems a little bit unfair because Millepied has a really successful career in the dance world without her. Also I think the continual reference Isabella Boylston seems a bit gossipy and not really relevant. Idk. Do you disagree? Cheers! and thanks for all your work on wikipedia! -Decombray — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCombray (talk • contribs) 15:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC) <! — Template:Unsigned — > <! — Autosigned by SineBot — >

Millepied - Portman - Boylston
I'd be happy to discuss this but think it would be better to do so via e-mail; to send me a note click here (by the way, it's normal to sign your posts on user talk pages by typing ~ at the end.) — Robert Greer (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Danseuse
A ballerina to some means a Principal dancer, while a danseuse (the way he means it) is the rest of the dance company (and possibly only the females). Thus, a redirect from danseuse to ballerina is not appropriate. — TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be made a disambiguation page leading to Corps de ballet and Soloist (ballet) as well (equating ballerina and principal dancer is not standard American usage, if there is such a thing as standard usage in the ballet world.) — Robert Greer (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect ordinals
Hello. Perhaps this question is best answered by User:DGG, but I would like to hear your thoughts first. I see that you have categorized the redirects and, just a day after DGG deleted. I would like to know how this can be such a coincidence, and why did you two users decide to do different things upon seeing them? 117Avenue (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I became aware of incorrect ordinals in some articles of interest to me unrelated to those you mention. I did a global search for 21th, 22th, 31th, 32th, through 91th and 92th. I then added to any that were redirects. If you click on my contributions you will probably find a consecutive series of similar edits. I was unaware of DGG's edits and don't know why I should be. Given that the edit you ascribe to him is from the day before my edits, he is — in the absence of a time machine — entirely unaware of what I did. I can explain, however, why "two users decide to do different things upon seeing them". That being that they are unaware of each other's activities. Given the size of Wikipedia, it must happen all the time. I have no objection to your placing a template on any of the redirects in question. — Robert Greer (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I created them, so I don't want them deleted. I just want the same fate for all of them, and after hearing your response I'll ask why DGG deleted the one, and if he could undelete it. Thanks for the reply. — 117Avenue (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As for me, I saw the request to delete it on CSD patrol, where I go several times a day. I at first declined to delete it, as it did not literally meet the requirements of the CSD reason given and I tend to be a stickler about that, and then,  thinking about it, changed my mind, and decided to delete it as routine maintenance. True, redirects are cheap, but I still regard it as deletable by common sense. Having deleted it, I am inclined to leave it alone--the less work that is done on something like this, the better. Incidentally, I have not protected it, so nothing stops you from re-creating it, except I hope the feeling that it is not worth the trouble. —  DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Stars of the Russian Ballet‎
Hi. Please do not add the generic ballet template to this article - it doesn't link to it, and as such, it shouldn't be added to article it doesn't link to. Otherwise you could add all sorts of generic templates (such as one for Russian articles, film, etc). Thanks. —  Lugnuts  (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

 * If a title is a redirect, there is usually absolutely no need for it to have any talk page at all. That is why we are deleting Talk:Après mois, le déluge and Talk:Apres mois, le deluge, etc. As for List of French words and phrases used by English speakers/Archive 1 that was totally pointless. &mdash; RHaworth 11:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Где могила Тумановой и её матери
Отей Тумановой - Владимир Дмитриевич Хасидович умер в 1962 году похоронен в Голивуде. А где похоронена Тамара Туманова? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulyatikov (talk • contribs) 14:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Тамара Туманова
I'm sorry, but my three years of Russian in high school are so rusty that I do not make any mention of them at the top of my user or talk pages. Can you write me in English, please? — Robert Greer (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Tamara Toumanova
Если буду писать на русском с можете прочитать? — Shulyatikov (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

English, please
Please write me in English — or Swedish or Norwegian or Danish — please! — Robert Greer (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Capriccio for Piano and Orchestra
I have just written NYCB, the Balanchine Trust and Foundation, asking: "Could you be so good as to tell me whether the 1929 version of 'Capriccio for Piano and Orchestra' — or the 1949 — is used as the score for 'Rubies'?"
 * — Robert Greer (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know of your efforts. The differences between the two versions are extremely small, "confined to the correction of misprints and omissions in the original 1929 score", according to Eric Walter White, "but in the course of this reprint a few new mistakes have crept in". From a choreographer's point of view, it appears that the differences could scarcely matter. — Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you have gotten a reply, and that Balanchine either preferred the mistakes in the original to the ones in the revision, or that it didn't matter enough to be worth worrying about. Your diligence is to be commended. In the meantime, I have added a brief account of the differences in he two printings of the score (following Eric Walter White) and removed the category "1949 compositions", since there was no new composing involved. — Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Vaganova method
Hi Robert. As a fellow balletomane, I would appreciate your comments about this issue. Thanks! — Lambtron (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See Cross-posted from the Ballet talk page, Dance terminology section. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Double Falshood
I'm sorry, I though I created the redirect Double Falshood as a typo. in the course of some related editing. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. GB fan 22:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ordinals
You should add the rule for ordinals to DATESNO, currently it states that ordinals are never used for dates on WP. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Day-of-week preceeding date is so rare on Wikipedia that it scarcely seems worth mentioning; what it comes down to is that one would never say, "Tuesday, October eighteen, two thousand eleven" and so should never write it that way. — Robert Greer (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Many people would not say "on October eighteen, two thousand eleven" either. I believe WP:AWB removes the ordinal suffix as part if its general fixes, so I think it is worth mentioning. I have started a thread at MOS:DATE. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Bolshoi
Hi ... Took the silly decision of splitting off a new article about the Bolshoi Ballet, over a redirect to the Bolshoi Theatre article - not that I have much time to work on it at the moment. If you can spare any time to help bulk out and find references for it, your assistance would be much appreciated. — Crazy-dancing (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bolshoi Ballet
Brilliant! I did a little linking and will do some more — but most likely not until Fall for Dance is done — in two weeks. I still have to fill in their 2010 program — and the last week of City Ballet's fall season. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Прошу посмотреть в журнале "Новик"

 * Прошу посмотреть в журнале "Новик" (В России не нашел) нет ли указания на некрологи связанные со смертью - Хасидович-Туманов Владимир Дмитриевич (отец Тамары Тумановой), полковник, автом.бронев., 474 Георгиевский ковалер умер 14 декабря 1962 г. похоронен Голливуд, США (1963, Отд 3, с.!9.переиздание с 1966 года). Стр 427,  Дополнительный АИ Генеалогическая хроника российской эмиграции (по материалам журнала "Новик") М. 2011,Изд.-Старая Басманная, 473с.- 978-5-904043-50-6 Shulyatikov (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please look in the magazine "Novik"Prošu look in the magazine "Novik" (not found) to see if there are references to obituaries involving death-Hasidovič-Mists Vladimir Dmitrievich (father of Tamara Tumanovoj), Colonel, Autom. bronev., 474 St George kovaler died December 14, 1962 buried Hollywood, United States (1963, Wing 3, pp!9. reprint from 1966). Page 427, extra AI Genealogical Chronicle of the Russian emigration (on materials of the magazine "Novik") m. 2011, ed. old Basmannaya, 473s.-978-5-904043-50-6 Shulyatikov (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

English
DO NOT WRITE ON THIS TALK PAGE — OR ANYWHERE ELSE IN EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG — IN RUSSIAN. — Robert Greer (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK Shulyatikov (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. — Robert Greer (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ohad Naharin
Hello David,

I've answered your comment on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ohad_Naharin

After consulting with my wife, it might make more sense to call Ohad Naharin a composer then a musician. What do you think?

With regards, Talgalili (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

crossposted
Crossposted to Ohad Naharin talk page. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

PS
My name is Robert, not David. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Megan Fairchild
Please exercise greater care in the use of scripts! Megan Fairchild is an American dancer with New York City Ballet and should not be tagged with. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, your assertion is untrue. The dmy date format is used in the USA, albeit not the predominant format. There is no stipulation at all that mdy dates must be used. I would point out that the article was tagged in accordance with WP:RETAIN – according to the format of the sole date displaying on that page prior to that edit. Thanks for your attention. — Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 12:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

When in Rome
My assertion is true — Megan Fairchild is American and dances for NYCB — but you differ with my conclusion, that DMY is inappropriate. It is inappropriate, being used by your own statement only sporadically. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. — Robert Greer (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We are talking about compliance with a guideline here, according to which "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic.". As the article is in dmy, it should stay that way. Rome has nothing to do with anything here, there is no monopoly of mdy dates in American articles. For example, articles about the US military mostly use dmy. — Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also mention that when you undid my edit, you actually reversed the main reason I edited that page, which was to remove superscripted ordinal dates. — Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 13:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

strong national ties
Megan Fairchild was born in Utah, trained there and in New York City, and has spent her entire career and adult life dancing for New York City Ballet — which is generally acknowledged to be the most American of ballet companies — and has no connection to the US military (I have added emphasis to the guideline you quote.) You are hoist with your own petard. I have no quarrel with your purpose, consistency is a good thing, but that includes consistency to common usage, and — other than the military and geeks — Americans uniformally write MDY. If you dig deeply enough into Wiki. guidelines — much like the Scriptures — you can find justification for whatever you're looking for. All I ask is that you exercise care in running scripts so as not to make unnecessary work for others correcting your scripts' mischief. And mischief it is; your 7th-grade English teacher would have given you back a paper to re-write if you'd written 27 October 2011. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't make it out as if it were a script error. I'm telling you it was a deliberate choice to disturb as little of the rendered text as possible whilst achieving my objective (ie not unnecessarily changing dmy date format to mdy), so as to respect WP:RETAIN. I get enough comments for what I do change so I try and make sure what I do is perfectly necessary and justified. What I don't quite understand is why you object to this pre-existing format, have the article watchlisted, and give me flack once I put a maintenance tag on it. If you want the article in mdy, please don't make any pretence that I'm doing something wrong. You should just change it because there is only a small likelihood that I will gnome the article again after I achieve the current objective. OTOH, by simply reverting me, you're probably ensuring that the error will be picked up when I run the database scan again for superscripted ordinals, meaning that I will come back, possibly without realising it. Also, will you kindly note there is no need to post those talkback templates to my talkpage? – I'll be back here while this conversation is active. — Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. I suggest that you speak for yourself and stop being so patronising: your 7th-grade English teacher would have given you back a paper to re-write if you'd written 27 October 2011. Mine isn't ever likely to do so. — Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 14:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

deliberate
Please work a little more deliberately, modify your script if need be, edit manually if you must, and make a distinction between articles that call for American usage — MDY other than military — and usage in other countries (I had not previously looked at your user page and did not know until just now that you are a British editor.) — Robert Greer (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will have you know I've taken flack from an editor who complained when I aligned a US subject's article to mdy, so there really is no pleasing everybody. I've come across a number of US-related subjects whose articles are near-consistently dmy (though admittedly a much higher proportion are in mdy), and I certainly ain't going to rock any boats in that direction. I'm tired of arguing what format because I'm really quite agnostic about whether it should be dmy or mdy. Just like everyone, I just want to make my job easier to perform, and increase my productivity. I frequently entertain people's request to put articles in one format or another, so I extend that invitation to you, should you ever need it. If you can show me how to make my script automatic, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'm afraid it will be down to potentially fault human judgement as to which format applies. ;-) All the best, — Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

agnostic
I am an agnostic but not in matters of language usage. The editor who gave you grief was simply wrong — wrong, wrong, wrong! — and neither you nor I should take such criticism lying down. You can automate your script to look for the words "America" and "American" in the categories an article belongs to (going a step further, you could search the category tree for those words.) — Robert Greer (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I was looking for was a little help with coding the script. ;-) — Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

and and other afterthoughts

 * 1) Please see Template talk:Dated maintenance category.
 * 2) Is the script your own?
 * 3) If not, it may be best to contact the original author and the last few people who have modified it.
 * 4) Do you know who they might be? — Robert Greer (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the script is mine, with occasional help from some experts – my abilities to code end at writing regexes. It is therefore 'buggy' because detection or protection of articles based on categories was never built in. Some of these categories are not all that obvious or recursively nested that may need sophisticated analysis; there may be articles that belong to dmy and mdy categories. —  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

experts
Could we get in touch with your experts? Though once a programmer, it's not something that I've taught in a good ten years. If "British" and "American" categories can be tagged for DMY and MDY it be easier than having to search the names of the categories for the presence of of those words. — Robert Greer (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cat use mdy dates and Template:Cat use dmy dates
I've created a pair of templates and begun tagging British and American ballet categories. Please modify your script(s) to look for these. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

DMY
PS Conversely, the script has tagged Poul Gnatt, born in Austria, raised in Denmark and active in New Zealand, as MDY (NZ uses DMY.) — Robert Greer (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, manual action gave rise to that mdy tag. The version of the article I ran my script on was entirely in mdy format. I've now put the dates to dmy per your request. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 01:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Annabelle Lyon
Hello I just came across the disambiguation page Annabelle Lyon. From a disambiguation standpoint, this page seems unnecessary. In terms of naming, Annabel Lyon is not the same as Annabelle Lyon and normally such terms would not need disambiguating. But since you are far more knowledge on the topic I wanting to bring it up with you before potentially changing anything. Is Annabel Lyon, the writer, also referred to as Annabelle Lyon? In this case this a dab might be valid per WP:TWODABS, if neither is the primary topic. However, if the writer is not referred to as Annabelle then there doesn't appear to be much need to disambiguate and the articles should likely be moved to reflect this. If this is the case I was thinking that the dancer be moved from Annabelle Lyon (dancer) to Annabelle Lyon (removing the disambiguation page completely) and Annabel Lyon (writer) to Annabel Lyon. Also depending on the situation a hatnote might be better suited than a disambiguation page. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. I hope this message isn't too confusing to follow. Best, France 3470   ( talk ) 23:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

thank you
Thank you for being so attentive! I was alerted to possible confusion — the difference in spellings is minimal — by the obituary in the NY Times, which goes out of its way to explain that the two ladies are not related — something one hardly ever sees in an obit. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay just had a look at that obituary and I see you mean, although the wording 'that they are not related' as opposed to 'that they are not the same person' suggests to me that confusion isn't hugely likely. Do you think placing a Template:Hatnote on both pages might work better? Perhaps that way when one types in Annabelle Lyon they aren't taken to disambiguation page but hopefully to the article they want. If it isn't the right person the hatnote will direct them to the other article. For me the disambiguation page Annabelle Lyon rather muddles things. France 3470  ( talk ) 00:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Whichever you prefer! — Robert Greer (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful thanks! :) I'm not sure I see a need to move any pages, but I'll go ahead and change Annabelle Lyon into a redirect to Annabelle Lyon (dancer) and Annabel Lyon into a redirect to Annabel Lyon (writer) then add distinguish tags. Thanks for being so agreeable, normally contacting people about disambiguation pages does my head in a bit. I think you just made my day. Best, France 3470   ( talk ) 00:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, and I hear you; Wikipedia is an "asylum run by the inmates". — Robert Greer (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ballerina category
Hi. I noticed that you put Viper (person) into the category for ballerinas. I just wanted to inform you that the term refers to principal dancers only, and that Viper was kept on the back lines when she was a dancer. Asarelah (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ballerina
Though Viper is better known for her work in other genres, she did dance for American Ballet Theatre as well as a lesser company, In America the word ballerina is used for all professional female ballet dancers, including the corps de ballet. — Robert Greer (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I stand corrected. Asarelah (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

QRpedia
Hi,

QRpedia is a project of Wikimedia UK, to help people find Wikipedia articles in their preferred language. Please can you translate QRpedia into Danish, and/ or Swedish, or encourage others to do so? — Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

good news and bad
Translation is something of a one-way street. Ideally one should not translate other than into his or her native language. The bad news is that mine is English. The good news is that Danes and Swedes have such good English — especially those in technical fields — that it doesn't need to be translated. I'll try to find appropriate places on the Nordic Wikis to put links to QRpedia. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nordic Wikis
I've left notes for editors on Swedish, Danish and Norwegian Wikis; there are two of the latter, as there are two official Norwegian languages. — Robert Greer (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Telstra Ballet Dancer Awards
Hello. The Telstra Ballet Dancer Awards article describes two very closely related awards symmetrically, so the redirects for each award should point to the article, whose lead describes both, rather than to just the list of recipients for an award. I will add a note to the talk pages to clarify that. Moving the nominees below the recipients looks a good idea, particularly once we have added the 2012 names, but it will be better to avoid too many bare lists, I think. Also I will restore the mise en scène of the announcement details so there is some context rather than just the list of names. — Mirokado (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a slight personal preference for redirects to sections but not enough to matter. I do however have a strong preference for bare lists, because over time that is what this article will become in any event, not that there is anything wrong with that. One of Wikipedia's strengths — perhaps its greatest and possibly its only — is that it can be all-inclusive. I created categories for Telstra Ballet Dancer Award winners and People's Choice Award winners as well as a master Category:Telstra Ballet Dancer Awards. Could you create an article about Chengwu Guo — currently there is merely a redirect to The Australian Ballet — or one of the other Telstra Ballet Dancer Award winners? Currently Category:Telstra Ballet Dancer Award winners is empty. And there are those who view empty categories as an abomination unto the Five Pillars of Wikipedia! — Robert Greer (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am really pleased that you are updating Telstra Ballet Dancer Awards too, it is much better when there is more than one active author. The article is actively maintained to conform with WP:MOS and in particular with respect to your recent edits MOS:REFPUNC which states no spaces before inline references. If I may say so, there is no point at all in making such edits to articles which are maintained to be MOS-conformant, they will be reverted. You should probably get used to doing such things in a MOS-conformant way anyway, since sooner or later someone will change them.

As far as refs to the Australian Ballet Bios are concerned, I can see that providing fully completed refs for each would be clumsy. However, the current format is not really satisfactory. If we want something shorter, we should follow the style of well-established templates such as, which would mean, for example: with the link text indicating what the reader can expect when following the link, TAB wikilinked for its first occurrence in the reference list, full stop afterwards to match the other citations.
 * Brett Chynoweth at The Australian Ballet.
 * Miwako Kubota at The Australian Ballet.

However I have just had a Very Good Idea, so I suggest you carry on like you have for this round of edits and I will update further once you have finished. --Mirokado (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! — Robert Greer (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wuffings
I noticed that you've recently edited Rædwald of East Anglia to replace Wuffingas with Wuffing. There is a discussion about the name at Talk:Wuffingas: I think Wuffingas should be retained and your edits undone - do you agree? Also, would you be interested in joining WP:WPASK? Hel-hama (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Do whatever WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms decides — it's not my bailiwick! — Robert Greer (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Cupcakes
Please use the preview button before saving (although we all miss things from time to time I know). In Kevin Jackson (dancer), half the title of the cupcakes link is repeated. Please sort that out (not clear from your usage here whether you intend the template to precomplete the title or not, although it does at present). As we can see from your problems with this, just snipping part of the title is confusing.

As you can see from the original version, I had already considered the title and decided that the reader is better served with something else. The guideline for external links says that we should choose a helpful link title, not necessarily the exact title of the original web page.

Also, what is the point of this template if the author still has to provide the complete url? Similar templates complete the invariant part of the url which would at least make it easy to update Wikipedia if the Ballet News url changed.

Also (sorry for another also) are you intending to do anything useful with the separate date and year parameters? Have you checked whether User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js can convert (day, month) pairs without the year? If not to either of those questions, I think it is easier to let the user provide the date in one parameter. I suggest in any case you do that and call it date so the usage of this template is uniform with all the other templates which have a date parameter.

Basically, if we still have to give the full url and have to use a special date format, I would prefer not to use the template (although I am normally very keen on them). — Mirokado (talk) 00:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cupcakes & Conversation 2
Various editors had simply reversed the month and day in other articles, apparently not noticing the stray comma that doing so left with the original Cupcakes & Conversation.

I therefore created the new Cupcakes & Conversation 2 (superceeded by a revised Cupcakes & Conversation).

Using the templates has the housekeeping advantage of keeping track of the links to Ballet News, further faciltated by having the year as a seperate param.

Let me think about further modifications. — Robert Greer (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. --Mirokado (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got a provisional modification ready but want to sleep on it. — Robert Greer (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of simplicity I've removed the seperate parameter for the year — and embedded much of the URL — in both Ballet News and Cupcakes & Conversation, which obviates the necessity for seperate templates with DMY and MDY dating. — Robert Greer (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that is better! I have noticed you worked at that during the day and have just updated Amy to use the template. I won't be around so much for the rest of the year, so Happy Christmas. — Mirokado (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ballet
Why did you add • after each entry? does this bullet have a particular meaning here? it looks strange now since there are two bullets, one provided by the WP:HLIST and one that you added after each entry. thank you. — Frietjes (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a very poor Internet connection until Tuesday, the 27th, at which time I'll re-do it the way I intended. I only have access to a PC running Windows 7 or a Mac running an outdated operating system until then (in short, Template:HLIST does not render properly on old browsers.) More next week. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the vast number of templates using WP:HLIST, please bring this up at template talk:navbox and/or MediaWiki talk:common.css. adding this to just one navbox does not solve the broader problem. thank you. — Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding such embedded bullets as it results in double bullets for the vast majority of viewers. In the end, if a few viewers do not get any bullet between links, it is ok, as all is still functional. It's just a bit of punctuation. — Alarbus (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ordinal dates
I just noticed that you have been going to articles and reinserting ordinal formats for dates, and would point out that such use is not encouraged. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 03:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC) To which articles are you referring? If Backchat, that was on September 19th, ten weeks ago! — Robert Greer (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC) There are others, but presumably that means you're not doing it now. Sorry if I've troubled you! -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Our first contact was on October 27th, five weeks after Backchat, so I have to wonder why you have brought this up now; how are you coming with modifying your script? — Robert Greer (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)