User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Weihnachtsoratorium

Thanks for details in Christmas Oratorio! If you have time for Wespen zu Weihnachten, look at a discussion about Siegfried Palm. Deutsch ist schwer, smile. Es begann harmlos damit, dass ich fand, wenn schon Grancinos Mailand verlinkt ist (wieso eigentlich nicht Milano, wenn der "richtige" Name so wichtig ist?), sollte auch Banff es sein. de:Siegfried Palm kann sich nicht mehr wehren ... - Do you think our preliminary talk:Siegfried Palm might be archived to have the relevant Stockhausen-Palm-comments "on top" (never did that so far)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I had great fun last year adding details to the Christmas Oratorio; these days, it's just minor corrections.
I can't decide whether the discussion about the Banff Centre (a sensible page title) is from a Python sketch or from a Becket or Ionesco play. But seriously: ex cathedra attitudes like those of Jesi have me persuaded to limit my editing on the German Wikipedia to an absolute minimum.
The page Talk:Siegfried Palm is technically nowhere near a requirement to be archived, but that can easily be done manually using the templates {{Archive box}} and {{Talkarchivenav}} (as here on my talk page) or other similar templates, or automatically using the methods described at Help:Archiving a talk page#Automated archival. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If the former discussion was Beckett, what's this then? (2 questions, the first one being - well - no polite word at hand, + I removed the word "unsachgemäß" from the article's Einleitung a second time). This seemed absolutely neccessary. I keep de-WP to the limit when I'm personally interested - risking Interessenkonflikt, as in de:Ingeborg von Zadow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hoping you celebrated Christmas well (we sang Bach), I would like to point you to de-WO again - where you'll find familiar tables now (wasn't my idea but a good one). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course I'm glad to see the table from Christmas Oratorio being used in Weihnachts-Oratorium. In due course, I'm going to transfer the additional information in the DE table back into EN. However, I'm not enough of a Bach scholar to translate the wonderful analyses from that article. (I also think that the illustration File:BWV 248 Architektur.pdf is a bit too crude for the standard of the DE article.)
As for HIP performance practices: I'm quite glad those weren't heard of in the 70s when I sang in (or rather "was part of") the choir for a performance of the WO in the Hans-Sachs-Haus in Gelsenkirchen – "the bigger the better" was the motto then, and only a very large choir could allow singers with very limited ability to take part. The number and concentration of females was quite an incentive to turn up for practice, and I still remember fondly a particularly attractive alto, who, unlike almost all sopranos, did not have a built-in aversion to basses – unexpected side effects of liturgical music performances (is there a thesis is that?) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy new year with the invitation to preview and improve great WO-Bass singer User:Gerda_Arendt/Klaus_Mertens who graced our last MP (google his name and mine) - in German as of very early this morning. "Normdaten" was in the copied version and seems to work somehow. Did you notice that de-WO now also copied en-discography (Mertens twice, poor fellow has to be addressed in German as "(Sänger)", guess why, continuing education). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You were so helpful to replace footballer by conductor, add cats, etc.! I added Buxtehude now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language capitalization

See here for a proposal. --Kleinzach 12:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done a draft, see User:Kleinzach/Draft. Please feel free to improve it. You may be able to think of better examples. --Kleinzach 03:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Seems clear enough to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This now has a shortcut WP:CAPM. --Kleinzach 06:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Template "Go to top"

Hi Michael, I'm curious why you removed Template:Go to top from Catalog of adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed that rarely used template because it clutters an article and its purpose is much easier achieved by a browser's built-in functionality (Ctrl+Home). The main focus of my edit was the correction of "transcendante", triggered by this erroneous edit; the removal of {{Go to top}} was incidental, but I think it improved the article's appearance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I was unaware of that functionality. On my computer (Apple MacBook) it did not work, but I looked in Help and found I have to use Function + Left arrow. You are right about the template being rarely used, since I created it only a short time ago. The Busoni list of works pages that I use a lot are fairly long and I found myself using <Page up> or the scroll bar a lot to get to the TOC which was always inconvenient, so I investigated and discovered the wikicode "[[#top]]" and added the template mainly as an experiment to solve the navigation problem (and to learn a bit about creating a template). (Perhaps the wiki code was created in the days before browsers had these capabilities.) I tried to make the links as unobtrusive as possible, but I agree it may not be a great solution. But it's possible a lot of people are unaware of these special key strokes, and the links could be useful to them. However, that page is not the longest, so I won't add them back. I wonder whether you would be willing to leave the template in place for a while on the other pages where I added them, so that I can find out whether there are other editors like you who think it should be removed.
  • BTW, thanks for correcting the spelling error.
  • Re: hyphen vs. ndash. I noticed you did not use the Template:Ndash. I researched the endash issue a bit. There is an amazingly long discussion about the use of spaces with endash. I read through a lot of it. Doesn't seem to be a consensus on a lot of issues. But I like what you did (using the actual character rather than the template), so I extended those edits to some of the other pages I have worked on.
  • Re: "Op." The books I used as sources for the Busoni works lists (Beaumont and Kindermann) used "op.". I seem to remember checking Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Style guidelines and not finding any guidance, followed the books. But looking around at other articles, "Op." seems to be preferred, so I have also also edited some of the other pages to make that change as well. I think perhaps we should add guidance to the Project Guidelines page. Would we have to open a discussion, or could we add it and just see whether anyone objects? (It seems like a fairly minor issue, but I'm probably wrong considering some of the things which become contentious on the Wikipedia.)

Thanks for your input on everything. (You've helped me out before, as well.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Apple has done wonderful things in product design and their operating systems are always touchstones for other companies, but their Human Interface Design is often infuriating; I would intuit that Function + Left arrow takes me back to the previously visited page. — Now that you mention it, I remember that very early in the development of the World Wide Web and browsers, many sites had pages with such Go to top links; not so much these days. If I should see a need to edit a page which has those templates, I will leave them.
  • I, too, have read many paragraphs on various dashes and their styling. The essence I have extracted is that the standard hyphen found on all keyboards is only used to hyphenate, for compound words and for prefixes. Year ranges, match results, non-simple compounds (e.g. Bose–Einstein condensate), and parenthetical phrases use the n-dash, or, for the last, the m-dash. Dashes are not spaced for number ranges and for non-simple compounds, but they are spaced for dates if these consist of more than only year numbers. N-dashes are spaced on both sides if used for parenthetical expression, m-dashes in that case are either not spaced at all or only on the outer sides. These are the rules I remember and I apply them in articles which need editing for some more substantial reason. The use of the template {{Ndash}} has some advantages, as it applies a leading non-breaking space, but it makes the wiki code a bit more difficult to read. I might take it up in the future. On the other hand, the use of {{Mdash}} is discouraged.
  • There were some discussions about the correct way to spell work numbers; several different conventions, especially when applied to particular catalogues, were mentioned, and I don't remember that a definitive format was selected, although for opus numbers it was clear that "Op." was preferred. I agree with you suggestion to separate the opus number on both sides with a comma ("Piano Sonata No. 32 in C minor, Op. 111, by Beethoven"). The strongest wording I've found is this somewhat unlikely place: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#Abbreviations.
All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge into sortable table

21st-century

I'm suggesting the merger of these lists into one sortable table:

See here. Assuming this is accepted, I'm wondering if you have any ideas about how to do the merger as cleanly and painlessly as possible? --Kleinzach 03:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've now done a version of the first list here. Obviously the dates are sortable but not the names. Anyway I would be interested in your comments. --Kleinzach 10:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to merge those three lists and apply the sort tags for names (via some macro coding in my text editor), although the temporal inclusion criterion is unclear to me (20th vs. 21st). At any rate, there is of course substantial overlap with the three corresponding lists for the 20th century. I'll get on to the merging business which will take some time. Do you want me to apply the sort tags for names first in your draft version (which can be done quickly) and then see to the more time consuming merging? I assume the name for the merged list will be List of 21st-century classical composers? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
That's great. Is it possible to join in the discussion here, which has moved on a little since I wrote to you. The others are new to 'sortability' but suitably impressed! (The inclusion criterion (20th vs. 21st) is something I was not going to touch for the present!) If you have a way of rapidly putting in sort tags for names in my draft that's great. I'd like to move it onto the article page as soon as possible so other people can edit the selection. --Kleinzach 07:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
To answer your other question, yes List of 21st-century classical composers looks OK. --Kleinzach 11:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

20th-century

I'm also recommending a merger of the 20th-century lists:

— in this case to the 'birth date' list. Rather different from the 21st century. I'd be interested in your ideas, assuming the merger is accepted.--Kleinzach 12:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to merge the 15 tables at List of 20th-century classical composers by birth date into one, split the "Years" column into "Birth" and "Death" and apply sort tags to the "Name" column, if that is agreed upon. However, the other two lists (by name, by death date) don't seem to be as well maintained and as developed as … by birth date, especially by name contains oodles of red links. I would suggest just to reorganise birth date and delete or abandon the other two. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any demand for action. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I missed your reply of 21 December. I'm in agreement with your suggestions. I think it's worth doing. --Kleinzach 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to merge those tables without any positive feedback to the proposal. Also: if consensus on the merge should now develop, please note that I don't have much time to do much on Wikipedia this Wednesday and Thursday. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
OK. I've referred this to the Composers Project here. --Kleinzach 00:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Tales of Hoffmann discography

This is another table which you may not have seen. There's a discussion here. I'm wondering if you have any ideas for making it look better, perhaps with multiple columns for the singers? Thanks. --Kleinzach 01:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the page, and it's indeed a bit unwieldy. It seems to me that, departing from the usual table layout, a list might me easier to read. It's too late now to present an example, but I'll get back to this tomorrow. Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language capitalization

Hi. I am slowly checking CM article titles for correct capitalization, moving pages if and when necessary. I'm basically checking 'Compositions by . . .' cats, composer by composer (see User:Kleinzach/Capitalization). It's a bore, of course, but I think it needs to be done. Predictably most of the problems are with French capitalization rather than German or Italian. I don't know whether you might be interested in helping with this? Covering German perhaps? Please don't hesitate to say no! --Kleinzach 02:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I naturally come across a few German compositions on Wikipedia, and when their title is wrong, I suggest a page move on its discussion page and perform the move, if no-one else does it. I had a brief look at some of the German entries at the Category:Compositions by composer, and I didn't find find any immediate howlers, maybe because a lot of them use non-German titles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
List of compositions by Johannes Brahms has some mistakes. Anyway I'm going to concentrate on French titles as I seem to be the only person working in that area. --Kleinzach 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
So far, only actual article titles raised my concern. I'll have a look at that list and see what I can do. All the misspellings in that list seem to have been done deliberately. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been correcting the 'Lists of compositions by . . .' in the hope of nipping problems in the bud, probably forlorn of course . . . --Kleinzach 11:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
List of compositions by Johannes Brahms:  Done. — Next for the removal of sound files at Johannes Brahms#Media – probably tomorrow. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

{{WPBiography}} for musical works?

You have added the Template:WPBiography to scores of musical works. Why? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Musical groups are part of WPBiography. Which article do you have in mind? Did you check if there was any human category (i.e. xxxx births, xxxx deaths, Living people, etc) in the article? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Found and fixed. As it's written in Yobot's page, mistakes can be done due to wrong categorisation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion here. At most 111 articles were affected. All part of Category:Johann Strauss II. Do you want me to check and fix? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't keep writing in my bot's talk page because the problem found and fixed. Now we are in the phase of reverting the affected pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I was under the impression it was customary that a discussion continues where it started.
It would be helpful if you could revert.
I don't quite understand the cause of the problem, nor how you fixed it. If those birth/death categories in Category:Johann Strauss II were wrong, aren't all the other personal categories also wrong and should be removed? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I 'll copy the whole discussion in my bot's page when it ends to prevent more interruptions.
I didn't check the sup and sub categorisation of Johan Strauss II in detail. I am more interested in birth/death/people categories. Yobot is running only in subcats of these 3 kinds. So it won't again re-tag these pages now. In an hour Yobot will finish tagging. The rest pages are outside- Johan Strauss II. I'll go and revert the affected pages. I can also check if the rest of categories apply to Johan Strauss II. Thanks again, Magioladitis (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Magioladitis/Yobot not to do any other composers as there are probably others that are categorized in a similar way. (In any case no-one needs these Biography Project banners as there is no human backup for them. All they do is take assessments off other banners by bot. They are just spam.) --Kleinzach 14:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The categories I am working today (1810s, 1820s, 1830s births) are now clean of unnecessary categories. I 'll do a scan later today for more. Sorry for any inconvenience. I think I can switch back to my normal account now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
1800s, 1840s, 1850s, 1860s, 1870s births were clean. Thanks once again for reporting. Magioladitis (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong tags removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Listen

Michael, I'd welcome your comments on Template_talk:Listen#Increasing_the_width_of_this_box. I created {{listen300}} based on your idea. SunCreator (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox "docs" and "codes" etc

I float all this stuff here rather than in the RfC to avoid distraction and tangents. Ignore if tl;dr applies...!

I have to admit that I don't really understand how infoboxes work. By "doc" I meant the blurb on the /doc page whereby the infobox fields and parameters are defined. Apparently that by no means contains all of the coding. Indeed, some of the fields are made to appear as different text when transcluded e.g. "alias" → "also known as" in {{tl:Infobox musical artist}} and other non-obvious things happen, too, like whole new sections appearing in the transcluded box as the result of a particular field/parameter combination. Presumably, all of that is controlled by some subpage or other or by the main coding in the actual template page? Anyway, what I meant by saying "changing the doc for a box is actually quite a diff[ic]ult process" was that it isn't a simple matter of getting to the template page and clicking "edit this page". Indeed the tab "edit this page" is not even included for template pages: the tab is actually named "view source", the page being protected! Furthermore, you have to hunt around even just for any link to the "doc" subpage. The other subpages are completely invisible as far as I can tell...

Ok, obviously, the "ardent tinkerers" and "lovers-of-all-thing-boxey" will understand this stuff and know how to design and edit these templates but it does indeed appear that none of these people are taking any interest in either the discussion or the new infobox template. After all this is an RfC and links to it are posted all over the place! The only editor from the "outside" that seems to be participating in this discussion regularly is Quiditty—though a few others make the odd useful comment now and then (but none appear to be "militant pro-infobox activists", as it were). Note that neither #7 nor #8 of Drhoehl's poll were endorsed (nor was #6, for that matter). Undoubtedly, most of us at Composers are pretty open minded on this stuff and have vast reserves of Common Sense to draw upon in making relevant edits. The fact that Quiddity's box is relatively simple suggests that it should also be relatively simple to maintain, even by simple reverts of any docpage edits.

BTW, Voc probably made the most important point by far so far: avoid changing boxes on FAs and FANs. Personally, I'd add GAs and GANs... Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 20:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

PS, I think I am actually confused about the way that WP:Templates work...

Merry Widow/Notability of Essgee Entertainment

Please see here. Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Joyce DiDonato

Well...Joyce DiDonato doesn't want her year of birth to be shown, I'm just respecting her will. -- Alixkovich (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Her date of birth is widely published on the public record and so, following long established practice, Wikipedia would be amiss not to mention it for such a notable person. As all versions of an article are kept in its history, simply deleting it from the current article is a futile exercise. If you want to pursue this further, I suggest you take it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh OK...I'm too young to deal with this...it's too complicated for me, so let's leave her year of birth. -- Alixkovich (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2010

Trouble Down Under

Dame Joan you ask? Not exactly. You were quite helpful in a prior case of an article with a serious ownership issue now resolved. I know you are overwhelmed with operatic edits but I have an issue with a New Zealander who owns an article (Russell Crowe[1] a baritone maybe?) and cited material gets reverted if it does suit the New Zealander. A Warning - his understanding of wikipedia concepts is shaky at best. If you could cruise over and take a look as you find the time I'd be most grateful. A comment or suggestion here would also be helpful Eudemis (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely improper to try and raise support by canvassing in this manner. And you are entirely all wet, I am not a New Zealand based editor, I live in the United States, and your continually stating I have ownership issues is a personal attack that simply must stop. I have based my objections to your edits in WP policy, including violations of WP:BLP, so you're all wet on that as well. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice username

It's pretty cool. Murray N. Rethbard 03:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Template

Whoops That was my mistake. I have fixed it myself on that page. Thanks for posting to my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mozart - Dies Irae

Hallo Michael, thanks for your diligent improvements on the Mozart C Minor and now the Dies Irae. Do you think you could also tackle the B Minor? The Nörgler is right that it has other issues than the name. - What I said about Mozart not even writing as much as Kyrie on top of the C Minor (just K) - could that be visualized as we did in 2008, [2], right side pic? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you want me to do with Mass in B Minor.
I've downloaded the first two pages of Mozart's autograph to the Kyrie from the Great Mass in C minor. I now have to massage them a bit and will upload them to Commons and then add them to the article; this might take a little time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for Mozart. As for Bach, I raised a question on its discussion page. Also I think a line like "The Credo may have been written in 1732." says about nothing, nothing about the different times for the different movements, for sure not that the "Et incarnatus" was written very late, the words contained in the preceeding duet first and then separated to a new movement. (If I would know more "exactly" I would do it myself.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the picture. I would like to know how to see also the second page larger and how the pic could be placed without making the contents difficult to read? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Folkwang University.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Folkwang University.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hear It See It Music

You have edited the article Hear It See It Music. Thank you for your help. I am the originator of the article and have new comments etc. on my talk page. Please review, I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. TK5610L (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in the subject of this article. My edits were merely formal. I'd prefer to keep the article, but I can't contribute anything substantial that would increase its chance of being retained. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

MOS

Regarding this: is this still a problem? See my comment . . . --Kleinzach 01:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I voiced my remaining concerns about the recent changes there, so far to a deafening silence. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I agree with you on all points. Why not go ahead and make the necessary corrections? --Kleinzach 23:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Repeated links

Regarding your revert at Metropolitan Opera: please consider WP:REPEATLINK, especially the first bullet point: "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first." I suggest you revert your revert. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for your comment. Markhh (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Michael, regarding canvassing or votestacking by User:DIREKTOR do you think it should be reported? Tanks, --Theirrulez (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cantata

Thanks for explaining the template that I didn't know. Can you imagine help for the article cantata? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That article is indeed sub-standard and a hodge-podge of ideas and examples. I've replaced the <insert expletive here> version of "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" with something more appropriate, but I can't really help much beyond that. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
That article was improved greatly over night (was much worse before), thank you, too, also for Herz und Mund. Btw we will sing a little Graham Waterhouse premiere on Sunday, starting on G, ending on A, I feel honoured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding good sound to the Bach cantata (on the Main page right now), and you will be impressed if you look at Cantata again, at least I am. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes indeed, Dr Kohl's contributions are most impressive; he probably deserves a Wikpedia page.
However, you might want to take care of a few infecilities on the Cantata page:
  1. It's not usually Georg Friedrich Telemann but Georg Philipp Telemann;
  2. Bertold Brecht is mostly spelled as Bertolt Brecht;
  3. John Stanley needs to be disambiguated, probably to John Stanley (composer);
  4. I think one of the authors of the Grove entry ought to be linked: David Tunley;
  5. The title El Cimarrón should be italicised.
All minor quibbles, really. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for such detail! Do you happen to know how the title of the Brecht poem would be given in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I like Scott Horton's translation best: "To Those Who Follow in Our Wake", but it's also translated as "To Those Born Later" (see Michael Hofmann: Twentieth-Century German Poetry. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Convincing, that first one, I put it to the composer-stub. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

MP

Thanks, Michael, for going over the St Matthew Passion between the games. I would prefer the passages about Mendelssohn and the (overly detailed) first English performance appearing somewhat later in the article. (Someone new to the article gets details on that performance before knowing about the work.) What do you think? Do it? Discuss it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree; there could be a section "Performance history" before "Structure", with the two last paragraphs from the lead (Leipzig, 1829; London 1854), and possibly others, if significant. Such a section should probably start with a repeat of the relevant sentences from the lead about the original performance (1727, 1736). I also noticed on the talk page that the article's sentence "there is no mention of the Resurrection in any of these texts" should possibly be qualified. (Now for ARG vs. GER.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ern Malley / Ernie O'Malley

Copied from User talk:Red Hurley#Ern Malley / Ernie O'Malley for context:
I'm baffled why you added Ernie O'Malley in the "See also" section of Ern Malley. What's the connection? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you know where EM's name came from.Red Hurley (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Neither article mentions the connection you suggest. The article on Ern Malley mentions a completely different origin of that name. Unless you find some sources for your claim, I suggest you revert your edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a joke, you see. Mallee the bird, plus "Ern" from Ernie O'Malley, who was famous at the time. "O'Malley" has another humourous meaning in Oz, of course.Red Hurley (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fernweh

Your last translation was great! So I ask you again: do you know a word for Fernweh - the opposite of Heimweh - homesickness? It's the name of a concert program. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The usual translation is another German term, "Wanderlust", which of course is quite the opposite to the "-weh" part. Other terms often used are "itchy feet" and "travel bug" – all without "-weh". A more fitting translation I found in a dictionary is "yen to see distant places", but it requires that the reader is familiar with a rather obscure meaning of "yen". I thought about "the ache for yonder", but it seems that "yonder" is not really far away, it's just "over there", distant, but within sight. This then left me with "aching to travel", not very elegant, but more appropriate than "Wanderlust" for the context of titles like "Kennst du das Land". Maybe the best option is to leave it untranslated, possibly linked Wiktionary:Fernweh. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Food for thought, thank you! You can see what I did - after reading Fernweh and Nostalgia - on ensemble amarcord where improvements are welcome, it's in prep for DYK, best classical album 2010. I will hear their Fernweh in August. Did you know that they stepped in for the Chanticleer in 2002 (but I can't cite the web for that), I was there, and since I try to hear their voices whenever I can. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that "far-sickness" (as used in ensemble amarcord is ambiguous; it might indicate "a sickness of the far". While "homesickness" has been established as the English equivalent of "Heimweh" (although one might also read it as "sickness of the home"), "far-sickness" is in my opinion not established. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
imo far-sickness is just as bad for Fernweh as homesickness is for Heimweh. I wonder if I should link Fernweh to the Wiktionary rather than to Wanderlust and leave it untranslated? But what do I find there? farsickness, and Wanderlust as a synonym, which certainly is different in meaning. I confess that last year's theme Bekenntnisse - confessions - seemed easier. btw I cleaned the liturgical Bach-list as you recommended, no more ordinary time. (Reminding me of the translation of a choir's slogan "Ordinary people making extraordinary music" to Ordinäre Menschen machen besonders ordinäre Musik." Even the conductor laughed.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Gerda, unless fernweh (which I've never heard, at least that I recall) is for a specific place, I'd suggest leaving it at "wanderlust". Though I generally cringe at English words that have come to have totally different meanings in German ("Handy" springs to mind!), this is a case where I have to say that "wanderlust" is totally anglicized, the two components also being completely normal English words. I notice you've been very busy at DYK, btw. Good work! Marrante (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

prima la musica

Seeing your percipient correction of my oversight on Edmond Audran just now makes me wonder if you could be persuaded to look in at the current peer review of Tosca or a forthcoming FAC of Edward Elgar. The classical music reviewers would be glad of some expert reinforcement. - Tim riley (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your sentiments, but I have very little to say about the finer points in the Tosca article, except that I would use the image Puccini Tosca.jpg instead of PucciniTosca.jpg. I don't know anything about Elgar, although it's obvious that the name George Moore in his article needs to be disambiguated to George Moore (novelist) (ditto in Diarmuid and Grania). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Reger Requiem

Hi Michael, you pleased me by adding the autograph to the Mozart c-minor mass. Now I started Requiem (Reger) and found an autograph at the Library of Congress, ref 4 at the moment. I am not yet familiar at all with pictures in wiki (copyright, procedure to upload). Do you see a way to get that image in the article? I also didn't find yet a translation of the poem and certainly don't want to do it myself, it's überspannt enough in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I found a translation, ref #2, pic #5 then. Do you think I might copy the words to the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that adding the Hebbel text in German to the article will be helpful to the English-speaking reader, and I don't know what the copyright status of the English translation presented by McDermott is, but I strongly suspect that it's not free. (The link to McDermott's paper deserves a mention of the document's size: 1.3 MB, 226 pages.)
So you want the score shown at the LOC to be included in this article? Give me a day or two and I'll see what I can do. Off now to much merrier matters. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! It doesn't take much to be merrier than "nur Kampf losgelassener Kräfte um erneuertes Sein". I agree to only saying about the poem what seems neccessary for the music. Merry widowing! I had a Rendezvous with someone yesterday who said that he doesn't like the term "Musik verstehen". Rendezvous with is a new series of the Rheingau Musik Festival, Menahem Pressler to come. The festival's opening concert will be on the Main page tomorrow (our time, now Q1), ref from FAZ (pictured). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that merry and beautiful adition to the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
My brother and I looked at the pic and saw two things: #1 Reger wrote op. 144b, not Op, and I wonder if in such a case an exception could be made (like Minor in titles), and the MOS be changed to cover that. #2 My brother noticed how many Hilfslinien he wrote (instead of marking "an octave lower"), as if he wanted to stress how low it begins, lower even than Rheingold. Would you like to phrase that and add it, I don't know the Fachausdrücke. DYK probably 19 July. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
ad #1: Wikipedia applies its own MoS; e.g. if a source uses: "REGER, Max …" it should appear here as "Reger, Max ...". I assume this is for the benefit of the reader.
ad #2: Hilfslinien are call ledger lines in English, and the universal sign for "an octave lower" is 8vb (ottava bassa) (and 15mb (quindicesima bassa) for two octaves); see Octave and Fifteenth. Hope this helps. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, see please, if it helped, in the article. Do you think you could perform the picture miracle for the de-WP as well? I'll start a translation in my Spielwiese there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Miracle worked before I even asked! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ernst Schnabel

Hallo Michael, ich wollte den Artikel anlegen [3], hat aber nicht geklappt, da der entsprechende Sichter fremdsprachliche Literaturangaben als Quelle nicht akzeptiert. --91.32.43.180 (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern

Hi Michael, do you see a way to get the picture from the German Wikisource for Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern (an external link now) into the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pic that really says more than 1000 words! (I got it on top, for a good first impression.) I tried to translate a bit, please check. Would you know a good translation of the book's title? FreudenSpiegel? There were other Spiegel at the time but I have no idea how to render that in English. Thanks also for the ref improvement. Eventually I will have to return to all these cantatas with it ... Next time I will know how to implement a German wikisource. The German ref has a lot more info, but I hesitate to use it, - would you know something like it in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Found English, please look once more for formatting. I dropped one of the pieces, found on a wiki list of compositions for viola, because I only found it twice on Google, one of them Klassika, a listing that I know to be not free of mistakes. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Translation for FrewdenSpiegel deß ewigen Lebens? Hmm, not easy. The Swedish translation Det eviga livets glädjespegel suggests Eternal Life's Joyous Mirror, but that sounds rather clumsy. Freudenspiegel alone would of course best be translated as Mirror of Joy, but then we finish with a double-genitive: Mirror of Joy of Eternal Life. What about The Joyous Mirror of Eternal Life? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Taken, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

Dear master of pictures, Christa Ludwig has a red link to a jpg. Erna Berger would deserve a picture, I think, and Wilhelm Schüchter, more personal, the conductor of my first symphony concert ever, Tchaikovsky 4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Christa Ludwig image was deleted in July 2008 as a copyright violation (see file note.
The images labelled with "Erna Berger" at Commons are apparently mislabelled; see de:Diskussion:Erna Berger.
Commons doesn't know anything about Wilhelm Schüchter.
Sorry; if there aren't any existing free images, there's nothing I can do as I don't have access to any sources of such free images. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarity. I'll remove the red link then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps easier than the impossible: de:Johannes-Passion (J. S. Bach) has a nice picture (MP not so nice). What would I have to do to see it also in the St John Passion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Just add [[File:Johannespassion.jpg|thumb|some description]] to the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I will (not now though). Thanks for looking at the new Bach cantata, I added Music, reluctant because of more (missing) terms like Quintkanon, flehende Gestik, - das Gleißnerische der Heuchler, wow. Please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Done. - Next wish: a pic of the Oper Dortmund from de:Theater Dortmund to Theater Dortmund, the pic with the flags (Oper) preferred, the one appearing twice could go to List of thin shell structures. What do I have to do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You (right-)click on the image you're interested in and open it in a new tab; if on the page "Datei:..." there is a link "Zur Beschreibungsseite auf Commons", then you can use that filename, in this case "IMG 9655-Dortmund-Stadtgarten.JPG" prepended with "File:" and surrounded by double brackets on any language Wikipedia; use the syntax as above ("|thumb|description").
In my opinion, the page List of thin shell structures contains already too many pictures; they can better be placed on the individual articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: I added Commons:Category:Thin-shell structures to Commons:Category:Oper Dortmund so that readers of List of thin shell structures can click-through to that gallery. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! I added the gallery to the opera where someone else had put two pics already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Der Schatzgräber

Thanks for your corrections. I sometimes get my URL's mixed up because when using cite web I do a lot of copying and pasting. Will pay more attention next time. As for the caption under the image: I found this picture on German Wikipedia, in the article de:Oper Frankfurt, a featured article at that, and simply copied the German spelling used there. Have corrected two other instances of this picture I used according to your correction. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the pitfalls of German grammar. In de:Oper Frankfurt, the term is used in its dative form (In der Alten Oper), but this doesn't lend itself to English usage where it should always be used in its nominative form: Alte Oper. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Shame on me, six years of secondary education in Latin and forgot all about declension of nouns. In my defense: that secondary education was about 35 years ago.Francesco Malipiero (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Johann Novotny

Hello Michael, Thanks for cleaning up the references on Gregor Werner. I'd like to resolve (one way or the other) the tag you placed on the New Grove "Johann Novotny" citation. I took the view that a person named "Johann Novotny" who was born in 1718 (ten years before Werner became the Esterhazy Kapellmeister) and himself served in the Esterhazy court is virtually certain to be the Novotny who was mentioned, in the Grove article on Werner, as being Werner's student. But if you think this is too doubtful, we should just remove the reference entirely. It's not very important and I'm fine with it either way. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the "Johann Novotný" mentioned in the Grove article on Werner and "Novotný, Franz Nikolaus" in Grove are the same person – their first names are different and Franz was born 1743. However, I'm now at work and don't have my login code for Grove Online with me, so I can't re-read the articles, but I remember clearly that Werner was not mentioned in the article on "Novotný, Franz Nikolaus"; that's why I placed that tag. I also remember that I couldn't find any sources for Johann Novotný (or for S. T. Kolbel); that's why I unlinked those names. All this seems rather marginal and it may be best to omit both names altogether, unless the Novotný turns out to be Franz Nikolaus, who is somewhat known. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah -- when you get the chance take another peek at the Grove article. Johann is Franz's father, mentioned halfway through the article. Grove often amalgamates family members into single articles. Re omission, I'm still fine on that. Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I think I clarified the situation now in Werner's article. As a by-product of my revisiting Grove for Franz Nikolaus Novotný, I whipped up a short article. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Great, thank you. Opus33 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Karl Erb

I you have a spare moment, you should really have a look at this! What machine translation can do for you ;-). Francesco Malipiero (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Laughed, too. Back to Erb: can we find out, when and where he sang in Die Gezeichneten? Back to translation: on Arvo Pärt we had the promotion "vom scharfen Jugendlichen zum Major" (c sharp minor to major). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

You're the one who deserves the credit for taking the article on Gregor Werner from a mere plagiarism from Grove to a halfway decent. So here goes. Thank you for cleaning up that article when no one else would. James470 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Cleanup Barnstar

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For ensuring the text in the Gregor Werner article is properly attributed to their previously unmentioned authors and copyright holders, and for holding violators accountable. James470 (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motezuma&action=historysubmit&diff=377978437&oldid=377972531

Since his operas redirect to this page only, I don't think a disambig is necessary.

The hatnote, though, shoud be removed be cause it points to information in the article, not to other articles. Thus, I have removed the hatnote.199.126.224.156 (talk) 03:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What if I remove the section Motezuma#Other operas on the same emperor and add a hatnote
For other operas on this subject, see Montezuma § Operas.
Would you agree with that? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Missa (brevis)

Thanks for looking at Missa Brevis! I was prompted to do something about it, because BWV 179 was linked to it for DYK (not my idea) and I just copied from the tables in de-WP. I am surprised how many times that cantata appears in the masses, seems more movements than it has. - Do you agree that the Deutsche Messe of Schubert doesn't belong to Missa brevis? I know too little about the French ones. - Btw, talking pictures, I got my own in a ref, smile. We started rehearsals for the Reger Requiem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Format of translations

Hallo Michael, based on changes I made to the enthusiastic article on Joseph Ryelandt I received a question that you could probably answer. I am interested myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Bednarek, Thanks for your answer to the question I asked Mrs. Arendt. The purpose of my question was not so much to protest her changes as to find out what Wikipedia's policy with regard to translations is—you may have noticed I did not revert her changes, even though she wrote: "If you prefer it differently, go ahead, just revert my edit". In future I'll use brackets instead of single quotes and—another thing I learned from your answer—straight quotes instead of curly ones. Thanks again. Polla ta deina (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The Merry Widow and Lehár operas

I was about to revert my edit, but discovered that it had already been reverted by somebody else. Figaro (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:P. D. Q. Bach#Proposed merger from Lasso d'amore

As this didn't get resolved at the same time as the Tromboon afd, I'm proposing the same thing happens with this and notifying the participants of the afd.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Moenning

why did you remove all the sexual references from the a. Moenning entry? it seems to me that is why she is visible in the English-speaking world. Kdammers (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The previous version of the article on Antje Nikola Mönning did not provide any reliable sources for her notability in the English-speaking world (the Bild or "it seems to me" doesn't count). That version was a mess which rightly deserved the Template:Cleanup. In re-writing it, I started with the material on the German Wikipedia article, omitting stuff which wouldn't mean anything to English-speaking readers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you accept Bild? I know it is not the FR or Der Spiegel, but just because it's sensationalist, does it means it's not a legit source? How about www.spielfilm.de (which really only follows on from the Bild article without adding any content) or IMDB (which simply copies spielfilm)? Ii wouldn't use Bild for an article on a scientific subject, but for this kind of pop-culture stuff, don't you think it is okeh? They don't seem to fabricate stuff. How about this site for English material (it uses politer words and doesn't go quite as far): http://sitgesfilmfestival.com/eng/film/?id=10001270. All the other stuff I found in a quick search in English appears to be "raunchier" from the titles of the stuff Google gave me (except for basic stuff like her Facebook site). I have no way of knowing if these sites are good enough sources; I would guess not, but the content suggested indicates to me that the sex aspect is worth mentioning (or is that OR?)Kdammers (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The tabloid Bild is not a reliable source for a biography.
The article deals with the actress; 80% of the previous version of the article dealt with Bild's view of the film Engel mit schmutzigen Flügeln and Mönning's relations with the production firm ndF; that is undue weight and a coatrack.
It was also extremely poorly written and formatted.
The place to elaborate on the film would be in its own article.
The place for this discussion is Talk:Antje Nikola Mönning. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Who The %$%& is Jackson Pollock

Hi Michael,

While I agree the New Yorker article discusses, in part, Biro's role with the painting in this film, we would have hundreds of articles ammended to the page that mention Biro that would be deemed relevent. In the film credits, Biro is listed as having a "supporting role", not a "central role" as you cite. I think its important to set a precedent that prevents gratuitous mentions of people in the film to articles that have to do with other topics, such as Grann's article, which is really about Biro, and not about the movie. Your thoughts?

Muhammad (Raver212) ≈≈≈≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raver212 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish you had continued this discussion on your talk page where I started it, or on the article's talk page. I also wish you would sign your contributions with ~~~~; there is a reminder right at the top of the editing window.
The infobox in the article on Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? lists Biro as "starring". Whether that is appropriate or not, it is clear that Biro's role in the painting's attribution was significant. Biro himself dedicates considerable space on his website to the matter. Consequently, critiques of Biro's findings regarding this painting are without doubt relevant. If there are reliable sources dealing with Biro and this Pollock and which present different angles, they should be added, too.
If you want to remove irrelevant references in the article, look at the reference given after the sentence "Teri hired Peter Paul Biro, a Montreal-based forensic art expert.", ("New evidence suggests Profile of the Bella Principessa might be a Leonardo da Vinci original", The Daily News 14 October 2009), which seems utterly irrelevant to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Encrypted citations for Werner

If you succeed in decrypting Incarnatus' new citations, could you let us know what it says? The year 1737 for some reason went unencrypted and that's a year I've seen no mention of in connection to Gregor Werner. James470 (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time for silly games. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
But you had time to apply the Rott 13 to the first one. I would've never thought of that. Seriously. To people with your talent it might've seemed obvious, but me, it just looked like completely undecipherable gobbledygook. James470 (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Only by chance. As someone who has been active on USENET for almost 25 years, I immediately recognized it as ROT13. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Voice type

I made some changes to the template recently. Can you revise it? I thought that charts are better rather than assigning which voice is male and which is female. Maybe it would be a good idea to incorporate the German version. What do you think? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Jurowsky - Reger-Chor

Thanks for moving and improving him! - 25 years of joyful personal history: Reger-Chor. What would I have to do to include a picture? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

a picture of the choir, I mean, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
You take pictures, go to Commons:Upload, upload them and apply one of the Commons:Copyright tags. If you have pictures taken by someone else, you need to convince Commons that you have the right to submit them under a free licence, usually via the Commons:OTRS mechanism. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, helpful! I failed to take pictures myself - concentrating on singing - and will ask the ones who did if they want to go through the process - feeling that pictures are only one click away in references and external link, also of the conductor (at the organ but not his, smile). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
In that case, you might be interested in the Template:External media (which I only today discovered). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Interesting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Silly redirects

Thanks for your vote at the talk page. Do you know how to nominate a redirect for deletion? If so, can you nominate:

The rationale is stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion It contains the following:

Reasons for deleting (WP:RF#DELETE):

... 10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.

Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone else opened the RfD. You can vote on it here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

List of opera genres

Someone removed the nobots tag that (I think) you originally added. What do you think about that? --Kleinzach 02:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It was originally added on 1 June 2009, then removed on 8 October 2009, then restored in the next edit as part of a larger rescue operation on 28 October 2009, and most recently removed again on 1 July 2010.
I can't remember why the tag {{Nobots}} ever got added, and the article doesn't seem to have suffered any visitations from mindless bots, so I think it's OK not have it. I suspect we had some troubles with infelicitous bot interventions in some other articles and it generally might have seemed a good idea at the time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
OK. I guess it was just a temporary measure then. Thanks. --Kleinzach 10:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way I've answered you on 'Kinderoper' on the talk page. --Kleinzach 10:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michael_Bednarek/Archive_3&oldid=1143165999"