Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers/Archive 19

Górecki
Hey. I've nomed Henryk Górecki at FAC, and would appreciate if some of ye could go through the page to find inaccruacies or suggest areas for expansion. It was a tough one to write, input would be appreciated, and is needed. Brianboulton is already helping. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
There was a merge proposal on the talk page of Beethoven for a while, proposing the merging of Ludwig van Beethoven and Life and work of Ludwig van Beethoven. I added the appropriate templates to the top of each page. It was suggested that I mention this here too, so here it is. See the discussion here. Asmeurer ( talk   ♬  contribs ) 17:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

ArticleAlertbot
This is a new service by Legoktm, coded by B. Wolterding who also did the useful 'Cleanup Listings' used by some projects.

ArticleAlertbot provides notification of all proposed deletions, AFDs, GA/FA nominations, RFCs etc etc. for articles with project banners. The explanation is here. Should we subscribe? Best. -- Klein zach  00:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've found it to be useful for a few of the US state projects. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  21:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the project
That's pretty much what I thought. As I said, I think the project scope could use some better wording. Currently:

Perhaps something like this:

Comments? (Note that I specifically added art music to the first paragraph.)  Magic ♪piano 13:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not quite that simple because (as noted on the project page) we don't have any descendant projects. What we have are overlapping ones - Contemporary music, Opera, Musical Theatre, Film etc. (Music doesn't overlap because it doesn't banner, and Classical music doesn't include any articles looked after by 'any other classical music related projects'.) Anyway I've put this in a new section and I'd be interested to know what other people think about a more specific description of the project. Is it necessary? Would it be a good thing? -- Klein zach  14:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A few more entries as fodder for the discussion: These are both contemporary composers working largely in an area that mixes rock, improvisational, and avant-garde methods (if I read their entries right). Most of their output appears to be more in the popular mode: make recordings; tour to promote. Frith has held positions as Composer-in-residence and Professor of Composition; Hodgkinson has apparently not had any academic posts. Are they conceptually the same as, or different than, say, Philip Glass? (He also records his own music and tours to promote his music; but then he's also written some large-scale works.)  Magic ♪piano 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fred Frith
 * Tim Hodgkinson


 * Are they primarily performers or composers, and if they are composers do they belong here or with Contemporary music? I'm inclined to think they are really performers. Fred Frith is described as an instrumentalist first and is also claimed by the Guitarists Project, so I think he can be safely left there. Tim Hodgkinson is (quote) "best known as one of the core members of the British avant-garde rock group Henry Cow" (unquote) so I've given him a Rock Project banner. I've removed the Composers banners but left the Contemporary Music ones as a hedge. I hope that's reasonable. Articles like these are edited in a different style from ours (with infoboxes etc.) and taking them on implies making changes. This may not be appreciated by the original editors - and may not be desirable anyway. Hence, I think we should leave them to other projects to look after. -- Klein  zach  02:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping some other people would comment on your suggestions, but since they haven't I'm going to give my own version of the scope of the project:



Please hack! -- Klein zach  03:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A composer (literally meaning 'one who puts together') is a person who creates music, usually in the medium of notation, for interpretation and performance. The composer is the author of the music. While I would agree there is a distinction between composers and songwriters, composers of music is broad and includes all styles and eras of music.  By adding the term "art music" to the scope, I will assume there is an attempt to limit the interpretation of the project?  Exactly what type of composers would "art music" exclude?  (just tring to understand)  While only a passive participant, I would not like to see the scope of such a large project changed until there is consensus by more than 2 persons.   Cheers.  ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So now there are three! Re the definition of composer - surely that belongs in the relevant article? The question of songwriters was dealt with in an early discussion, see here. Also note this project is quite small (about 4,000 articles). (Classical music is much larger.)


 * So let's address the more important question of whether or not to use the expression art music. I don't have strong feelings about this. In practice we are all working on art music composers, but do we need to be explicit about it? (The second paragraph already distinguishes the project from other ones.) What do other people think? -- Klein  zach  05:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Any more comments - I've left this for a while. May I now enter the last boxed definition on the project page? -- Klein zach  03:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * With due respect, I really don't see the point.  A composer of any type or era of music should be included here, in addition to sister projects such as classical/opera/jazz, etc.   If a person wants to research or find a composer of any style of music, they should be able to come to this project for their answers.  ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Wagner, Massenet and Verdi fall under this project as much as Opera in practical terms. Eusebeus (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we clarify whether you disagree with both sentences or just the second one? -- Klein zach  23:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, just the second part. FWIW, I would be happy with wording that stated this is a project for classical composers, since effectively isn't that the case? Eusebeus (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. the 'classical' issue: this has been discussed in the past, and each time it's been decided to include non-classical composers, the last time being in October. Personally I have reservations about this. I think it would be better not to include areas where we have no expertise. For example I don't think it's possible to write about Japanese, Persian, Chinese or whatever traditional music without a command of the necessary languages, so these subjects are best left to the general cultural projects that deal with the countries involved. Anyway I've been outvoted on this, so I don't want to raise the matter again.


 * Re. overlapping: IMO successful projects behave like nation states, not like empires. We've had a lot of experience of 'demarcation disputes' between different projects (classical music vs. ballet, opera vs theatre, opera vs musical theatre etc). This can be a huge waste of time, so I believe bannering conservatively and focusing as sharply as possible on priorities is a better policy. When there are more specialized projects - that have more specialized guidelines - that can be deferred to (e.g. Opera, Richard Wagner, Gilbert and Sullivan, Musical Theatre etc.) then surely it's prudent to defer to them? Some projects (mentioning no names!) only exist to mark territory with their banners. They don't actually work on the articles or write guidelines. I hope this project will not become one of these.


 * BTW I've put the first (uncontroversial) part of the text on the project page.-- Klein zach  01:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I appreciate the tenor of previous debates - that is why I prefaced my remarks with the for what it's worth, implying worth not very much. But the fact is this project is in practical terms principally engaged with Western Classical composers, even if we cannot so declaim. Eusebeus (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that by assessing Composer-bannered articles, we are actually attempting a broader overlook of articles than has been attempted in the past. Ironically, while people have been insisting on an unlimited scope, the project has actually been concentrating on the top couple of dozen 'Classical' names. -- Klein zach  05:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly, all the hard work in your specialized areas are very much appreciated, but it only stands to reason that a project entitled Composers would include all categories of composers. Perhaps a child project(s) would be in order and defer to different areas of expertise.  Or recruitment of music-related editors that work on composer articles of other genres/eras/styles (such as muself) - but that probably wouldn't be desired here because most believe in the use of infoboxes in all musician articles.  If this project does not intend to include all composers, then it should be renamed.  Just some random thoughts, no offense intended.  Cheers.     ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ♫ Cricket02: May we politely ask what your interest is here? AFAIK you have never joined this project, but I see from your user page you take part in the Biography Project (Musicians Group). Do you feel that this project unjustly neglects pop music? Is that why you are posting here? Regarding restructuring (renaming), there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for this here, though personally I would not be against making this a descendant of classical music. In practice, almost all music projects are distinguished by genre.-- Klein  zach  08:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I've not officially joined this project, but I have created and/or helped to significantly improve many composer articles. I have watched this project for over 2 years, have participated in discussions here before, and have passively added composers to the project.  I come here mainly for style guideline updates, i.e. musical style of composers, of which I mix with WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Musicians guidelines.   And I do not feel this project "unjustly neglects pop music" - I rarely work on pop music articles.  I do have a great interest in music/musicians/composers/instrumental music of many eras, styles, genres.  Do I contribute to classical music composer articles?  No, I do not have expertise there.  Should I be excluded from discussions here because of that?  I don't know.  I guess maybe if I thought it was solely a project for classical music composers but I never did until recently -- I just figured it was a project that included all categories of composers.  That's all.  ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ♫ Cricket02: Thank you for explaining. Now I understand where you are coming from. Although there are about 50 active music projects, coverage is still patchy. There are only two groups for instrumental music: Guitarists and Pipe Organ. (Many subjects belong to Classical music by default, including classical conductors, instrumentalists, compositions etc. but are not well covered.) But what exactly is the core of your interest? -- Klein  zach  02:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In my head at least, the point of this project is to join together the people who work on similar articles. When it was started, the trend of seeing the same editors on several posts made the idea of having a common meeting ground make that much more sense. Now any individual will be editing any subset of these posts and they might edit posts that have nothing to do with this project. And no you do not have to explicitly join the project to post here or take part of discussions as it is with any Wikipedia page ("Everyone is invited to contribute to the project, comment and edit the project pages.") I don't know if anyone wants that changed, but I would object since if individuals or other projects object to what we're saying we want on articles this is definitely a place to talk about it. Although in practice, the majority of editing done in this project has been classical, most of what we have talked about on the project has been pretty general. The flexibility allows us to have a starting point when talking about the composer in their article. It all just turns out to be about music writers and they all live different lives that the genre distinctions in composers are pretty difficult and often arbitrary so we keep on coming back to the loosest and flexible guidelines. Anyway, the Opera project has as much to contribute to Composer articles as we do. And the Biography project as well. Wagner should have biographical information on his page. Wagner should have opera related information on his page. And Wagner should have musical style, influence and whatever else we contribute on his page. Why falsely pretend it shouldn't fit under our scope or the scope of othes. How it all fits together is for his talk page. We don't own articles on Wikipedia. The banner is more about saying, hey if you need to talk about more than one article we have a place to talk about it. Claiming it under the project exclusively defeats the whole purpose of collaboration. --Sketchee (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify, my comment also applies to say Danny Elfman who composes and is in a rock band. It would be false for us to pretend that a person can't be a composer but also involved in other disciplines. It has nothing to do with whether they are "primarily" involved in one thing or another. As long as it is notable by Wikipedia standards. --Sketchee (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO we should be looking for ways to focus and energize this project, not for a comfortable philosophy. The projects that have been successful have been ones that concentrate on the areas of interest of the participants, and avoid those already being worked on by other groups. Too many projects have been vacuous bannering and rating efforts that have failed to create and develop new content. -- Klein zach  01:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Broken formatting of sound files
There is a discussion at ANI, see here. I'm not sure I understand the technical issues, so any help explaining it would be appreciated. -- Klein zach  06:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Felix Mendelssohn's 200th birthday
Felix Mendelssohn's 200th birthday is this coming February 3. I thought it might be appropriate for the relevent music project's to acknowledge this in some way. What do you all think? I am going to notify the opera and classical music projects as well. I will direct everyone to the discussion here at the composer project. Cheers.Nrswanson (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I could whip together some audio. There's some Elijah samples (in English) I've been eyeing a while, but haven't done yet, and, better yet, some old Philadelphia Symphony recordings of various works of his, like Midsummer Night's Dream. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying to improve the 'Life' section bit by bit, and to add appropriate references.--Smerus (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All great ideas. Perhaps we could get a concerted effort together to improve articles related to Mendelssohn. I am going to work on the Elijah. There may also be some potential new articles on some of his works if people are interested. Also, perhaps the classical portal could feature his biography during the month of February.Nrswanson (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now considerably extended and rewritten the 'Life' section of the FM article. Could some kind soul please assess the article as a whole and suggest what it might need to upgrade to A-class?--Smerus (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added him to the request box above. -- Klein zach  02:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mozart the German composer
An anonymous editor has moved Mozart from List of Austrian composers to List of German composers. The main Mozart article is in both Category:Austrian composers and Category:German composers. He was born in what was then the Holy Roman Empire, and is now Austria, and always seems to have made his home there (even if he did travel extensively in areas that are now Germany). It seems to me he shouldn't be in German lists or categories. Am I missing something?  Magic ♪piano 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the most time-wasting dust-ups in the history of the Mozart page. A lot of the dust-cloud is in this archive.  I would suggest putting him in both lists, which seems to be the best way to handle this kind of nationalist nit-pickery, but if others would rather have him as just Austrian that's fine with me.  FWIW, the current New Grove calls him "Austrian"; the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article, by Donald Francis Tovey himself, baldly calls him a "German composer". Antandrus  (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I figured, given that there's no nationality given at the top of the article, that I was missing something. :) Thanks for the pointer -- I'll re-add him to the "Austrian" list.  Magic ♪piano 17:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Eyes please: Category:Danish composers
A copy of Niels Eje (contemporary Danish composer of unknown notability), has been repeatedly added to the Category:Danish composers page. It has a history of blanking and reverts as various editors have tried to remove it. I've now removed it again, but keep an eye on it Voceditenore (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Niels Eje seems to be notable -, , and MusiCure is somewhat interesting project. The article is, unfortunately, copypasted from here.--Vejvančický (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the problem is with such edits pasted into the Category page itself.  Sparafucil (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unassessed articles: a new bot run?
We've been making a lot of progress with assessments - thanks to MagicPiano's well-organized and impeccably objective approach. 101 out of 315 B-nominated articles have been reviewed by MagicPiano and Smerus. Almost all over these have been confirmed as B-class. (Only 4 articles have been downgraded to 'Start'. 21 pages have been identified as candidates for promotion.)

However we still have to decide what to do about 2,347 articles that remain completely unassessed, see Category:Unassessed Composers articles. Some of us have tried to look at these pages individually - but it's unrewarding and laborious. Previous bot runs have marked stub-tagged articles as stub class, and articles rated B by other projects have been marked as B-class here. This means that 90 to 95 percent of these 'unassessed' articles are 'start' class - a view confirmed by individual assessing.

My suggestion is that we arrange a new bot run to automatically mark all 'unassessed' articles as 'start' class (providing there is no stub tag on the article page, or contradictory assessment by another project on the talk page). Is that an acceptable way forward on this? Best. -- Klein zach  01:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea to me.  Magic ♪piano 03:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. As there are no objections, I'll go ahead with making the arrangements. -- Klein zach  04:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The bot run has been completed. We now have:


 * B - 306 articles
 * Start - 2,009
 * Stub - 1,272
 * Unassessed - 628

The articles that remain unassessed are anomalies that need checking on an article by article basis. The overwhelming majority of them are pages that have been mis-ranked by the Biography Project, typically labelled as 'Stub' class when there is no 'Stub' tag on the article page. If anyone has time to look at articles in Category:Unassessed Composers articles that would be appreciated. Best. -- Klein zach  01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now been through about 40 of the Category:Unassessed Composers articles and I've found that almost all of them have been mis-assessed by the Biography Project - or that the assessment is completely out of date. 600-odd articles are a lot to do individually. Would anyone object if we do another bot run and automatically classify the articles as 'Start class' in the way as we have done the other ones previously? -- Klein zach  06:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (no progress report) We've been trying to classify these articles, but we've had coding error problems apparently caused by the Biography Project banners. Like don't-hold-your breath . . . . -- Klein zach  04:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Change to project banner/Comment TOC problem
The project banner was changed on 9 February, see and appears to be problematic regarding the display of the Comments/Assessment page information.

Originally the Composers banner was intentionally not coded using WPBannerMeta because of various technical problems and I'd be in favour of reverting the change to the stable (non-WPBannerMeta) version we had before. Of course, this project should have been consulted before any change was made. There are 4,300 pages with this banner. -- Klein zach  11:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the changes also have had an effect on nested WPBiography templates; it's not clear to me whether they've been fixed. I do know that if you see something that looks like a problem with the banners, you have to purge to make sure you have the latest page.  Magic ♪piano 13:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Comments/assessment page TOC is also (bizarrely) included in the TOC of Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Anyway I've asked Alanbly who originally designed the banner to have a look at it. -- Klein zach  01:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

An important advantage of WPBannerMeta is that problems, once discovered, can be immediately fixed for all 800 projects using the template, rather than having to re-invent the wheel innumerable times. So I'm very keen to locate and fix any issues you identify. What, exactly, seems to be the problem? Happy‑melon 10:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. Let's get everything clear here. Happy-melon, is it true to say that (1) WPBannerMeta was developed by you, and so to speak is your 'baby', and (2) that you are promoting its use through WP and altering existing project banners to conform to it, and (3) you changed the all the code for the banners for Classical music and this project on 9 February. That's all true isn't it, or have I misunderstood something? -- Klein zach  11:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While I find your tone unnecessarily aggressive, you are factually correct. I don't see how any of your points should affect either the validity of my statement above, or my ability to help you resolve issues with your project banner.  Again, what appears to be the problem? Happy‑melon 12:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. I'd like to clarify that I am not against WPBannerMeta if it works, doesn't cause problems, and allows projects due flexibility in what they want to do. However you should have the courtesy to consult the projects about their own banners before you make changes to them. As for the problems, please check the examples that you've already been told about here and above: Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (double Comments TOC appearing on Talk page), Talk:Colinet de Lannoy (double Comments TOC appearing within banner when switched to show). If the problems can't be fixed, I think it would save everybody a lot of time if we reverted to Alanbly's stable version of the banner that existed up to a couple of weeks ago. -- Klein  zach  13:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for the explanation. The issue raised in your link is already fixed, indeed was before I made my initial comment in this thread.  The other problems are not issues that can be resolved, indeed they are issues that affect all banners that transclude /Comments subpages, whether they use WPBannerMeta or not.  To be precise, the doubled entries in the ToC are entirely to be expected since the /Comments subpage, which includes section headers, is transcluded twice on the page, once by  and once by .  The situation would occur whether or not the Composers template used WPBannerMeta (WPBiography does not, as a case study).  Given the very simple rules that govern default ToC positioning, it is also to be expected that the ToC will be rendered inside the banner if the first heading on the expanded page is located in the /Comments transclusion; Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart avoids this issue by explicitly setting the ToC position using .  Again, this is not a consequence of using WPBannerMeta, and will not be explicitly resolved by removing it.  The problem will go away, but only because the prior version of the template did not include Comments functionality at all.  Note, however, that neither did the WPBannerMeta version I implemented on 8 February; the comments functionality was added by Alanbly on 19 February.  The version without the Comments functionality would not have these issues as far as I am aware, and as I've said the fact that the functionality is implemented through WPBannerMeta is not the source of the issues.  The only way to avoid these problems is either not to transclude the comments subpage, or to not use section headers within the comments.  Happy‑melon 20:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Or for someone to fix the TOCs? Right. Your summary of the problems appears to be correct. The TOCs of the talk page and the Comments pages are being merged via the banners. In some cases there are three (not two) successive Comments TOCs merged with the talk page one (see Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven). Perhaps this illustrates the folly of these meta-attempts to control the formatting centrally (Whooppee! Edited 346,782 articles today! etc etc). Anyway it should be possible to do something about this. -- Klein  zach  03:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "The folly of these meta-attempts..." as I have explained above, the fact that the banner uses WPBannerMeta has nothing to do with this. These specific problems were introduced by an edit to the Composers banner that introduced basic /Comment page transclusion.  Any code added that achieved that result would also have introduced the same problems, no matter where it was added.  Why do you continue to insist that meta-templates are responsible for these problems? Happy‑melon 08:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's get one thing straight. The TOC problems predated Alanbly's addition of the Comments window (which was actually requested unlike the changes you made). Also my comments about 'meta-attempts' were general in nature and not a coded reference to your 'WPBannerMeta' in particular. My point was that attempts at broad standardization and central control don't merely inconvenience coalface editors but also frequently don't work. Anyway, in order to make this as clear as possible, my understanding at the moment is that 'WPBannerMeta' is not the immediate cause of the TOCs unravelling — or at least I'm working on that assumption. -- Klein zach  09:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is quite simply not correct. This is a static archive of Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart using the version of before the conversion to WPBannerMeta.   This is the same page using this version of the composers template, before Alanbly's edits.  In neither case are there the issues with the ToC that are observed after Alanbly's edits.  Doing the same thing on Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven produces a ToC with only two duplicated heaaders, not three; this is as expected since there is still the duplication from the transclusions from the WikiProject Deaf and WikiProject Biography banners.  As noted below, the only complete solution is to remove the section headers from the /Comments subpage. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What is not correct? I think you've just confirmed what I said (1) "The TOC problems predated Alanbly's [edit]", and (2) " 'WPBannerMeta' is not the immediate cause of the TOCs unravelling." If you could concentrate on making your comments as clear as possible if would be appreciated. This technical stuff can be a big waste of time for people who want to actually work on articles. -- Klein zach  00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comment "The TOC problems predated Alanbly's addition of the Comments window (which was actually requested unlike the changes you made)", taken in context, gives me the clear impression that you still considered the template to be 'responsible' for the ToC problems, and that Alanbly's edits were not the trigger.  My apologies if I have interpreted that comment incorrectly.  My response was merely to demonstrate the incorrectness of that statement in that context.  The ToC "problems" have been present in the /Comments subpages for however long; the problem only becomes visible when two banners that both transclude the /Comments subpage are added to the page; by changing the composers banner to behave in such a way, Alanbly's edits made the problem visible on a significantly greater number of articles.
 * I apologise if my general comments are confusing, particularly with regards to the request for a solution. However, if you ask a technical question, you must expect a somewhat technical answer.  I hope my suggested solutions "The only way to avoid these problems is either not to transclude the comments subpage, or to not use section headers within the comments" from ten days ago are more accessible. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 08:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've now referred this to the Village Pump (Technical) here, in the hope of finding someone who can solve this problem. -- Klein zach  00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Anomie (at the the Village Pump Technical) has suggested this solution:


 * Remove the headings (== or &lt;h#> style) from the /Comments subpage; you can emulate them with appropriate inline styles on a  if you really want. 


 * -- Klein zach  01:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)