User talk:Michael Bednarek/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Adding citation templates

Hi Michael, Re: Olimpie: Please do not add citation templates to articles that do not use them, per WP:CITEVAR. Apparently you like these citation templates. I prefer not to use them, because they are very time consuming to edit and add very little utility. --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't change the citation style (full inline, short, parenthetical) in that article nor the appearance of citations. I only added clickable links between "Notes" and "Sources" which e.g. help readers to find the source for the citation "Everett 2013" (which previously was marked "21013"). I maintain that their utility for readers is obvious, and if editors find it time consuming to use them, they don't have to – but using them will create a checking mechanism to avoid typos. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The guideline says one should not be "adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates". In this case there were some "Cite web" templates, but they were not used consistently. I think maybe you violated the guideline. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I don't understand this logic. If there were some refs in templates, there wasn't a "consistent system without" them, so no violation. - Michael, please feel free to change all refs in all "my" articles that way, - I feel that templates are clearer to a newbie. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for your comment. It sounds like you are arguing that if there is even one citation template on a page then they can be added everywhere in the article. What if there were one ref without a template? Would we then be able to remove any templates? Perhaps it is better to look at the history of the article. In this case, the "Cite web" templates were in the first ref tags added to the article. So I am willing to concede that in this particular case the use of citation templates was the first established style of the this particular article. But if the first refs added did not use them, I might argue, adding them would be a violation of the guideline. I understand that you like the citation templates, but if we want to dispute the guideline, I think that should be done elsewhere. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, I confess that citevar is a topic I try not to have to do with. I write "my articles" in mixed style, and don't care much about referencing of others. When I'm in a hurry, I just write simple citations behind facts. When I have more time, I write templates, because I feel they are much clearer for any future editor, and I group them in their section which makes reading the text in edit mode much easier. If I go for higher quality, or have to cite different pages from one source, I use sfn referencing. I learned rather recently about {{rp}} as a way to give page numbers to other refs as well, but haven't found a way to present those pages with a link to the very page.
So, if someone such as Michael would improve my refs, I'd just say thank you, and not come with citevar. - Repeating, I'd leave yours alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Of course this seems to raise the side issue, that editors do not really own main space articles. There is formally no such thing as 'my' article, or 'your' article. We should also thank Michael for allowing us to discuss this on HIS Talk page. :-) --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, and Michael. By the quotation marks, I tried to indicate that I'm aware they are not my articles. Citation style and other style matters are typically set by the one who begins an article. However, exactly when beginning an article I'm often in a rush, and not at my best ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15 § Template:Use shortened footnotes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 15 § Template:Use shortened footnotes. Peaceray (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Find a link

Hallo,

Some times ago you provided me the "find a link" tool that enables users to spot pages where new articles can be linked. Due to a wrong move, I've just lost my page of templates etc. Can you please send me this link again ? Thanks, LouisAlain (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The link is https://edwardbetts.com/find_link/ and it's described at WP:FINDLINK. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. This tool is so useful. LouisAlain (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

September
Dahlias in Walsdorf

Under a modest edit summary, you just changed so many details to the better in Originale! ... still amazing, even after watching it happen all these years. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

peoplepill

Hi Michael, I was just editing the Ingeborg Hunzinger page, and I realized your addition was word-for-word what it says on a peoplepill website. I saw you cited the same literature they did, so I was wondering if it was just an incorrect citation, you wrote it, or it was plagiarized from you. Please clarify it, and if it is incorrectly cited, please cite it correctly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michbeebe (talk • contribs) 02:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

At the bottom of peoplepill.com/people/ingeborg-hunzinger/ is, in small light grey print and questionable grammar, the notice, "The contents of this page are sourced from Wikipedia article. The contents are available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

October

Some apples left for you, with thanks for all the music. See my talk today for an expressive image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Movie song timings (West Side Story 1961)

Hi. I know that you've made edits to this film article previously. Is this appropriate for the article, or would it only be appropriate in a soundtrack article? If you think it is not appropriate, please revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Side_Story_%281961_film%29&type=revision&diff=988803325&oldid=988602612 All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ssilvers. I agree that those random timings are inappropriate and confusing (why those?) and ought to be removed. I'm trying to reduce my watchlist, and West Side Story (1961 film) got culled some time ago, so I won't be reverting. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to edit war with the person, so I don't want to revert. Can you at least leave a Talk page message explaining the problem? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edits on Nicklin Way

Your recent edits removed the the small words stating the state route. These are required per WP:ACCESS. IF you could rectify this it would be appreciated. Life200BC (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yuja Wang

Do you really think that the quote by Michael Levin is of sufficient substance to be included at all? All it does is tell readers that Levin, primarily notable as a successful co-writer of memoirs and an entrepreneur, thinks she is wonderful. As I wrote in my previous edit, "...he is not a music critic and his article adds nothing to an understanding of Wang's career." And I note also from the ref that there is the possibility that Wang and Levin have been family friends for some years. Davidships (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

What I think is not important or relevant. When a widely read author writes a concert review in a popular publication, there's no reason to exclude it because it might be considered too gushing. WP:N and WP:RS work both ways. As for Levin's credentials: he's not a professional music critic, but he writes about a wide range of topics, including about classical music, and getting paid for it. The details of this particular review are just as insightful as any music critic could have written. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
We don't put everything in, so clearly it is relevant that you thought it a useful addition, otherwise it wouldn't be there. By the way, WP:N is irrelevant - it deals with articles not their content - and not everything that a notable person does is noteworthy or encyclopædic). You do music critics a disservice - any good one would get beyond such generalised adulation and shine at least some more specific light on her artistry, style or development (for example the Anon critic(s) from NYT) and I suspect that even Mark Swed had something valuable to say before going off-piste. But never mind, the Reviews section may look quite different in a year or two's time anyway. Davidships (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Marjon Lambriks

Thank you for your help, - look! - Enjoy your time away! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Klebe operas

Template:Klebe operas has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Lergusa

I missed the echoes on the first view too - I have Erika Heynatz on my watchlist because she's been the target of an LTA for several years, which is another cause for concern about a new account like that. I would dispute that it was especially neutral - the edits read like payback, and the references don't assert the accusations in anything like that manner in their accounts of the verdict, so there's an OR/synthesis angle too. Acroterion (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right, there were no echoes with the Heynatz edit, and there was no cause for more than a caution about following the sources in a BLP w/r/t that edit. However, that mild concern changed when I saw their other edit and the edit filter log. It's a habit administrators pick up when they see a new account doing potentially problematic things. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Buon Natale


May you have very Happy Christmas, Michael ...

and a safe New Year filled with peace, joy, and beautiful music.



Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Fritze Weidemann

And if das dann auch hier gestanden hätte, wouldend ich es nicht gelöscht haben, aber nun stand its ja there. MfG --Jack User (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I assume you refer to your removal and my restoration of the portrait of Friedrich Weidemann. The description at File:Friedrich Weidemann jung.jpg always had: "Author: Willy Wilcke". Further, a search helps. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Das damit der Fotograf gemeint war, war mir auch klar. Nur nicht, wer da abgebildet war. Jetzt schon. Und nö, keinen Bock auf Englisch zu schreiben. --Jack User (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: Elisabeth Schumann

Hi,

I have been to the graveyard last week and have a picture of the grave stone - how do I upload that to the article?

Many thanks

Juanpumpchump (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

See Commons:Help:Upload, which will lead to Commons:Special:UploadWizard. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Ping response

I received an email notice that you had mentioned me. The notice contained a link to this article sexction. Looking at the edit history of that article, I see this recent revert by you. I gather that you didn't intend to ping me, but I'm responding just in case. This seems to be a glitch in the generation of notifications; no need for a response if it is. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Champagne-Polka (January 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This draft does not appear to indicate which of the musical notability criteria is satisfied. If at least one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page which criterion is met, and resubmit.

You may ask for advice about the musical notability criteria at the Teahouse.

This draft has been declined because of notability concerns. This draft should be resubmitted by addressing the notability concerns in AFC comments or on the talk page of the draft. Do not resubmit this draft without explaining how it satisfies a notability criterion. Do not simply add references, or make minor changes, without explaining how it satisfies a notability criterion.

You may ask for advice about the notability criteria at the Teahouse.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Michael Bednarek! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Barnstar of High Culture
Pour l’ensemble de votre travail sur Wikipédia. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ägyptischer Marsch (January 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nightenbelle was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Nightenbelle (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Who are you?

. Unknown User Double (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem editor

Clear that Risery Voiple Yelty, Unknown User Double and 220.120.78.242 are the same person. I will be creating a warning for RVY and UUD Talk pages. If bad contributions continue, I will start either a sockpuppet or a not here to improve Wikipedia complaint (those BAD drafts, edit warring, etc.). David notMD (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

WP 20

Thank for your help, in general and especially Jerome Kohl! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

On the Main page today, remembered in friendship - thank you for fixing the citations that were too complicated for me, at least late at night ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks for the reminder

thanks for reminding me to cite my source

I am new to editing Wikipedia so i hope you can forgive my mistake

Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Kurt Weill

It looks like you've been particularly helpful in the Kurt Weill article over time. I've recently made some additions there; I'm quite sure of the substance (and sourcing) of what I wrote, and I'll probably be adding more, but it looks like that article uses a citation mechanism that I'm not really familiar with, and I would appreciated if you could look in and see if what I did can be better integrated with that mechanism. - Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for major corrections, especially Klang! Just a (very) minor thing: italic title (which will never need a change) is better at the bottom, I think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"I dissent." Templates ought to be in a logical order, and {{italic title}} affects the title and belongs at the top. That said, I would never edit an article only to change its position, not even reverting if another editor would do just that. As for "which will never need a change": you are of course aware of the recent drive to replace vertical sidebar navboxes in opera articles with bottom horizontal navboxes which sometimes took several iterations. Having {{italic title}} at the top allowed me to see via popups whether it needed to be re-added. As for Klang (and thank you for that humongous job of converting harv to sfn!): who's to say that we won't have one day an infobox for compositions that will apply italics automatically? Or a parameter |italic= in {{Infobox musical composition}}? Dealing with {{italic title}} buried at the bottom would then be awkward. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the nice answer preventing the pic flowing into the next section. I think we had a misunderstanding. I meant that in Klang (specifically) it would never need to be changed. Critics of infoboxes sometimes say they clutter the code in edit mode (and I see actually no reason why their code has to appear on top, but am too lazy to propose a change to that), so this line, appearing first for every edit seems like easily avoided clutter. For me, it belongs where DEFAULTSORT and DISPLAYTITLE are. Date format is different because it may tell a new editor right away which format to use. I also wouldn't go around and move the italic title template, but once I'm there and need to touch the corner anyway, I do it on the side. I think it's easy to see in an article title if something needs to be done about italics. Infobox musical composition leaves article titles open intentionally. - Back to music: By chance - met conductor on Feldberg mountain who said that their daughter would perform in a cantata service - I turned to a church in Frankfurt that runs bi-weekly cantata services, - very inspirational. I just put a new pic on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Taryn Fiebig

On 23 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Taryn Fiebig, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with the articles on Mozart. I hope to write two more on soprano arias by Mozart. I'd be happy to hear any advice you may wish to give. I've written near 1,100 Wikipedia articles in the past, mostly on the subject of biology. Filikovalo (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

BWV 39

That cantata is Mathsci territory. He's blocked, sadly. I won't touch it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Kammermusik

Long time ago, and now again you helped with Kammermusik (Hindemith) - thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for feedback on an article

Hi there, hope this is the appropriate place to post this. I'm a student working on the following article, String Quartet No. 10 (Shostakovich) and see that you have edited some articles in this domain. Any feedback you can offer is much appreciated. Thanks so much.

Zawinul lava (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Invite to Establish a Consensus

I've created a sub-section asking for the establishment of an explicit consensus regarding the format of the article Musical theatre in its talk page. I would very much like to invite you to participate in the discussion. Thank you for your time. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, don't forget to sign your posts! ;) Tyrone Madera (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

I was dreading converting to the sfn template, thank you for doing that for me! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Bernstein Third Sym Premiere - Thanks

I had planned on adding the footnote for the NYT article, but could not get the visual editing toolbar to pop up to allow me to edit the refile nor could I edit it manually. (It is working now, I see.) Thanks for adding it. I moved the reference to after the sentence on the premiere since the NYT review neither proves by itself not disputes the contention about the reception of the work. I hope that is alright. - Rgrames (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: Symphony No. 3 (Bernstein): I deliberately placed Parmenter's review after the "reactions" sentence because he is in parts quite scathing. Leaving that sentence without a cittion will only invite a {{Citation needed}} tag. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Michael, for your response. I must say that statement went untagged for some time with no citation at all. And as an example of one in a comment on range, that would seem to invite comment almost as surely. But I am not concerned enough to argue the point at any length. I/you could expand the sentence to note the NYT review as one example of the more vitriolic and repeat the citation. Would that serve? - Rgrames (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
My interest in that article is only minimal. Feel free to improve it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

June songs

some flowers and music for you, with more thanks for consistent improvements than the little clicks can say - you were around when I created my first article, and we enjoyed new music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Celia Torra

Hi Michael, thanks for your work on the Celia Torra article. Can you tell me how to add the accent over the final a in Torra? Thanks! T. E. Meeks (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Some help

Do you know any way I could easily convert to the Harvard referencing? I used the label style on the Sylvia Rose Ashby article, abs would like to convert to the other referencing style. If you know of any way of doing this more easily, your advise would be greatly appreciated! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I took Ashby's article off my watchlist when I saw a truly bizarre reference style introduced. There is no simple way to simplify it; painfully, it has to be manually. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
That was me before I knew better. I’ll do my best to convert it. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
This is now done. And not terribly painful. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Well done. A quick glance shows 1 obvious problem: "Ashby (1938, p. 27)" lacks a target. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I have fixed this now. I put the wrong year in the source! oops. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Query

Re [1], I'm a bit confused. The project page and banner itself says "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects"—surely the Composers WikiProject would be a classical music related project? (And I haven't seen any other composers with the CM banner anyways) Aza24 (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I restored {{WikiProject Classical music}} at Orlando Gibbons because I understand that {{WikiProject Composers}} is for composers of all genres, not just classical (see e.g. Talk:Nobuo Uematsu, Talk:Henry Mancini). If WikiProject Composers is indeed a sub-project of WikiProject Classical music, then I was wrong. OTOH, in that case, all templates {{WikiProject Classical music}} should be removed from articles already tagged with {{WikiProject Composers}}, e.g. Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Talk:Gustav Mahler, and a few thousand more (similar list from PetScan). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
There is definitely inconsistency in the project's scope. The original description (which I kept there when doing the project page redesign) suggests it is a daughter of CM and the Biography project, but its use suggests otherwise. Either way, "that are not covered by other classical music related projects" seems a broad enough designation to include WP:COMPOSERS, after all, it's not "that are not covered by other classical music projects". But honestly, I don't really care in the end :) Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

August thanks

August songs

Thank you for your great general fixes! My 12th today, DYK? I decorated, also for a birthday. Songs invite to more music, places, food and flowers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Cassidy (composer)

I was looking for this guy but had forgotten his given name, so I searched "Cassidy" and could find no reference to this Cassidy. Now consider, the 1st phrase on the Disamb page is

"Cassidy may refer to:"

and then consider, one of the three Cassidys in the "People" section is "DJ Cassidy", it seems entirely sensable to include a major composer in this section, or how else can one find Patrick Cassidy if you've forgotten his given name?

Cassidy may refer to...Patrick Cassidy, (composer), born etc. Can we not agree here? MarkDask 14:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that's confusing, but those are the guidelines for disambiguation pages: MOS:DAB, specifically MOS:DABNAME. The normal discovery in your case is to look at Cassidy, then at Cassidy (surname) – and then you're stuck because Patrick Cassidy is a further disambiguation name which you will not discover because you don't know his first name. OTOH, searching the internet for "Cassidy composer" will find him immediately. I've long thought that DAB pages for names should transclude their sub-disambiguation pages into the main list, but that requires a bit of extra work, once for each subpage and for each disambiguated entry the main page, but it's not the practice at the English Wikipedia. Our German colleagues do it; see de:Cassidy (name) where that happens. You can do it here too, but it would need to be done for all 6 disambiguated Cassidy entries to be consistent, and there's no guarantee the a) that will survive some other editor's idea of how these lists should done; b) that future disambiguated entries there will follow the same transclusion route. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Well that was an education. I was strolling barefoot along the Wikishore; dipped my toe in the flow of disambiguation, when a WikiTitan leapt from the depth, varnished my toenails and left me a book of instructions, to while away the time, while they dried .
So now I know how disamb pages work, and also that your "own work" at Commons is prodigious; great collection. Thanks for the tour MarkDask

17-tet

Re your edits made on 20 August 2021: Good edits. Thank you.  :-) --JimPlamondon (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Ut que-ant laxis...

Mike in no part of that French source you can read "variant". It's the same thing (that's a copy). Jack2008 (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the source, H425, at the library in Montpellier mentioned in the article Ut queant laxis? If you refer to the Larousse citation, it says that Arezzo borrowed the melody from a song that had been adapted for several odes by Horace that had the same metre. I'm not sure hat warrants calling it a "copy". Anyway, the Horace connection seems rather obscure and might well be omitted. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Accent Marks in Titles

Hi Michael, You very kindly added the accent mark to the title of my article on Celia Torrà. I have figured out how to add accents in regular text, but now have another title that needs an accent: Mme. Tarbé des Sablons. Can you tell me how to add an accent in a title? I'm unable to edit it and have not had much luck searching on help. Thanks! T. E. Meeks (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It's very simple. Just click on the "move" tab at the top of the article Mme. Tarbe des Sablons and overwrite the new name, Mme. Tarbé des Sablons, in the second box on the move instruction page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I did it! T. E. Meeks (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Marcella Detroit

Hi Michael, the four-and-a-half-octave claim is substantiated by her IMDB and articles written of her. You can easily find these by searching that amount of range alongside her name. CPGACoast (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. If you add a claim to an article, you are required per WP:BURDEN to provide reputable reliable secondary or teriary sources to support it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Gaspard de la nuit

Hi, Michael. I deleted those extra spaces because paragraphs were not aligned on my computer, but it seems that that solution works for you. Do you know if there is a better way to code it so that it works on all devices? Ron Oliver (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. I can see now that the alignment fails in narrower screens. I'll try to get a more stable representation later today. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Altenburg, MO

Hi Michael. Thank you for this – I am a wee bit embarrassed that it's said that, ludicrously, since 1721 or whenever and no-one ever noticed it before! Sheesh and well done. Anyway, I have added this – worthwhile, or just silly? I don't know but am probably not aiming for fisticuffs over it ... thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Voice Type Page: gendered terminology

I made the changes to the gendered language used on the voice type page. Why has this not been accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NonBinaryCreative (talk • contribs) 11:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(Please sign your messages with four tildes as explained at WP:SIGHOW.) // You haven't made any changes, according to your edit history. If you are referring to the changes by anonymous editors to Voice type, I can only repeat what the editor wrote who reverted those changes most recently: start a discussion on that article's talk page, and invite readers at the Opera Project to that discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Omnifid.us

Michael: This is in reference to your edit:

Undid revision 1041441491 by Bezenek (talk): "fidus omnium" is not a recognized Latin phrase, and article Omnifid.us doesn't exist; same for "fortuna utaris et prudentia"

(Note: This is my first time contributing to someone's talk page. Please excuse any faux pas I might cause.)

Omnifid.us is my private company and the Latin quote is the motto of the company. I have nothing to do with "fortuna utaris et prudentia".

Is there something I can do to get the company and motto into Wikipedia? I don't want to spend the time to make more effort if the efforts will be rejected.

I previously worked with someone at the Wikipedia organization if having a contact there will help with this issue. Please let me know.

Thank you for understanding and helping me which this. Todd (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

(Please place new contributions on a talk page at the bottom; see WP:TPNEW.)
I reverted you edit at List of Latin phrases (F) because, as the first sentence there says, these lists are for notable phrases, not made-up ones. I couldn't find any occurrence in literature of "fidus omnium", and the explanation you provided, "motto of private technology company Omnifid.us", wasn't helpful because no such Wikipedia article exists and I couldn't find a website for it either. Further, I couldn't make much sense of your translation, "all faithful friends", which would be in Latin something like "omnes amici fidi". To me, "fidus omnium" is more like 'trustworthy to all'. Wikipedia is not a place to get your company's motto published. That's what your website or social media can do. // The second part of my edit summary regarding "fortuna utaris et prudentia" has nothing to do with you; I removed that phrase from the article because it caught my eye. It just happened to fall into a similar category as yours, and I like to be thorough in my edit summaries. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Zauberflöte caption

Hi Michael,

I don't understand the rational for drop "by Peter Hoffer", unless it's just the redlinking that is objectionable. Better perhaps to drop the image altogether, if it can't be ID-ed, would you agree? Sparafucil (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I dropped the attribution at The Magic Flute for a drawing because the artist Peter Hoffer seems so non-notable that there is no Wikipedia article for him in any language; see D:Q99373484. I agree that the drawing itself doesn't add much to the article and could well be omitted, too, but it doesn't do any harm, either. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
There's also Worldcat. I hesitate to pronounce on notability standards for Category:Opera designers, which would include Chagall & Hockney; Herzog & Tarkovsky. Category:Scenographers seems sadly underpopulated though. I have put the attribution back, in black this time. Sparafucil (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Lisa Wilkinson

Your recent edits are being discussed at the BLP Noticeboards.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Lizzie Holmes (singer)

Many thanks for your advice on updating this article's title to 'Lizzie Holmes (soprano)' in link with classical singers, we are finding it difficult to find how to update the title, are you able to advise us how we do this? (We can only seem to edit the main body of the article at the moment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briggs 360 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

An article title cannot be edited directly, only by moving the article to a new name. That's not necessary in draft stage, but I left a note at Draft:Lizzie Holmes (singer) which will alert the person performing the move into article main space. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Robert McGuigan

You reverted one of my edits to Joshua Bell, in particular the name of his former Stradivarius violin. You changed the name "Tom Taylor" to "Tom Tyler". Actually the instrument's name was/is Tom Taylor. At some point a journalist wrote an article in which the instrument was named Tom Tyler. That nomenclature was a mistake that has been propagated due to it seeming to be used in a reliable reference. Anyhow, rather than engage in an editing war, I refer you to Tom Taylor Stradivarius — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMcGuigan (talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

AFAICS I never reverted an edit of yours at Joshua Bell. There was uncertainty about the name of the Tom Taylor Stradivarius where two anonymous editors changed the name in April and June 2012, which I reverted because there were no supporting citations in that article. You provided a source for its correct name in September 2013. Since then, the name seems to be settled. I'm baffled why you bring this up now here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for my confusion. I guess I was the anonymous editor of Joshua Bell regarding the Tom Taylor Strad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMcGuigan (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy Christmas, Michael


May you have very Happy Holidays ...

and a safe New Year filled with peace, joy, and beautiful music.



Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you get my IP blocked?

Sorry, I'm new to posting on Wikipedia. I've been editing the instrumentation section on the pages for various pieces and pretty much all of my edits have stayed up. You've been the only one to reverse an edit, after which I got IP banned, and I have no idea if those are connected. Do you know how I can make an appeal to get my ability to edit back, or at least to find out why I was banned? Thank you. 74.101.251.49 (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

a) Which article? b) I can't block or ban anyone. c) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=block&user=&page=User%3A74.101.251.49&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype= does not show any blocks. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Greetings! Edinburgh Festival Lists

Greetings from the distant past! I am still around, occasionally creating articles.

I recently acquired some early programmes from the Edinburgh International Festival and have started articles on the following:

I remember that you used to work on the coding of similar lists, so i was wondering whether you might have time to have a look at them and see where I have gone wrong! Any advice will be most appreciated! Kleinzach 14:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! It's good to hear from you. // I'm not sure what you want me to do with those lists/tables. They cover an enormous amount of information, and I have no ready idea how to present it in a more appealing way. Cheers, Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look! Delighted that you are still around! If you don't have any specific advice,I will take that as a positive and continue with the same basic formats in the future, if and when I have primary source materials and time to process them for the lists. Best, Kleinzach 13:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Leonard Bernstein

hello, Michael: Thanks for fixing some refs that I added to the "early 40s" and "personal" sections of the LB article. But some of the cites in that article to the Humphrey Burton book, with it two editions/versions, are still mixed up, and I seem to be unable to fix them. In the "personal life" section in particular, the "dentist's daughter" cite, for example, should be to Burton 1994 (not 2017), p. 108. The "terrible guilt" cite in the second para should not be to Burton 1994 pp. 158-160, but rather to 1994 pp. 446-447. These are the ones that jumped out at me. But I don't seem to understand how to fix them. Can you help? PDGPA (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I changed the citations according to your instructions. Please check whether they are correct now. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Always precious

Precious
ten years

Michael, thank you so much for constant inspiration and fixes regarding the music we love, with the tools of your eyes and brain. You won't need further reminders ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

New category

Hi Michael

Thanks for fixing the Australian organists category, a mess mostly of my own making. I've just created a new one, Category:Australian accompanists for one musician in particular. I think it's worthwhile as a category but should it be expanded to encompass other instrumentalists? Cheers, Doug butler (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There's already Category:Classical accompanists and its parent, Category:Accompanists, which are not subcategorised into countries. I think "Category:Australian accompanists" will always suffer from WP:SMALLCAT. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

George Alexander Macfarren's Robin Hood (1860)

Hello, i hope you like it, Macfarren's Robin Hood (1860), The most famous British opera is based on the legend of Robin Hood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.77.115.220 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello!

Thank you for your edits to the page I translated, I'm grateful that there are those staying alert for errors like mine. JohnDVandevert (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Undid Revision

You can stop that now, thank you. JohnDVandevert (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

JohnDVandevert: I assume both messages relate to the article Die Fledermaus (1972 film), and partly to your repeated erroneous use of the Category:Operas adapted into films. That category is clearly for operas (that have been adapted into films), not for films (that are based on operas). You may understand the concept better if you look at the members of that category, and compare it to the proper category for this film, Category:Opera films (or similar categories mentioned at the top of the latter category's page). Your latest revert leaves "Die Fledermaus (1972 film)" in both categories, which is plainly self-contradictory. I suggest you self-revert as soon as possible. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
Hello Michael, your alertness averted an unfortunate revert on the Frederic Chopin page. Thank you. Po Mieczu (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Parts of oboe reed

Guten Morgen Michael Bednarek, könntest du die Beschriftung dieses Bildes ins Englische übersetzen? ---  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   09:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Wie Gisbert2 schon auf seiner Diskussionsseite schrieb, das sind Spezialbegriffe, die ich weder im deutschen noch im englischen kenne. Vielleicht helfen diese Webseiten weiter: Yamaha, Phamox Music, Bloomingdale School of Music. Detaillierte Diagramme sind London Music Co., Arizona State University, "A Study of Oboe Reeds", S. 9. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Vielen Dank für die Fundstellen, so komme ich schon weiter. ---  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   08:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hier zur Kenntnisnahme die erweiterten englisch und französisch beschrifteten Bilder:
---  Gisbert ツ (talk)  Illustrate Wikipedia !   05:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

By the Law

I requested page protection. The latest edit the anon changed the year which appeared to be in conflict with the source. Curious why you haven't filed a wp:RfPP? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read

The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here are just some of the many discussions-

Plus see ANI discussions here[3] and here[4]. There is one exception- the cockpit crew of the aircraft involved....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 03:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE: I did read most of the threads you mention before I restored the list of fatalities/survivors of the 1937 Airlines of Australia Stinson crash; i've now read them all. In case you missed it, I repeat my edit summary: "restore list of fatalities/survivors whose names have been mentioned in a coronial inquiry, numerous newspaper reports, on memorial plaques, in at least 1 book, and in a film – not mentioning them here is unencyclopedic." The article mentions in its narration the three survivors by name, and they have named roles in the film about the crash, so removing a concise list with sources is churlish. Your removal also removed some valuable citations from the article and left a nonsensical section heading. None of the previous discussions you pointed out prohibit such a list in this particular article. That such discussions with range of editors have taken place is a good indication that the consensus you claim does not exist. The repeated references to WP:MEMORIAL don't hold water in this case, and there are no BLP or conspiracy issues here. The claim that only people with Wikipedia articles can be mentioned in an article is obvious nonsense. I suggest you restore that list in that article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Your claim is the nonsense. Wikipedia consensus is clearly against naming the victims. Another editor didn't think so, and was put down at those two ANI discussions I linked to. You want to go to ANI, go ahead....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
You now that ANI is not the venue for content disputes. You haven't addressed any of the points I raised, nor pointed to a discussion that came to a broad-reaching consensus in this matter. Instead, I see regular objection to your position, which admittedly sometimes is supported by proper arguments (BLP, WP:MEMORIAL, swatting conspiracy theories), none of which apply here. But your well-thought out counterargument, "Your claim is the nonsense." (Which claim?), is utterly convincing, and so I will follow my usual zero-revert practice. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
You wrote- 'The claim that only people with Wikipedia articles can be mentioned in an article is obvious nonsense.' So the one uttering nonsense was yourself. Over a half dozen discussions on this topic and all with the same result. You don't like the consensus opinion of other WP editors and then call it nonsense. Your fake loss of memory is nonsense....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
You wrote: "If a person isn't notable for a stand alone article per either or both BIO1E and WP:GNG, clearly they aren't notable for mention in an article by name either." – Almost all Wikipedia articles mention names of persons who aren't notable for a stand-alone article, so your claim is not supported by practice in a few million articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The magic of WP

The creation of Richard Toop, is now the third (I think) time where an article on my 'to create list' has been created by someone else before I got to it. Honestly so refreshing to see. On a side note, how crazy do you think it would be to try and organize a collab this summer to get Bach to GA? Aza24 (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

May songs

Please take a vast field of "flowers" in thanks for not only having created the musicologist's article but adding the many links with consideration for the context. I thought of Hymnen today, because a friend participated in the Yale performance, and liked to see it covered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Two Pianos Four Hands

Hello! I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up some of the article, especially linking to the music pages on Wikipedia. I resolved the first clarification (it was 12 - a typo on my end). As for the second clarification, which pertains to Impromptu in A-flat, I re-checked and it is D 935. However, I am not sure how to internally link pages so that it redirects to that specific part of the page. If you're able, would you be able to do this?

Thanks again! ChrisWilliam1995 (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Tosca Translation

Hey Michael, I'm new to wikipedia and learning how to use it.

I saw you undid two of my translation changes on the Tosca page. I am fine with you changing "Ecco un artista" back to "What an artist" if you desire to do so, but I would like to insist on "e lucevan le stelle" being "and the stars were shining", not "and the stars shone".

Not only is that a far more correct translation, it's also the more common English one. The wikipedia page on that aria also includes my version of the title, "were shining" and not "shone". Can you please not revert this change? I believe it's better and more accurate for all readers. Thank you, Ottostark1 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Tosca is a featured article and all edits there should be carefully considered. The wording "And the stars shone" was introduced by one of the Opera Project's most respected editors, Brian Boulton, on 26 June 2010. Your proposed translation, "And the stars were shining", is not wrong, and both versions occur in books and elsewhere, with a slight preponderance of "shone". That's precisely why there is no need to change it. Your versions are not, as you claimed in your edit summary, "more in line with the original Italian phrase", or as above, "far more correct" or "more common", and your changes were no improvement. I suggest you self-revert your latest edit and restore the wording that has been used since 2010. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey Michael,
I understand your concern that Tosca is a featured article. It is for that reason that I wanted to change the translation, to make it better for readers. Regardless of Brian's translation or the supposed preponderance of "shone," I can assure you that "were shining" is, in fact, both more in line with the original Italian phrase, and far more correct.
I speak both English and Italian at a native level and have done translation work with French and Spanish as well, so believe I have some insight here. "Lucevan" (lucevano in modern Italian) is imperfect past tense and as such would almost always be translated as "were shining" in English. Not "shone", which is remote past. So with that regard, it is more accurate.
That by itself, however, isn't a nail in the coffin. Other imperfect past tense verbs in the Italian aria are translated into remote past (as opposed to imperfect) in the English version. The key is where the verb is placed in the sequence of the story.
"Lucevan" (were shining) provides a backdrop against which the rest of the scene may be painted. The imperfect is here is akin to the imperfect past form "I was eating" in the sentence "I was eating, and the doorbell rang." It gives a different texture to the past narration. Hence why it's important to use the imperfect form of "were shining" here, even when other verbs later on are translated as remote past. The other verbs throughout the aria either punctuate or build on the pre-existing narrative structure of the scene.
I'm not pedantic with my edits, and this is evidenced above where I was fine with reverting "Ecco un artista" back to "What an artist." But what I don't appreciate is being told that my change was absolutely no improvement when it clearly is: in terms of accuracy, feel, and linguistic rigor.
I hope provides a helpful explanation of the edit. Best regards,
Ottostark1 (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank your your detailed response. (I think you mean luccicavano.) However, Wikipedia does not discard sources (that use "shone") because they might be incorrect (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, an essay, or more pertinent, the policies Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability). On balance, I'm still not convinced that your edits improved the Tosca article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey Michael, I do not mean luccicavano, as that is a different verb altogether. I mean what I said, because I know what I'm talking about.
This is very frustrating as I don't get the impression you're actually open to hearing the information I have to contribute. You're putting up needless hoops to jump through when the edit is (as I've previously demonstrated) very clearly a good one. For verifiability, look at any respectable Italian dictionary (Treccani, for example) for the entry on lucere if you want to verify the grammatical usage and conjugation.
If all editing on Wikipedia is this arduous (especially when I make a good-faith and meaningful contribution) then I have serious doubts over whether or not this is a worthwhile endeavour. I honestly expected much more of the editor community.
Regards,
Ottostark1 (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
While I agree that the Italian form is imperfect past, I'm less convinced that its only possible translation is via past progressive. The aria contains several past imperfect verb forms which are all translated in simple past. Further, shone has an appropriate poetic sense to it. As for your frustration: please read the material I linked to earlier. You might get less frustrated if your first edits concentrate on adding good sources where required. If you feel strongly about the language in Tosca, its talk page with >100 watchers is the appropriate venue. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing cultural_origins from Electronic music article

This was a correct decision. There is no need in genre infobox-warring. Whoever interested in history of electronic music may read the appropriate "History" section and make their own impression of where and when it originated. 178.121.33.109 (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Teddy Tahu Rhodes

Hi Michael, I saw that you undid my work on adding the discography and awards table for Teddy Tahu Rhodes. I did this edit for consistency and for easy reading. I don't want to start an edit war, so before I undo your undo again, I thought it best we speak. :) The discography table lists albums that he is credited on (as lead or featured artist) - this is standard. If I have missed some (which is possible), you could add them into the table. Do you not agree that the table looks better than long lists of album titles? Also as for ARIA awards, the table again is standard and makes clear and easy to read. Why do you object to it?. I look forward to hearing from you. :) Tobyjamesaus (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me here. Whether a list or a table or prose is easier to read is debatable. AFAIK Wikipedia has no recommendation for discographies, so there is no standard. Furthermore, unless there is something seriously wrong with an article, in the spirit of WP:WHENINROME, there's no need to impose a new format. The discography at Teddy Tahu Rhodes is just fine; it contains relevant information for each entry which your version didn't, but your version occupies about 25% more vertical screen space, despite listing only 10 instead of 19 entries. Despite my general reservations about the table style for discographies, I did not revert your edits in many other articles, but in Rhodes' case, I dissent. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. I respectfully disagree re discography table, but ok. Can I suggest we add the aria awards table at least? For easy viewing? Tobyjamesaus (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how adding a table for his 4 nominations and 1 win would improve the article. That information is already covered in context in the list. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Esmeralda misunderstanding

I think u misunderstood my edits to the Esmeralda article. If she was listed in the infobox as a 'G**sy' then I wouldn't have removed it - because that's her name in the play - and it'd be antiziganist and historical negationism to act as if they hadn't used that slur against her.

But that wasn't the case for the sentences I edited. They weren't quotes or transcripts from the play - they were Wikipedia editors describing the play and her race - not her character name. I wouldn't have excised it if they'd capitalised the slur to indicate they were calling her by her character name - but it wasn't capitalised - and therefore in context they were using it just like any other word than can describe her (like 'woman' or 'brown'). Stephanie921 (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What makes you think the appellation 'gypsy' to Esmeralda is the expression of a slur in Thomas' opera Esmeralda? She, not Fleur-de-Lys, gets Captain Phoebus, and Gringoire is left, deservedly, on his own. The replacement of 'gypsy' with 'Roma', an odd choice over the more understandable 'Romani', would leave most readers confused as it was neither explained nor linked. In my revert, I added such a link in Esmeralda's role description which gives readers the opportunity to explore the subject. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Because calling a Romani person that is a slur, but I'll edit it to Romani since u said u were alright with that Stephanie921 (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The connotation of a slur is apparently not universal: Tyson Fury calls himself The Gypsy King, as did his relative, the Irish Traveller Bartley Gorman. The Light and Life Gypsy Church doesn't seem to have a problem with it, either. The Guardian uses the term, and Katharine Quarmby uses it liberally in her 2014 book Romani Pilgrims: Europe’s New Moral Force. Look, this is not the place to discuss the meaning and intent of words, and Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Hunting for certain words in Wikipedia articles about historic works is not productive and a manifestation of the dictum by the great philosopher, Ricky Gervais: "Offence is taken, not given." or as the children have it, "sticks and stones …". The change of words you embark on will not undo past horrors or improve the lives of Romani people. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Musical notation help ~ referral ?

Hello, Michael! I was poking around on the Help:Score page and saw that you were recently active (as of this year) on the talk page. I would like to add a few small musical examples to an article I am working on (The Maiden in the Tower), but I don't really know how to read musical notation and I don't particularly have the time to learn the HTML code. Do you perhaps know of any fellow [and hopefully friendly] Wikipedians who could help out? I don't believe the individual who helped me on The Oceanides FA is active any longer, and so I am looking for a new partner in crime. Many thanks! ~ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Silence of Järvenpää! I apologize for my late response. My own knowledge of LilyPond is only rudimentary; for more serious scorewriting, like The Oceanides, I would use Mozart, but those scores can only be put in Wikipedia articles as images. But first, one would need an existing score to transcribe, and if you have that, you might as well take an image of that score an put that in the article. Like you, I'm not aware of any LilyPond expert around anymore. Good luck. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello Michael! I really appreciate you taking a moment to look into things for me. Thanks for your kind, helpful response, and happy editing. ~ Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for linking “Brother Come and Dance with Me” to the Adelheid Wette article. I added the information to her article as well.

T. E. Meeks (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

September thanks

September songs

Thank you for diligent lilypond fixes and other uses of your eyes and brain! Chamber music today: Spannungen --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Lawrence Foster (conductor)

Hello - I am wondering why two key positions that Lawrence Foster has held (with the Houston Symphony and with Monte-Carlo Philharmonic Orchestra) are being continuously removed from the succession boxes under Cultural offices? Jenichka (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I saw the note referring to "repetition" of information already contained above but all the other entries are repetitions, too. I am unclear as to why the focus on these exact positions as opposed to the others. Additionally, I believe the Cultural offices table is supposed to give a comprehensive overview of the positions held, regardless of entries in other parts of the page. It is supposed to provide a comprehensive snapshot so unclear as to why we would remove 2 out of 11. What do you think? Jenichka (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The role of Lawrence Foster at the Monte-Carlo Phil and the Houston Symphony are shown in navigation boxes at the bottom of the article, so there is no need for succession boxes for them. His roles at other orchestras have no such navigation boxes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Sinchuk page

Dear Michael, I see that the Alexander Sinchuk page has been tagged as "an orphan." I found a Wiki page: "International Competition for Young Pianists in Memory of Vladimir Horowitz" on which Sinchuk appears so I tagged his name on that page to his new page. Is this sufficient to remove the tag? Thank you. Laura.emmery (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes; according to Wikipedia:Orphan, 1 incoming link is enough. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Michael, for your prompt response. Would it be possible to remove the "orphan" tag? 2600:8801:2B0E:F00:910E:5328:B706:F464 (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

pronouns for countries

In older sources, countries are usually referred to with feminine pronouns. It shows my age, 180.150.38.124 (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Carl Orff

Hi Michael Bednarek. Can I ask why you keep removing the {{sfn whitelist}} template from Carl Orff? The use of a custom citation btemplate, in this case {{NDB}}, is causing a false positive no target error. You can see details here Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. There's no good reason to remove this, as it's fixing an error. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no visible error on the page and the sfn links for Dangel-Hofmann 1999 work; that's why I removed the whitelist template. I now see the hidden category "Harv and Sfn no-target errors" which is, as you wrote, triggered by a false positive. I'm not worried by a hidden category that could possibly be fixed by implementing the wrapper {{DNB}} properly. Feel free to re-add that template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Sara Topham

Hello!

I believe that Ann Bullen should be the correct spelling on Sara Topham, so I've fixed that. Thanks for correcting my errors, and I'm sorry I don't remember making the previous edits so I didn't realize I was making the same one over again (as it was technically linking to a misspelling redirect and shown in a maintenance category). ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

John Brownlee

Hello,

We cannot include a photo of John Brownlee under the non-free content use rules, because there is a free image which is available of him, and which is in use on his page. It is impossible for a non-free file to meet the NFCC if there is an image that is free. We have a public domain image which depicts Brownlee (even in the same general era) and even displays his face clearly. It is not acceptable to keep a non-free file depicting Brownlee when a public domain file can adequately depict him. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michael_Bednarek/Archive_16&oldid=1135179219"