This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Kleinzach, I have zero knowledge of your history with this project, but I am interested in .. 'renewing' it, perhaps by giving a greater consideration to the readers rather than the editors. Given your lack of input since September 2008, it's quite probable that you have removed the project talk pages from your watchlist. I have (re)started three discussions there: how to improve the project, an estimation of the project's health, and how the project might expand.

I'm trying to work out whether to engage more deeply with WP, or leave completely. Any input you can give (particularly on staying!), would be much appreciated. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I've read the interesting discussion. As you know, I was active on the project in its heyday (2005 to 2008), and created over 300 opera articles.

I agree we should be serving the readers — if that is what you mean by "giving a greater consideration to the readers rather than the editors" — with the proviso that the readers are all equally important, whether they are looking at Fidelio orFisch-Ton-Kan.

I'll make some more specific comments (about the Opera Project) later — and explain why I have stopped writing about opera.--Kleinzach 03:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Critique of the Opera Project, or where did it all go wrong?

Where did the Opera Project go wrong? Where did it lose its way? Wikipedia as a whole has declined because of bureaucracy and unfriendliness and the sheer difficulty of contributing to articles. Much they same could be said about the Opera project. Looking back on what we achieved in 2005-8, and what happened subsequently, here are some specific points:

• Vision: The project started with a vision, a shared plan. In the first phase, we wanted to concentrate on opera coverage, raising the number of topics covered to the level found in specialist encyclopedias (Oxford, Grove, Viking etc.). In the event, members enjoyed starting articles, and we soon found that once a page was started other writers would appear to develop the content. By 2008, we had written 5,000 articles and were well on course to finish that first phase. (The second phase would have been to concentrate on depth — developing and improving the (still insubstantial) articles, working upwards starting with the bottom 'stub/start classes'.)

Post 2008, the first phase was never completed, and the second phase never began. Editing in the past couple of years has evidently been random and sporadic. So the project is no longer informed by any kind of vision.

• Quality control: From the beginning we were aiming for higher quality than other projects (as indeed some other groups did, such asMedicine and Military History). Articles were well written and normally had at least one reference. We aimed at a minimum 'start class' standard based on the notion that the Google-directed searcher should arrive at a useful (not useless) entry. (In autumn 2008 there were still about 1650 stub articles left — now increased to 2650.)

• Statistics and article sets: I monitored article stats (as I have done for the other Classical music projects). Project banners were the main means of doing this, together with categories, and there was one specific page The opera corpus (which gave us better access to opera titles than categories). We identified sets of articles that could be monitored for quality, consistency etc. These sets were kept as small as possible, so that all tasks undertaken could be completed. Banners were put on articles that were 'fully opera' rather than 'marginally opera'. This helped the small number of editors — the Opera project was never large — focus on key pages. (Opera project members also joined other related music projects, so there was a complementary multi-project approach to important pages such as composers' articles that lay outside the scope of the Opera project.) After I left the project, no-one was interested in detailed statistics, so any kind of systematic approach to editing in terms of sets of articles was abandoned.

• Collegiality: No only were the early days more friendly, but editors supported each other by reverting vandals etc. Issues were discussed and resolved with good faith, and decisions were adhered to. The rot set in gradually. A longterm member of the project (now fortunately gone) was a prolific sock puppeteer, and his activities contributed to a breakdown of trust among the other members. There were also pressures from metapedians who thought that the Wikipedia community and its rules should have a higher priority than opera articles. There were also significant copyright violations by members that had to be dealt with, again a huge waste of everybody's time.

Relations between editors have now declined even more with the result that essential corrections are not being made, and experienced editors, who should know better, turn a blind eye to bad and inaccurate editing. After creating some 350 articles, I've now stopped. Recently aRandy in Boise situation has followed me from article to article, and typically — as noted in the Randy essay —the opera editors let 'Randy' get away with it. (Since I don't edit war, Shunning is the only response to this.)

• Dumbing down of content: From the beginning, a few US/UK-centric editors lowered the standard of articles, particularly of light opera, using unreliable sources etc. Even for works originating in continental Europe, details of English-language productions, singers etc were disproportionately emphasised while details that would form the basic content of other articles were omitted. This situation has now spiralled out of control with those involved working together to frustrate independent editors.

• Bureaucracy: Bureaucracy involves processes that are not directly related to encyclopedia articles: policies, guidelines, assessments, categorization schemes etc. Some of these are essential, of course, however the early members of the Opera project tried to keep them to a minimum. As time went on, some members became increasingly drawn to the Wikipedia-namespace world of bells, whistles, stars, boxes, and complex (aesthetically-enticing?) categorization schemes. This had a corrosive effect on the project. (I left the project in 2008 because of the introduction of a particularly complicated and impractical scheme that would have made my project coordinating work more difficult.) (Unfortunately members have repeatedly voted for measures on the basis that someone else is going to implement them — irrespective of whether 5, 50 or 5,000 articles are involved!)

• Mop work: However talented the membership, someone has to do the work if the project is to be kept on the rails. For a long time I did it — much of it boring routine stuff (such as spending seven hours hand correcting wrong banners inserted by a recalcitrant bot owner who had prematurely run a faulty script). When I left, I suggested that the project should elect a coordinator. Nothing happened. Nobody picked up the mop. --Kleinzach 08:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this -- it was very interesting to read of the founding vision. The German language Opera Projectrecently made contact to say that they had similarly decided to concentrate on getting good articles rather than a multitude of mediocre ones.

I like the idea of the minimum of a Start class for a new article and will try to adopt it myself. The inclusion of stubs that add little or no value -- Kleines Theater (Salzburg) is an absurd extreme -- just wastes readers' time. Scarabocchio (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am quite keen on doing a sortable list. However, my main concern at the moment is that the most natural first column - the 'Meta' number from the comprehensive catalogue - is something I am lacking some entries for at this point.

I may actually start with the 'list by genre' version and try to add the sortable list later.

I will let you know when I think my page is getting somewhere close to being ready to release 'into the wild', as I have no experience and might be deluded as to whether it's good enough to release.

Orfeocookie (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Answered on the list talk page. --Kleinzach10:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kleinzach - I'd like to say I really appreciate the patient work you've been doing and the calm and unselfish way in which you handle the discussion. I have to admit I feel a bit bad about all the objections I've been making. But I feel that my concerns are genuine, and that it is in the spirit of Wikipedia to air them. Anyway I'll sleep it over now (when I find myself translating into English from Italian, I know it's time to take a break!). Best regards MistyMorn (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank, but I have to say that I think you are developing a wrong 'one size fits all' thesis here. I don't think you can apply simplistic rules to all article titles. Have a good sleep! --Kleinzach23:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply I'm not saying I'm right... I just have concerns, partially related to my professional training regarding selection bias in research. I tried to leave you a reply over on the other Talk page, but I got into an edit conflict with Dohn joe. As it was addressed mainly to you, I'll post it here:

Point taken, and I'm happy to stand back now. My 'thesis' (if I have one) is that, as a group, we're subject to a self-selection bias that is influencing our direction in a particular way. My own position is that it is better to stick to usual WP process in titling. Or, if we collectively feel the need to abandon 'Commonname', then we should be careful to explain how and why we are prioritising the consistency and precision aspects of WP titling conventions. Personally, I don't see the need for this, and I think Dohn Joe doesn't either. But I can see several other members of the group do. I think I've done my duty now in raising the issues as I see them, and can step a few paces back. Best, MistyMorn (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine to argue on the basis of 'common name', but not to imply that 'common name' trumps other WP guidelines.--Kleinzach 00:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't aware that I was using that particular argument. It wasn't what I was trying to say. You certainly know far more about the way WP works than I do, and it's easy for me to misinterpret or express myself inaccurately. I think I've outlined my underlying concerns in my two main posts in the "Selection bias" section (which you doubtless loathe, and I don't blame you). Elsewhere, I've also tried to make it clear that I feel that the titling issue is all relative. I just think we would do better not to have to go down the precision/consistency route in cases where it means virtually excluding recognizability/naturalness. In other words, we do need the flexibility to use WP:SENSE. MistyMorn (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"the titling issue is all relative" Yes I would agree with that. It's really a copy editing matter, not an issue of principle. Regarding WP:SENSE, if you look at that text it's the most confusing bit of policy I've ever seen on WP! If it helps, I should explain there are two things I strongly oppose here (1) bureaucracy, (2) dumbing down of the encyclopaedia. --Kleinzach 00:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I miss the former Requested move in the archive,--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean? The closure was reverted. See my objection here. --Kleinzach 23:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I understand. the archives have got messed up with every move. I hope I've restored them now, see Talk:Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven)/Archive 2. --Kleinzach 09:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! Hoping that the mess and obscurity are over and sunlight can shine on Beethoven's music, --Gerda Arendt(talk) 10:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Amen. --Kleinzach 11:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

An interesting (resolved?) development could use your expert opinion here[1] and I thank you in advance.--Djathinkimacowboy 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Clearly it's far from resolved. I'll keep at it until it is resolved. Please note theDRN for this.--Djathinkimacowboy 13:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Notification per requirement:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Fedora". Thank you.

Thanks for your note. But I'm not sure what situation you're referring to.   Will Beback  talk  01:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's an unresolved dispute. I don't see an obvious way of resolving it at this time. FWIW, user:LionelT seems to be on an unannounced Wikibreak. He has been the leader of the project. If his absence becomes permanent it could change the dynamic and allow for some kind of resolution, but taking advantage of a temporary absence is a bit unseemly so I wouldn't push it. To some extent, it may be best to simply ignore the dispute and work around it. In most cases, projects have little direct effect on articles.   Will Beback  talk  01:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As a pragmatic matter, I recommend giving your attention to the parts of Wikipedia where you think you can make the greatest difference and can receive the most satisfaction. As for the conservatism Wikiproject, it'll either be a benefit or a detriment to Wikipedia, and if the latter then it will disappear. There's only so much that we can do.   Will Beback  talk  02:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kleinzach!

I can't email you from the Wikis so can you tell me your email so I can email you? Reply soon!

From The 7th Grade 7 year-old with a laptop and a phone and a Kindle Fire

I love html

RaUmAaN aHmEd KiDwAi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raumaan (talk •contribs) 04:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving to Paris taskforce talk page

Hi Kleinzach, I have moved some of the discussion below to the Paris taskforce talk page. While I was at it, I edited, rearranged, and added some new information. --Foobarnix (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Boulevard du Crime

Hi Kleinzach—I just completed a new article: Boulevard du Crime. It connects with a lot of other existing articles. Perhaps it should be merged into Boulevard du Temple, but I personally do not think so.

More former theatres

I have been bumping into a lot of former theatre names in my research (including, but not limited to this new article). I do not know how important any of them are. Any ideas? These former theatres include:

• Théâtre des Funambules (see MSN Encarta: Théâtre des Funambules)
• Théâtre des Associés
• Théâtre de l'Ambigu turns out to be Théâtre de l'Ambigu-Comique
• Théâtre des Pygmées
• Petit-Lazare
• Théâtre des Délassements-Comiques (but Délassements-Comiques redirects to Théâtre des Nouveautés)

The French article is here. It's an authentic former theatre. The redirect can simply be changed to the new article. --Kleinzach 23:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Le Boeuf sur le Toit, is a surrealist ballet but also the name of a former cabaret in Paris, founded in 1921 at 28, rue Boissy d'Anglas. In fact, the ballet article mentions it, calling it "a celebrated Parisian cabaret-bar". There is a French article about the cabaret here

The ballet is primary, so the cabaret would be Le Boeuf sur le Toit (cabaret) following the capitalization evidently preferred by the cabaret itself (on their website http://www.boeufsurletoit.com/). The capitalization of the ballet follows the WP:CM guidelines. --Kleinzach 23:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I was led to consideration of these issues because of my research into Alhambra-Maurice Chevallier (which is really complicated).

Categories

I noticed that the items on List of former or demolished entertainment venues in Paris are not consistently in the Category:Former theatres in Paris. Is this a problem? Do we want a rigid consistency here? If you think we do, I would be glad to go through the list and add the category designation whenever it is missing.

I think it would be a good idea, however one group are venues and the other are theatres, not quite the same thing. --Kleinzach 23:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Paris taskforce

I did join, but it is not clear to me where I should put discussion of theatres etc. as you suggested.—Foobarnix (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been away - back now but lots of offwiki things to catch up with. I'd put all discussions of the theatres on the Paris talkpage so we can get other people involved. (We can always put reminders on our users' pages.) Best. --Kleinzach 05:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As the author of Wikipedia:Society for the Preservation of the Quazer Beast, it's fascinating to be told what my intent was years after the fact by people I've never really interacted with. It's no more an in-joke, failed or otherwise (and how it can be judged a failure by someone not part of the in-joke, assuming it's an in-joke, which it's not, is beyond me), than any other essay in project space. I'd like to encourage you to re-read the essay with the idea that it's trying to communicate a point about hoaxes, then re-consider your view. Best, Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I note your opinion, which of course you are perfectly entitled to express — but please put it in the Mfd, not on my talk page where other people won't see it. --Kleinzach 16:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

See new info at User talk:Foobarnix/Article builder 1 --Foobarnix (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kleinzach--

Please see posts and responses at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music)#Serenade No. 13 in G major for strings (Mozart)?. Thx. (I strongly believe that editing guideline or policy pages willy-nilly by anyone who comes along should be verboten, but since it's your own phrasing, you should be able to correct it.) Milkunderwood (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Kleinzach 23:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

More now, needing your attention, at bottom of page. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks to your alert, the AfD discussion Schleifer has been closed with the verdict of keep. Now I'd like to move the article to the term: slide (music). But there was a redirect there so WP prevents me from moving it. If you're an admin, could you do it - or if you know an admin, can you request it? Thanks! -- kosboot (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Kleinzach, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Kleinzach, on 24 January you posted at my talkpage, and I did not get back to you. Sorry about that! I have been preoccupied with dealings at ArbCom (see this case, where the Workshop page is still open). It follows the difficulties at WT:TITLE. Back to normal soon, I hope.

Best wishes.

– Noetica^Tea? 10:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been very busy myself for the past week or so. I'll get back to you when I have a bit more time. Hope the ArbCom deliberations are working out satisfactorily. I had a look at a few weeks ago, but found it a bit difficult to follow, without going through it all in detail . . . perhaps my concerns may be similar to yours? Kleinzach 02:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Those cases are quite hard to follow. I was quite surprised to end up there! I think good things will come from it. We'll see. Right now the Workshop phase is scheduled to be closed (see dates at the top of the page). Makes interesting reading. Why not have a glance at it when you have time, now that it's full of comments and responses? There was high drama when it turned out that a major player (JCScaliger) was a sockpuppet of already topic-banned PMAnderson, who was promptly given a 12-month block for his troubles. Oy! A quiet wikilife would be a good thing.

More later, when we have time for a leisurely chat, yes?

Noetica^Tea? 04:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

	foundation of opera and principles
	Thank you for the solid foundation you gave to the opera project and for your voice of reason in matters such as naming conventions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kleinzach

I notice that you are temporarily neglecting music and doing a bit of zoogeography. You have not gone "batty" on us have you?

Since I trust your judgement on organization of all things Wiki, I want to ask your opinion on something. What do you think of infoboxes? I write a lot of park articles and am considering adding infoboxes to them.

• Here is an example of a park article (not mine) with the standard park infobox. Ramsden Park
• Here is one of my articles. It does not currently have an infobox. Park Road Park
• Here is one of my articles for which I was fortunate enough to have a photo. Old Settlers' Cemetery

What do you think? Are infoboxes useful, or do they just add clutter? In each case I may or may not have a photo for the infobox? I am interested in your opinion of infoboxes in general?

Thanks as always for your time. If you happen to have a response, put it here or on my talk page as you wish. --Foobarnix (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've been away — in Greece etc. for a couple of months.

Infoboxes for park articles should work. IMO geographical articles in general can benefit from the facts and figures being put in a box. This makes referencing easier. (As you may know, I'm usually opposed to the use of infoboxes for biographies, but that's a special case. ) Best --Kleinzach 04:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Kleinzach, I was just wondering what kind of parenthesis characters you're using in Hilgendorf's Tube-nosed Bat[2] and what the purpose of them is. I replaced them with regular parentheses, but I'm curious if there was some specific reason you wanted to use the other ones? Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any difference between the parens I used and the ones you put in. Also I think you only changed the first pair, not the later ones. Am I missing something? --Kleinzach 23:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The "weird" brackets were the FULLWIDTH LEFT PARENTHESIS' (U+FF08) and 'FULLWIDTH RIGHT PARENTHESIS' (U+FF09), mentioned at Bracket and at Japanese typographic symbols#Brackets and quotation marks. For what it's worth, using Firefox in Windows 7, I can see a small difference: Unicode: （ ） , ASCII: ( ) . The Unicode brackets were used only once on that page. All the best, Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed this move - are you sure that Freedom of information (national laws) is really a clearer title? It seems quite awkward to me.

If the idea is to have a general article at freedom of information & a separate page listing all the national entries, we could go with something like List of freedom of information laws or Freedom of information laws by country. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, 'legislation' just means laws which rather leaves the meaning hanging in the air. 'National laws' is more specific. List of freedom of information laws is vague IMO and the article is not really a list. Freedom of information laws by country is OK. At least it's clear, and I think there are similar WP titles (like List of political parties by country ). But is it better than Freedom of information (national laws)? --Kleinzach 12:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem with (national laws) is that because we use brackets for disambiguation, it suggests that it's a different topic from the article at freedom of information. It isn't really - it's just a more detailed list.

How about simply Freedom of information by country? I think when I originally worked on the article my hope was to turn it into a list of summary sections linking out to pages like Freedom of information in the United States, which are really country surveys rather than lists of laws. Some countries have many different laws (eg the US or UK), some have constitutional or common-law provisions rather than laws per se, some may not actually have FOI laws but have enough debate around them to deserve an article. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The scope of Freedom of information is wider than Freedom of information (national laws). Freedom of information by country, is less clear semantically than Freedom of information laws by country, and also less accurate — the article is about laws not freedom per se. If we are going to compromise on this issue, the latter is an obvious way to go, I think. --Kleinzach 02:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

While the list mostly summarises the laws, I think there's scope for the country articles to cover the general topic - the way the law has been implemented, debates, the local history of FOI, etc. Most of them don't go this far, however, so for the moment Freedom of information laws by country seems a good compromise. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the page per your suggestion. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Kleinzach. You are invited to join WikiProject Hotels, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of hotels, motels and lodging-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I felt like I was kinda going out on a limb closing the MfD by moving Pre-Maori settlement of New Zealand theories to the mainspace, and I was/am really pleased to see that you (well, and User:Yngvadottir) took up the cause of bringing it up to snuff. WilyD 09:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did try to prod it out of existence! When that didn't work, I thought we had to bring it up to a reasonable standard. I still don't think this kind of stuff should really be in the encyclopaedia. For some reason, self-published crazy amateur archaeology is somehow notable, whereas, equally crazy self-published musicians etc. are promptly AFD'd out of Wikipedia. Does it make sense to you? Best. --Kleinzach 15:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Self-published musicians who catch the public eye stay. Honestly, I'd be happy to have an article about every band (even my own, where most members never learnt to play their instruments) if it could be done in a verifiable, neutral way. But without second and third party sources, that's hopeless. Can't write a neutral article, and people can't verify the information. But in this case, enough archaeologists have said "Hey, these guys are lunatics!" that we can safely write a neutral article, right? It's better that someone hears Celts settled New Zealand two thousand years ago, says "Hey, I wonder if that's true?" and we tell them "No. No it ain't." than tell them nothing, and leave them wondering, no? WilyD 15:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No. These things should be proportionate. A final paragraph in the article about Polynesians coming to NZ might be OK, but giving a whole article to theories that have never been properly published is wrong, I think, and basically against WP guidelines. --Kleinzach 16:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As a formerly active discussant at WT:FSC, I would like to call your attention to Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates#Proposal to revamp FS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

On 25 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pre-Maori settlement of New Zealand theories, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that there are theories that New Zealand was originally settled by Egyptians or Greeks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pre-Maori settlement of New Zealand theories. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Carabinieri (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Composers for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. [I'd be new in Wikipedia taking an active role other than contributing a sentence or two to an entry. I don't know much about the actual workings of this platform. I work with two former grads on a visualization idea. In the process we've observed several oddities.]

Several entries in the list of popular genres page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popular_music_genres) are questionable. There is, for instance, a sub-genre named "hip hop" under the genre "hip hop"; Crossover thrash metal appears as a sub-genre of thrash metal and as a sub-genre of hardcore punk, both being listed under "rock". Etc. I've counted close to 80 sub-genres that appear more than once.

I've reviewed several duplicate entries and it looks like most duplicates are the result of negligence. Take "Baltimore club", listed as a subgenre of east coast hip hop, and under electronic breakbeat. The wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Club) unequivocally puts it as a sub-genre of breakbeat.

I would be more than happy to curate the list of genres page, making sure that every entry is unique and that it is properly labeled (i.e. jazz blues vs twelve-bar blues).

Please let me know how you think I should go about this.

Thanks

(feel free to reach me directly at gauvins9 at gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauvins (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now had a look at this. I agree the article is poor and has many shortcomings. In the past I've worked on genres. I did the List of opera genres — a complicated example. I think you need to have a systematic approach — maybe open a discussion on the talk page? (N.B. I no longer maintain the List of opera genres because of some unpleasant harassment. Genres discussions often involve strife! Everybody thinks they are entitled to their own view on them, even if they unwilling to do any actual reading/research.) Kleinzach 06:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll initiate a discussion on the talk section of the popular genre page. You wrote that it could be a good idea to be "adopted". Well, I'd say I can probably do stuff on my own, but wouldn't mind being "mentored" (rather than adopted :). I've interacted with another active editor of the popular genre page. Would be great if both of you could chip in. I'd defer to your suggestions.

thanks again Gauvins (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Adoption? No I don't think so! Or was it the welcome template? I didn't design that. I've put some comments on the article talk page. Best. --Kleinzach 10:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done a cleanup. Are you going to work on this? Kleinzach 03:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ktfield/Mark Wilkinson, where you had said delete. I am not sure that I am technically supposed to do withdraw when there is another editor's delete in place, but the reason for deletion was that the page was a stale draft from an author who has not edited since 2010, but the user appears to have returned, so clearly the reason for deletion no longer applies. I can scarcely imagine you can have any reason for objecting to my WP:IAR action, but please do let me know if you do. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

James, I was about to say 'no problem', but when I looked just now the user (Ktfield) hadn't come back! I'm puzzled. --Kleinzach 10:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

She has not come back under that username, but she has as an IP: see User talk:Ktfield/Mark Wilkinson. It remains to see whether she will edit the page, but we have to at least give her a chance to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Now I understand. --Kleinzach 10:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

foundation of opera and principles
Thank you for the solid foundation you gave to the opera project and for your voice of reason in matters such as naming conventions, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 49th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Less precious: you signed Giano's attempt of a closing statement, because you support part of it. You also signed the other parts including his personal judgement of another editor. Please consider to move your comment to "comment" instead of "sign", to stay with the facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

ps to the facts: the argument is NOT about infoboxes yes or no, it is about hiding and collapsing them, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to confirm I gave my opinion in full understanding of both points. --Kleinzach 14:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Understand. I gave mine, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

ps: do you know who Andy Mabbit is? I asked Giano who invented him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've archived the debate [3]. Nothing more productive was going to come, and the majority approved the motion that info boxes are not always necessary. Seems a good compromise.  Giano  19:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You are one of a handful of editors who has made at least 25 edits to George Frideric Handel. I am not a musical scholar or student and was hoping you might be able to help me organize ((George Frideric Handel)).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see Template_talk:George_Frideric_Handel. --Kleinzach 09:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kleinzach-- If you aren't terribly busy, would you mind please looking at the new stub/article David Oppenheim (clarinetist)? What happened here is that two years ago at "Budapest_String_Quartet#Recordings_for_Columbia_from_1940_include" when I was working on that page I had linked to David Oppenheim (oh – now I see Dr. B also added a disambig, but it seems to be redlinked) without realizing that it pointed to the poker player instead; and then yesterday I noticed that someone delinked him at BSQ, and went to see why. The CBS Oppenheim had no stub here at WP, so I asked Dr. Blofeld to make one for him, which he did right away. Then someone else immediately jumped in, adding an infobox and a great deal of expansion that now virtually duplicates between his biography and the lead. I've now removed duplicate links, but don't feel competent to rewrite the lead. Thanks for any help. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I referenced his recordings from CDs at hand, w/o looking them up online – not sure if this is acceptable practice here, but I've done it before in a few other places. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, in the meantime today the article has attracted a gazillion edits and is now in quite good condition, with all that duplication gone. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot about this. I've had a look and done a little editing. Seems basically OK. --Kleinzach 14:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I said "If an article has an infobox, it is desirable that its content is visible.", - my lack of language, how would I say that it is the obvious (not that one follows the other logically)? It is not there to not be seen. But some disagree, - did you see the former discussion about the invisible infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I never saw that. --Kleinzach 23:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Both of you are far more conscientious about following all these infobox discussions than I - I never bother to look at any of them. But two thoughts: I did look at one box that Gerda had mentioned, with no visible info except a "show" thingy; this struck me as rather strange, and probably not a good idea. The other is that the opera project is obviously in the throes of much argumentation (which I haven't looked at at all) - but somehow for orchestras there ought be be some degree of coordination with whatever they might end up with. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the connection between opera and orchestras? Orchestras are a special case, so they need their own special set of fields. We have a project consensus on this, although we might differ a little on the fields. I agree with Smerus on WP:KISS. --Kleinzach 03:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Somebody of your experience should know better than to tag articles on diplomats for notability. Did you look in google books?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. What exactly is this about? I am not clairvoyant. Are you referring to a particular article? Please explain properly. I've done some work on diplomats recently — this is the first time I've worked on this type of article — my understanding of notability is based on WP:DIPLOMAT. --Kleinzach 14:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You tagged an article on a diplomat which was quite important in British-Argentine affairs in the lead up to the Falklands War. Sources I found seemed to indicate he was used something as a diplomatic pawn. Notable, without a doubt. just I had an automated bot message earlier saying Derick Ashe had been tagged as non notable and I reverted it assuming it was vandalism and was surprised to find you'd done it. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to read what it says on the notability notice: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." After that compare the article before and after your work on it [4]. Clearly your work on the article was helpful, but your note here is wasting both your time and mine. Kleinzach 15:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it needed expansion, "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline." just wasn't true and you shouldn't have tagged it as such. If you want an article expanded, ask the creator to expand it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is rather silly. The article was a minimal stub and the notification (with no time limit) was there for the creator to read. This is now at an end and I'm archiving. --Kleinzach 07:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)