Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 23

Archives Table of Contents

Is Twice through the Heart an opera?
Working through my opera programmes, I discovered I had the text and programme notes for this Turnage piece that ENO performed with From the House of the Dead about ten years back, describing it as a Monodrama. However I don't detect a clear narrative thread, rather it seems to be the reminiscences of an imprisoned woman who killed her violent husband. SO... what does the hosue think? --Peter cohen 23:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. I don't know the work, however Grove has an article on 'monodrama' tracing it back to Rousseau's Pygmalion. If the Turnage was intended for the stage, rather than the concert platform, then I think it does qualify for inclusion here. -- Kleinzach 00:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to User:Brian Joseph Morgan to join WPO
I've just noticed a minor addition by the above user to the Wieland Wagner page and, having looked at his contributions which seem to be mainly about opera singers, I decided to encourage him this way. With luck he might even know somethign about those singers we want articles on.--Peter cohen 07:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, new users will not be aware of the Opera Project so it's a good idea to let them know they can get help etc. here.-- Kleinzach 00:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Rossini’s Tancredi
Could someone look at Rossini’s Tancredi. Someone added "For the fictional characters of the series Prison Break, see Sara Tancredi and Frank Tancredi". May I know what is the connection between those last name and the opera? It doesnt look "right" to me. - Jay 14:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about Prison Break, but it's not impossible that people interested in it might do a WP search for just "Tancredi" and end up at the opera (with which there is indeed no connection). There are similar examples already existing elsewhere, for example at Gloriana and Otello.  The alternative, when there are more than a few similar names, is a dab page, as with Giulio Cesare or Rienzi. --GuillaumeTell 17:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, och, nothing evil here, perfectly plausible. Here's one that's good fun: Pot-pourri. Plants and music, eh? I remember creating the musical article with Meladina when we discovered that linking in a musical context went to the plant article. Moreschi Talk 19:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox discussion at WikiProject Composers
Is here, for those who may not be watching the page. Fireplace 20:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The contagion of edit warring: need for a code of behaviour?
This project used to be friendly - that's why it was successful, that's why we all enjoyed being here. In the last month we have seen edit warring over infoboxes, preemptive editing and warring over categories, and this morning I see there is a new edit war breaking out over lists, see List of opera houses.

I think we should make it clear that this is not the way we want it. I propose we put the following on the Project page.

''The Opera Project believes in collaboration. Proposals regarding major or controversial issues are made on the Talk Page. They are then discussed by interested editors and contributors. Consensus is reached, if necessary through compromise. Only then are decisions implemented. The project deplores preemptive editing and edit warring.''

All comments, criticisms, alternative ideas and rewording most welcome - but it's time to do something about this. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 02:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Remarkable. Andy Mabbett 10:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is a helpful comment how, POTW? Not in the slightest. Please only comment when you actually have something constructive to say.


 * Yes, I think it's OK, though I'd cut the bit about "preemptive editing". People should be be BOLD, and the Bold, revert, discuss cycle is a good idea, but once there's been one revert matters then should be discussed, either here or on the article talk or on user talk, or wherever is appropriate. Of course, if people refuse to discuss, then you have a problem, but we should certainly encourage discussion. Moreschi Talk 10:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit warring is always a bad idea, in any context, and it is already covered by Edit war, so the proposal is at best superfluous ... and as Moreschi points out, the bit about "preemptive editing" conflicts with normal wikipedia editing guidelines.
 * Morever, I suggest that this proposal is based on a severely mistaken understanding about the role of a Wikiproject, which is "a resource to help coordinate and organize article writing". It is not the central committee for controlling those pages, and it does not have WP:OWNership of the projects within its area of work, so should not presume to suggest that it has "control" over those pages or a right to define its own code of conduct in relation to their editing.
 * Unfortunately, the usefulness of this project as a space to collaborate is undermined by the openly-expressed desire of some project members to drive out newcomers, and by the desire of some project members to stop work on issues where they don't want to become involved.
 * Avoiding disputes and edit warring is a fine aim, but this proposal tackles it from the wrong angle. Problems such as that are avoided by building and encouraging collaboration and discussion, but that is not happening here: there are only 4 or 5 regular participants on this project's talk pages, and in the last week alone, two newcomers have been driven out.
 * If you want the project to help avoid problems, then you need to extend the same friendliness to newcomers as you should amongst the small group of regular participants ... and you need to accept that editors will participate in the project only if it becomes a place where new perspectives can be aired without attempts to shut down the discussion.
 * In other words, fix the project and you stand a chance of turning it into a place where problems can be fixed ... but you won't fix the problems by insisting that a small group of editors have a veto on issues which they don't want to consider, and that newcomers can be attacked for raising issues that others don't see as a priority for them.
 * As Moreschi says, "if people refuse to discuss, then you have a problem". Unfortunately, that's how this project is working at the moment :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I only joined the project on April 20th this year, hardly a long time ago. I found welcomes here or on my home page from three people and was helped to Wikifi my first article, received a positive comment on my second article, and my suggestion of a Verdi month was taken up. And I've seen another newcomer's suggestion on Polish translation accepted. I therefore don't think there are huge hostilities to newcomers as you allege. Maybe certain newcomers also contribute to how they are received. --Peter cohen 10:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to everybody. This is not meant to retrospective. 'Preemptive editing' is perhaps an awkward phrase. What I was referring to was editing before discussion. IMO we have been successful when we talked first, defined an objective and all worked together to an agreed standard of accuracy. An excellent example of collaboration was the List of opera librettists. Anyway I hope we can agree a text expressing our values to go on the project page. -- Kleinzach 11:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If people don't like WP:BOLD, there are processes by which it can be changed or overturned, but editing before discussion is a crucial part of the way that wikipedia works; WP:BOLD is an official guideline, and this project has no business trying to override it. The issue which needs to be addressed here is how to ensure that discussion can take place if edits prove to be controversial. Discussion beforehand may sometimes be useful too, but that cannot be imposed.
 * In any case, it seems to me set a very bad precedent for a project to define values other than those generally defined on wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:BOLD: (quote) It does require some amount of politeness. -- Kleinzach 11:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite. That's a point I have raised a few days ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested rephrase:"Edit warring is evil and strongly deplored, so don't. Be bold, and encourage others to be so, but if you encounter opposition discuss matters calmly, either with the user in question on the article's talk page, or here if preferred. Do not continue reverting in a revert-war."

That's in line with policy. There's no reason why we can't have our own abbreviation of it. I find suggestions of any hostility to newcomers rather misplaced. Newcomers are usually welcomed, and on several occasions we've fixed up copy-editing arrangements for those for whom English is not their first language. I do not recognise large portions of the above criticism as being in touch with the record. Moreschi Talk 11:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Moreschi, I wasn't trying to get at you, but I'm afraid that the recent record tells a different story. Anyway, reminders of wikipedia policies guidelines are fine, and your suggested para is a big improvement. I suggest a further rewording and a slight extension:
 * "Edit warring is disruptive and deplored, so don't. Be bold, and encourage others to be so, but if you encounter opposition discuss matters calmly, either with the user in question on the article's talk page, or here if preferred. Do not continue reverting in a revert-war. Please remember to be WP:CIVIL at all times, and remember that you may be wrong; do not assume that someone with whom you disagree misunderstands what they are talking about."


 * The recent record tells us what some peole think of your size 12 boots, and it tells a very different story of how other new members like myself get treated. --Peter cohen 12:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Peter, that's really not necessary, though I do think BrownHairedGirl's making a slight mountain out of a molehill. Let's just all be nice to another, be nice to everyone, work happily together, AGF etc, and we'll all live happily together. There's been some misunderstandings - talk about operas thought of as being talk about people - but everyone can live happily with each other. Really. Love and peace for all, and drinks on the house.


 * Yes, that addition to what I wrote sounds fine. Moreschi Talk 12:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have largely stayed away from the Opera project for the last year because of one editor's unpleasantness. Perhaps if this editor were kinder to everyone, newbies would feel more welcome. I notice that this editor is very civil to some people, but caustic and unpleasant to others. I'm just mentioning my own experience here, since you brought up the subject. -- Ssilvers 13:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes (sigh), lamentably, you and Kleinzach not getting on, for whatever unfortunate reason, is one of Wikipedia's few constants. Neither of you can be that evil, since I've worked very successfully with both. Moreschi Talk 13:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal on my side (I ignore ad hominem attacks) and may I say I think the G & S project has been a great success. However we can't, unfortunately, leave bad work uncorrected even if some people's feelings are hurt in the process. We have to keep up our standards. -- Kleinzach 02:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion?
We've been diverted. Is there agreement on using Moreschi's version on the project page? Here it is again:

"Edit warring is evil and strongly deplored, so don't. Be bold, and encourage others to be so, but if you encounter opposition discuss matters calmly, either with the user in question on the article's talk page, or here if preferred. Do not continue reverting in a revert-war."

But is it adequate as a reference to use when an edit war starts, bearing in mind that aggressive behavoiur almost always precedes the socializing experience here? Here is an alternative:

"The Opera Project believes in collaboration and compromise. Edit warring is evil and strongly deplored, so don't do it. Take the initiative and be bold, but if you encounter opposition discuss matters calmly, either with the user in question on the article's talk page, or here if a wider audience is desirable. Do not indulge in a revert-war."

(Hoping we can cut the WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! to a minimum. The text above also doesn't deal with bots and AWB editing so I am going to make a separate suggestion to cover these later.) -- Kleinzach 03:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now added a version of this to the Project Page. -- Kleinzach 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

German Wikipedia and Salieri
I'll be away for a chunk of August so I've been doing some work on the composers agreed for then in advance. Note for those writing Salieri articles: our German friends appear to have excellent coverage of Salieri's operas, as can be seen here, where there are plenty of bluelinks. There's no reason why we can't translate their material for use over here, and when writing articles here we should remember to do the interwiki links (format: Article title over there/Name of opera . Cheers, Moreschi Talk 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Catherine Malfitano
I wrote about Catherine Malfitano, the existing article was too short with only 2 lines. BTW, do we have any standard format for operatic performers to follow? It would be great if any of you could put up a photo to her article. - Jay 15:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We haven't done much work on singers yet, especially contemporary ones. I can't think of a good model offhand, though you could look at some of the excellent biographies being done by our new member, Brian Morgan, such as Karan Armstrong. There are also good sections in different articles, e.g. Maria_Callas which might also serve as a model for a dated list of roles. (Also please no infobox!). For picture please contact Malfitano's agent. -- Kleinzach 00:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No info box ? But Maria Callas has it, and others too like Pavarotti, Carreras, Domingo .. many more. - Jay 01:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Only very prominent singers (unfortunately) have them, invariably with non-free dealing pictures which shouldn't be there, One of the non-aesthetic reasons for avoiding them is that we are going to have a series of flag-decorated nationality wars if they are applied to earlier singers. -- Kleinzach 02:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Only very prominent singers - Poor Malfitano. Ok I will remove it. - Jay 04:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no, what I meant was that it was unfortunate that any serious artist had them. Those boxes are just for popular singers. No disrespect intended to Malfitano! -- Kleinzach 04:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

List of categories for the bot User:Peter cohen/opera categories
I have now created a working list of categories to give to Satyrbot.

The conversation on the bot has got a bit fragmented and it will make life easier for me, now that the list has been created if all the talk happens in this topic. Below are a number of topics for discussion or decisions I've made. Please comment under each. So I have only one place to look.

opera oratorios
In a reply to a question above, please note that there is Category:Opera oratorios. This is the obvious place to put all those awkward cases. It belongs both to the operas and oratorios categories. I've included it in the list, but not oratorios.

Gilbert and Sullivan
G&S tagged items will be ignored. I have removed Category:Operas by Arthur Sullivan, and categories with G&S in the name from the list for the bot.

Wagner
I am including Wagner in the list for the bot. Last time I looked there were only two of us signed up for it. Category:Richard Wagner has been included, but I have pruned the subcategories such as Wagnerites and anti-Wagnerites.

operettas
I notice that Category:Operettas by Johann Strauss II appears in the list of operas by composers, but a similar list for Lehar does not. Given the name, I would prefer to position it under Category:Operettas. What do others think?


 * IMO these should all be in Operas by composer. We don't have 'Opéras comiques by Adolf Blanc', 'Singspiele by Ludwig Schütz' (it would make everything too complicated and fragmentary) so we shouldn't have them for operetta either. -- Kleinzach 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree with you here. I was tempted to go in and rename the category even before I posted the main post here. --Peter cohen 08:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Operas by composername will make sense for all the operetta composers (but shouldn't there be a minimum number of operas by each composer with his/her own category?). -- Ssilvers 14:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No. For example, Category:Operas by Ludwig van Beethoven is required for this sort of Bot operation - see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music. --GuillaumeTell 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now gone and done the deed and repalced with Operas by JS2

singers
I have explicitly included categories with opera or operatic in their names, e.g. category:Welsh operatic baritones. I have excluded more general categories such as category:sopranos, as they might not all sing opera. I have decided, however, to include category:divas, as they are more or less by definition operatic.


 * The vast majority of opera singers are categorized simply as sopranos, tenors, baritones etc rather than 'operatic' sopranos etc. because these are opera subcategories, as listed on our project page. For example the soprano category contains 382 sopranos, while the whole opera singers cat only has 104 items. (Also note the cat. you give category:Welsh operatic baritones which only has two names.) IMO we have to include the Soprano etc. categories even if we catch the odd popular singer in the process. (Of course if someone could cull the 'interlopers' that would be great.) -- Kleinzach 01:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Having become aware of the official approach for musical performer catgories where the combination nationality-genre-instrument (e.g. category:Ruritanian operatic nose-flute players) is the official way of breaking things down by performer, then I think we do need to sort things out. (Not that I'm volunteering myself for this task certainly in the short term.) We either need to fill out at the level of category:Welsh opera singers etc. or decide that the level of category:Welsh operatic baritones is our preferred bottom category. I know someone (possibly you) suggested higher up that not everything has to be decided on for the first run of the bot and that we might leave people out. My pressent line is that we include the people who are definitely ours in the first run (i.e. in opera/operatic categories and leave the others to be sorted until things are cleaner. But lets gather a few more views first. Oh and we do need to decide whether opera or operatic is our preferred adjective and be consistent.--Peter cohen 08:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes this is a huge job. I believe there are approaching 1,000 articles on opera singers. (Problems include the large number of American categories unmatched by other nationalities, the borderline categories like diva, soubrette etc. and the pop singers included.) -- Kleinzach 09:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've now discovered someoen in divas who isn't an opera singer, so I'll remove it. Soubrettes and heldentenors surely are operatic, but I shan't include them for now. --Peter cohen 10:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Heldentenors yes, soubrettes not necessarily! -- Kleinzach 10:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. Emma Bunton aka Baby Spice is apparently a Soubrette. Heldentenors are all ours. --Peter cohen 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I usually recommend that categories for the bot to work on have at least an 80% hit rate. My suspicion is that "sopranos" will yield less than that.  You might want to add a section to the category list of "categories that are part of the project but not for the bot". -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Intersting idea. Goes off to produce such a list. --Peter cohen 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have worked on the sopranos cat in the past and I believe it's over 90% opera. The other ones: mezzos, altos, tenors, baritones, bases etc are close to 100%. (There are very few oratorio-only, lieder-only singers.) This is important because about one third of our total 3,000-odd articles are in these categories.-- Kleinzach 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:Altos, Category:Contraltos, Category:Countertenors, Category:Bass-baritones, Category:Basses and Category:Mezzo-sopranos are 100% opera now (plus the obvious cross-overs) - after removing the odd interloper. -- Kleinzach 06:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

new categories
If you create a new category or have done so after 12 on today's datestamp, then please let me know, as I shan't be keeping an eye out for new categories. I have noticed, for example, that not all the opera by year categories exist. If new ones get added and I don't know, then the bot won't know either. Similarly, I shall at some point be creating a category for operas by John Metcalf. I shall have to remind myself to add it to the bot list.


 * English comic operas has been approved and will replace Comic operas very shortly. -- Kleinzach 01:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll keep an eye on the situation and send the list to SatyrTN based on whatever is current at the time.--Peter cohen 08:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * About half of the opera composers have 'Operas by Joe Smith' cats. (I have been adding quite a few recently.) However operas are quite heavily categorized so you shouldn't miss many (i.e. they will be in either one cat or another). People are much more of problem. -- Kleinzach 22:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I've added the odd couple. Lehar, since I noticed its absence. Turnage, once I wrote The Silver Tassie (proof-readers welcome on the article). Will add others as I tinker with articles.

As for the singer categories, should we perhaps have operatic sopranos etc.? If other music projects decide that it is sensible and appropriate to classify e.g. jazz singers by voice range, then without our name on the class, we'll have little argument for keeping them out.--Peter cohen 11:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ever since I've been here, the Opera Project page has specified that singers go in Category:Sopranos etc. (Specific opera singer cats were never developed, except the opera singers by country series.) You could obviously make a case for reforming the cats and creating new ones like 'Opera sopranos'. but it would be a major operation (because of the huge numbers) and would have to be done in some kind of automated way (AWB or whatever). As I have said elsewhere, I've been through all the major voice types Category:Basses, Category:Baritones etc., except the large Category:Sopranos and Category:Tenors, and they are are all 100% operatic now. (There were very few pages to remove.) -- Kleinzach 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ignoring tenors and sopranos until my next paragraph, then, I rather agree with Peter cohen that it would be good if we could have sub-categories with "our name on the class" for all the other operatic voices. The classes Basses, Baritones, etc., tout court could then be used for singers who specialise(d) in oratorio, lieder, etc.


 * Tenors and sopranos present different problems. The Tenors category currently includes Russell Watson, Bruce Woodley, Barry Gibb and various other suspicious characters (and check out the sub-category Category:American tenors!).  I personally would like to see operatic tenors in their own category or categories - though we'd probably have to expend a lot of effort on people who think that Watson is an operatic tenor (he's never, AFAIK, sung in an actual opera).


 * Same for sopranos (Charlotte Church is in Category:British sopranos). (And, by the way,  why are Altos and Contraltos in different categories when the article Contralto redirects to Alto?) --GuillaumeTell 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wondered about that too. When I try to distinguish them, I think of contraltos as always female, whilst alto can be short hand for contralto, an adjective to describe a clef and certain varietoes of instrument that use it, a boy who isn't a treble or an adult male falsettist. Contralto is probably where most of the women should go. --Peter cohen 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see where you (Kleinzach) are coming from. If we don't create operatic tenors etc, then we can have all the opera singers in their voice range or type category but then they should be in category:Opera singers too. It's all very well to cleanse the voice ranges, but category:Whistle register singers is almost exclusively non-operatic and once its appropriate to put non-operatic singers in one category, it's hard to defend cleansing them from the others. --Peter cohen 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What we are talking about here is the bot run, not reform of the category system however desirable that may be. (Obviously we need to sort out altos/contraltos (volunteers?) and please note category:Whistle register singers has never been used/recognized here - it's a pop-inspired cat that non-one has ever succeeded in deleting).


 * It's essential not to exclude hundreds of opera articles simply because two or three cross-over artists are listed. It makes no sense to include 'Austrian operatic baritones' (1 entry) and exclude 'Baritones' (25 entries), 'Bass-baritones' (34 entries) and 'Basses' (53 entries), simply because we don't like the cat system.


 * The amount of weeding out I've done has been minimal because (1) there were no lieder-only, or oratorio-only singers listed (I thought Elly Ameling qualified as but it seems she did an opera) and almost no jazz singers. (2) The pop singers are almost all in the country (read America) cats which I think should be excluded from the run. (3) many of the deletions were TV actors etc. (given extravagant lists of categories by fans) who shouldn't have been in any voice category at all.


 * SatyrTN said above that we needed an 80% hit rate. If you look at the cats in question you will see that we are in the region of 95 to 100%, probably closer to the latter. -- Kleinzach 00:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now checked Category:sopranos: There are 360 opera singers and 17 others (5 musicals, 3 cross-over, 2 folk, 1 classical (not opera), 1 films, 1 celtic, 1 mariachi, 1 pop, and 1 everything). The cat is thus 95.5% opera. (I haven't removed the so-called interlopers yet (list: Julie Anthony, Kvitka Cisyk, Joan Diener, Judith Durham, Alice Swanson Esty, Susanna Foster, Holly Holyoake, Thérèse Karlsson, Judy Kuhn, Jeanette MacDonald, Tina May, Lani Misalucha, Pzazz, Lucha Reyes, Deirdre Shannon, Hayley Westenra, Kathy Westmoreland''). -- Kleinzach 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If we have the list of "interlopers", then it should be easy to do the run once on sopranos and then de-tag them. The same with other vocal categories. And we can have a policy that new articles on opera singers get put in the opera singer categories. And when anyone edits an article on a singer they can try to remember to check if opera-singer tag is there appropriately. --Peter cohen 10:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think its a good idea to use opera singers cats (which ones?), can you make a proposal on a new heading? If a system is agreed we will need to change the instructions on the Project page, and move the existing articles to the correct categories. (N.B. Most contributors of singer articvles are outside the project. They just follow the categorization of the existing pages.)


 * If you can wait until Monday, I'll do the Tenors cat (with interloper list). The rest is finished, I think. -- Kleinzach 02:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Waiting for Monday is fine. If you can let SatyrTN know when you're ready. I don't have to act as a middle run. Then there can be a one off run with the voice categories and we can do the full run with the rest. I think we can also move the category list from being attached to my user page to being attached to the project page. --Peter cohen 10:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The opera tag
Can we please review it before we set things going. In particular, are we going to include ratings? And as we have a bot tagging articles have just created with their own sweat and tears, is it politer to change the opening to "This article falls within the scope of WikiProject:Opera" which strikes me as less aggressive.


 * The opera tag can be amended at any time. I personally think it needs a new graphic and smaller, less obtrusive text.


 * Ratings/assessments is a major subject and a separate debate would be needed. Many of us are reluctant to get involved in this, but I've come round to thinking it may be a necessary evil. I'll start a topic below about this. -- Kleinzach 02:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to comments --Peter cohen 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)