User talk:Nikkimaria/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inter-wiki welcome[edit]

Nikkimaria, Welcome to Wikisource and it was very nice to meet you at the GLAMWiki Boot Camp yesterday! I have taken the liberty of fixing your interwiki link on your new userpage ;-) (I also just discovered that {{Cross-wiki diff}} does not work with wikisource!).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Prudence Wright[edit]

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Any chance of an associated image?"[edit]

LOL. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Keilana likes this

British Museum[edit]

Please ask first before moving all the pages for a project you have had no involvement with (AFAIK). Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to unabbreviate all the GLAM pages, particularly that one. Is there a reason you feel that shouldn't be done? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By who? I already protested when someone else did the BL ones. It makes the pages more of a pain for those who actually use them, for no great gain in clarity. "BM" is very widely understood over here. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another Believer and Klortho - they were working on moving/categorizing pages and asked for admin assistance in dealing with subpages efficiently. I get that BM is recognized in the UK, but GLAM is meant to be a global project, right? And it's good to be consistent in how those pages are named. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's the unpleasant association with "BM" - shorthand for bowel movement - I don't know how common that abbreviation is in Britain, but it's the first thing I think of when I hear "BM". Another aspect we were talking about is that GLAM volunteers may want to show potential new partners these pages, and making page titles nice and clear would be a benefit there. The Interior (Talk) 15:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't use that at all! Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"We" = WP:GLAM/Boot Camp. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it won't be like the last NY one which imposed a dreadful US-centric design on the main GLAM pages, and I'm not sure achieved much else. At least that one had some international participation. GLAM Is indeed a "global project" and a handful of people in the US ought to be careful about making sweeping changes to pages relating to projects elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but at the same time I think you'll agree that the GLAM pages are horribly decentralized onto multiple pages and wikis, and some tidying is in order. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smithsonian project page names[edit]

Thanks for making the names of those GLAM-related projects a bit clearer... What do you think of my proposal at Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Smithsonian Institution#Let's move project pages and categories to standard names? Mostly looking to drop the "-related" from the project category names. Disavian (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Another Believer was looking at reorganizing GLAM-related categories - maybe give him a ping about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did so. Thanks for the pointer. :) Disavian (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lead[edit]

re: Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7. I saw a post regarding the lead. I wasn't real sure about some of the commas there, but given the reason to "pause" in the discussion - I didn't change anything. I always respect the original author's intent. So in the end, I think it's a beautiful article, and I thank you for all that work. I admit that the topic is not my forte, but a friend or two asked that I have a look and offer a supportive word. You do good work Nikki ... thank you for your efforts. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  07:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: Hemingway cats[edit]

You may want to read this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion, specifically "Unless the change is non-controversial (such as vandalism or a duplicate), please do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision.". Adding a cat, but not being allowed to delete it, it standard practice, and not gaming the system. Adding cats is allowed so that people can see the full potential scope of a category, especially one nominated for deletion - deleting is disallowed for the same reason (if the cat is deleted by consensus, it will be removed automatically) Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. Saying that a category can be added but not removed is absolutely gaming, because it does not allow for the normal consensus-seeking process. You made an edit, it was reverted, you need to allow time for discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read the guidance? Have you participated in CfD discussions before? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and yes. Have you actually read WP:BRD, the page you cited incorrectly to kick this off? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
let's just centralize this then at Hemingway.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TFA[edit]

Hi Nikki, congrats on the TFA -- very happy to be sharing a small part of the front page with you... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article, thank you! Minor point: the picture on the left, right under a heading, as in "Effects", should be avoided, according to the MOS, - but now TFA does it every day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nakimu Caves[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 tour of She Has a Name[edit]

Hi Nikki,

It was great to meet you this past weekend. You asked me to let you know when I initiated my next FAC. I just did so here. Any constructive comments you are willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern skin[edit]

I hope it's better now for you, I added some english wikipedia specific 'quickfixes', until the time arrives that the devs get it fixed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, at least the thing sort of works now, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 April 2013[edit]

Precise[edit]

I like this improvement. Please act on it. The single instrumental parts need to appear, - if the list is too long, they can be abbreviated ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. We've been over this already. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Define "we". Voceditenore and I know that they have to appear as substantial information from the article (and I could find a few other people, if you need it). The only question is how they can appear best, you know that we are working on it. Until we found a better solution, the list with all links seems the most precise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're working on not addressing concerns. There is no "have to appear", Gerda. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know more than I do then. The individual instrumentation of the cantatas is the distinction between them, yes, it has to appear, the infobox should reflect the important facts from the article, that s my concern. Did you read life is too short? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, not everything can or should be in a box. I know you feel differently, so I've tried multiple ways at compromising and addressing your concerns - but so far you and your compatriots have seemed more interested in reverting. Remember, I told you, compromise not capitulation. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are so right, not everything belongs in a box. For a piece of music, the essential information about the music (!) should go in the box. For Bach cantatas, that is the scoring. It doesn't take room in the article that would not be white space otherwise. I confess that I have no clue what your interest is. Mine is to represent Bach's music as well as I can. (Please tell me what "compatriots" means.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ps: look, with thanks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
pps: you saw what Bach thought about the importance of the instruments, original title for example "Concerto a 1 Oboe, 2 Violini, 2 Viole, Fagotto è 4 Voci coll' Organo", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do wish people wouldn't treat the infobox as some sort of important summary of the article. It's a superficial and reductive presentation of 'select' information. Hell, the infobox isn't event mandatory. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 10:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help?[edit]

Thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions on cleanup at the FAC for Freedom for the Thought That We Hate.

Perhaps you could help a bit? I'll do my best to address your concerns, but after that I might need some more specific pointers on where to fix up the formatting issues.

Thanks again for your helpful suggestions on this important topic related to freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but let's centralize this at the review page - post any questions you might have over there. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've been trying to focus on your helpful recommendations and editing the article to address those. I'm almost done but might be a few more hours. — Cirt (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've posted a response at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1.

Thanks again for the helpful recommendations, we've made changes to address them, and I believe the article is much better for it.

— Cirt (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Added responses to your 2nd set of recommendations. I agree the article is looking better thanks to your help! Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your great suggestions, we've made a bit of changes to address them, and also done several passes of copyediting. Care to have another look and perhaps reevaluate your position at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1? :) — Cirt (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Neelix (talk · contribs) made some really great recommendations and I've gone ahead and implemented all of those suggestions. Perhaps you could reevaluate your position on the article? — Cirt (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Cirt, I'll drop by again after Tony's comments have been addressed - he's raising some more issues with prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that sounds like a good plan. :) I'll get right on addressing those. Sometimes in my past FAC noms Tony1 (talk · contribs) opposes right away, so it's encouraging he didn't do that and just left some helpful comments, instead. :) His remark at the end of his comments, "Nice to see one of our main experts in the US Supreme Court preparing a nom.", also was motivational for me to go ahead and address things in the hope this FAC nom might actually make it! :) Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Okay, I've gone ahead and implemented all the suggested changes made by Tony1 (talk · contribs). I happened to agree with all of those recommendations so I just incorporated all of them. Hope you're doing well, — Cirt (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and implemented all the helpful suggestions, by Neelix (talk · contribs), at the FAC. I also trimmed one of the images from the image check by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs). Perhaps you can check back and reevaluate your position? Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Could you please have another look at Freedom for the Thought That We Hate? I've left some updates at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1. I went back through your comments and incorporated more of your suggestions and those of others. The article now includes only two (2) quoted sentences in its entirety. Perhaps it is now up to a level where you could reassess your position at the FAC? — Cirt (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

I appreciate the time you spent to comment at the FAC for Fort Yellowstone.--MONGO 02:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No accessdates for gbooks[edit]

Hi there - I saw your summary note for Friedrich Wilhelm Rust‎. Must say, I wasn't aware about dropping accessdates for gbooks. Will try and remember to delete that in the future as it's an autopopulated field in the gbooks citation tool which I use. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and it shouldn't be - GBooks are (almost always) digital versions of print books rather than independent web sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this .... if this is the case now (It is what I do anyways) we should talk to someone about removing the parameter from Google book tool and Wikipedia:RefToolbar/1.0. The tools are used thousands of times a day - thus we will never catch up if the tools are not fixed...loosing battle that we should address.Moxy (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Bradbourne Priory[edit]

Could you please revisit this page and say whether you feel all concerns have been adequately addressed? This nomination has been gathering dust for quite some time now. It would be much appreciated if you could come take a look! —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 11:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think given this an entirely new reviewer would be preferable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to find new reviewers for rather old DYK nominations. For a smooth and timely handling of the case, in this case it might be useful if you stay on. I have brought these weird attribution disclaimers to the attention of the nominator. Let's see how he responds now.—♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 19:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll see, but I don't have great expectations. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obiwankenobi[edit]

Stop reverting without discussion. It's rude and dismissive. I've made my case but you And truth seeker haven't made yours. You can't say take it to talk and then not go to talk. Get over your wp:own issues and bring a logical guidance based argument - otherwise Stop reverting.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you stop. There are hundreds of kilobytes of discussion about this all over the wiki, and it's eminently clear that there is no consensus to do much of anything at the moment. Your revert warring is doing a lot of damage, so we need to discuss first, slow things down, talk it out like reasonable human beings. Better yet, why don't you devote this time to working on that category-intersection thing? That looked like a viable idea. In the meantime, if you need a policy-based argument, here one is: WP:CONSENSUS. It's against you, whether you agree with it or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki that is a passive aggressive argument. You've reverted 3 times since April 30 but you haven't said a single word on talk. I'm there and have laid out my case. where is yours? The last word in WP:BRD is discuss, but you're just silently reverting. Not acceptable. If you have a good argument why Hemingway is either not a man or not a 20th century novelist please bring it to talk. There are not any discussions anywhere on the wiki that I've see that dispute the validity of the by-century cats like Category:20th-century American novelists, so you're gravely mistaken, And the Category:American men novelists cat cannot be removed from an article currently under discussion - you should know this - and truthseeker has already been warned of same on her talk page by experienced admin (brownhairedgirl). So if you wanna to talk, talk - but otherwise plz go away and cut out the passive aggressive silent reverts. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, try getting her name right. As I've already explained, your assertion regarding the men cat is contrary to policy, and there's plenty of discussion elsewhere to explain why keeping the more general categories is a valid approach. Given the obvious tension surrounding this issue, it would be best to determine what categories the article should have on talk before applying them. As for discussion, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I "haven't said a single word on talk" from - even a cursory glance there will show that to be false. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki you've reverted twice since April 30 and have made zero posts to talk since the 30th. Therefore You're engaging in passive aggressive revert behavior - exhorting me to go to talk But not deigning to show up there yourself. Thus, kindly stop - if you have an argument With the cats I've added, make your case, don't just blindly revert.
Secondly, please rename this Section Header, it is demeaning and gives an impression That this is how I named the section for people who don't read edit history. It's also childish, and For someone with a mop I expect more maturity. Please rename to something neutral. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obiwan, there is an ongoing discussion at talk in which three editors, including myself, have objected to all or part of your changes to categories. Whether I respond to every post of yours there or not, consensus is currently against you, so you shouldn't be trying to push your changes through again, and it shouldn't come as a surprise to you that your changes are reverted. Nor should you have been changing comments by other people or reverting me on my own talk page, but as a show of good faith I've changed the header. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. For another show of good faith, show up at the talk page and make your case. Your last revert Removed a category you yourself had added a few days earlier so it's completely Nonsensical and I feel like you're not even reading diffs. Plz propose the set of cats You accept, those you dont, and reasons why. Silent reverts helps nothing. If you don't show up At talk, I will assume silence is consent. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer you actually read what I wrote. I read the diff, and I agree with TK that it's preferable to go back to the status quo while discussions everywhere are ongoing. That's why I reverted both your edit and my own. For now, given the broader discussions going on, it would be better to hash things out at a meta-level first and leave the articles alone until our approach has been solidified. The status quo will do for now. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

35 Bar and Grille LLC, et. al. v. The City of San Antonio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bra
Carl Höckh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ebersdorf

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 37[edit]

You read Bach cantata and know that they typically rely on three types of text, contemporary poetry, Bible text and chorale. Which amount in a specific cantata, is important, believe me. I will update the infobox documentation, but not now. Can you can tell me a better way than naming the movements with Bible text and chorale, and more precision than naming the specific passage and chorale? Please improve, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 103: you collapsed, again, knowing that I am against collapsing of infoboxes. Where is your problem? That infobox is not long, and doesn't moving a picture out of context. - Some authors like infoboxes on "their" articles collapsed, - I respect that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BWV 76: In that case your collapsing creates whitespace,- please explain why you want the poor reader to click once more to get vital information, text and music??? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BWV 87: I read "solo voices: A T B • 2 oboes ..." - if you don't explain by adding "instruments:" before "2 oboes", it looks misleading, if you do, it's longer than |vocal= and |instrumental=. This is tomorrows cantata, I will revert as not convinced it's an improvement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I'm trying to find a way to compromise between what we want. Not everything is important, not everything can be explained well or precisely in a box. We can certainly discuss a different way of compromising, but simply reverting doesn't accomplish that. I've changed the order on 87 to address your concern. The list on 103 is quite long, so collapsing is a good compromise; otherwise, I'd suggest removing the list entirely, as this article is about structure, not the piece as a whole - the table one screen down gives a much more precise overview of instrumentation. On 76, the uncollapsed box displaces a section heading and causes sandwiching of text with the next seciton; the whitespace with the collapse is minimal and much less concerning. On 37, sure: a better way would be to explain it in the article. You just added that template today, and the article was better without it. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "simply reverting", I explained above. I am ready to discuss, but it's hard to see you changing things in many articles that you seem not to to understand. Please say whom you mean in "we want". I am dealing with Bach cantatas for three years now, I don't try to put "everything" in the infobox", but the vital information on text and music should appear and be visible. - I don't find any Bach cantata infobox long, compared to politicians. I don't see a problem with a section header (sandwiching a picture would be different). I said before that I don't think collapsing (other than a long list for one parameter) is any good, it's no service to the reader to ask him for an extra click to see something hidden. I have a hard time to accept it in articles of others, much harder in those close to my heart. Do you understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "I've changed the order on 87 to address your concern." - Sorry, it doesn't work. The standard order is solo voices - choir - orchestra. To mention the choir first was my compromise. To go further as you did and mention the oboes first doesn't make any sense, actually it looks unprofessional. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, solo - choir - orchestra would also address your concern that a reader might think an oboe was a voice. Why don't we do that, then? Or we could change "solo voice" to "solo vocal". I'm not sure why mentioning choir first would be a compromise, given that it doesn't actually fix anything, so if you prefer the other way that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Gerda, I understand that you have a hard time accepting anything other than what you want. You've made that abundantly clear. However, what I don't think you understand is that you are already getting almost everything you want. I would much prefer that most of the cantata articles not have any infoboxes at all, because pretty much every example I've looked at is misleading, confusing, or otherwise problematic. The only reason I haven't gone through and removed all of them is because I respect that you like them. So I'm trying to find a way to improve a poor medium, to compromise with you. I've tried many many different approaches at doing that, and almost every effort you have reverted or denigrated. You've also reverted improvements unrelated to the infobox, with no explanation. So yes, Gerda, you are simply reverting, and yes, you are trying to fill pretty much every parameter that infobox has. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you see it this way. I think an infobox is a good medium, and if we don't add one, others do. Look what you get if you "google" Bach or Carmen. You go through all Bach cantatas before the discussion on the template talk is even finished, why? - Order: in a vocal work, you mention voices first and separate. Changes to your changes are in order, please consider to do so yourself, I did it for the two of today, fifth Sunday after Easter, called Rogate. In an opera, you don't list an orchestral oboe first, even if it may play a solo in an aria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)ank you,[reply]
Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you watch Template talk:Infobox Bach composition? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peace music[edit]

Congrats to having it featured! Well deserved, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies[edit]

Sorry about the pronoun mistake.

Perhaps you might be interested, I've been thinking about a new quality improvement project next — an intersection between women and the category Category:Free speech activists.

I looked through the category and Judith Krug looks like a good one for quality improvement, what do you think? — Cirt (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it happens (and around here "user = male" is more often than not the correct assumption). I'd imagine there'd be a lot of articles needing improvement in that area, but Krug looks like as good a place to start as any. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, glad you agree Judith Krug could use some improvements. :) Perhaps you might be interested on a collaboration project? — Cirt (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

I'm not going to template a regular who is normally a solid contributor, but you have almost violated 3RR here. I'm concerned that you seem to be deliberately collapsing or removing scoring information from these infoboxes and are claiming some sort of consensus exists where I see an ongoing debate with at least 4 or 5 different people all having slightly different nuanced positions. I'm rather tired of infobox wars (infoboxes are good in general, should contain proper documentation for the user to get a quick glance, and "seaofblue" isn't relevant in an infobox, that's a text issue) so I'm not going to be arguing with you a lot about this, but it seems you are rather determined to try and derail the work of a solid content editor for whom I have considerable respect and I do wish you'd stop. Montanabw(talk) 21:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of violating anything. I've already pointed out that your reading of various discussions on the matter has been less than accurate, but I also don't want to argue with you about it, as it's fairly clear we're not going to agree. However, let me just say this: I am trying to show respect for all content editors involved (and there's a conversation above that might provide some background for you). In my opinion, you don't appear to be doing the same. I understand the urge to defend a friend, but I wish you'd stop - you're not helping matters. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE-"I am trying to show respect for all content editors involved" - I don't see how when you continue in edit warring to the limit on multiple articles with multiple editors over a long period of time in your war upon infoboxes until others give up and leave it in the form you want. You've been around plenty long enough to what karma brings in such a case. And admins should know better, they are not immune. PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never claimed to be immune, Pumpkin, but you're not seeing everything. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and you are? Hardly. But that's okay because you know that John Lennon song, "Instant Karma's gonna get you", and the best part is I won't have to do a single thing. You can't escape karma. PumpkinSky talk 02:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never claimed that either - y'all might read a bit more carefully. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you say in a discussiona and what your actions are don't mesh--that's the problem.PumpkinSky talk 13:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pumpkin, it doesn't seem like you're reading what I say in a discussion anyway. But let's leave Ealdgyth's post below as the last word on the matter - she makes good points. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May an outside observer point out that from my viewpoint, both sides have a point about the other side's behavior over infoboxes? The people adding them are definitely pushing to get them into every single article - or at least so it appears. And the guidelines are pretty clear that infoboxes are not required. And I've yet to see a very good discussion that clearly shows a consensus on the project that they are considered "almost required". On the other hand, it doesn't help the people trying to avoid having infoboxes everywhere to adopt the same tactics of just reverting reverting reverting either. There are good points on all sides, and it would help if folks quit treating it quite so much like "my side has to win". That is all. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to some degree with Ealdgyth, but IMHO the nod needs to go to the content creator(s), who, arguably, have the expertise in the subject and the best reason to see the need for an infobox and what is needed within one. Gerda (above) is not only a person who does an outstanding job in general of AGF (and is the creator of the "Precious" award), but also has expertise in classical music, and Bach in particular, so I personally think for both reasons she deserves a lot more respect than she is getting. I've commented before that there seems to be a "Green Cheese" debate going on about this, across multiple articles and project talk pages. But far be it from me to interfere when the teachers want to give detention to everyone instead of sorting out the threads of the dispute... (sigh) Montanabw(talk) 18:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I very carefully did NOT step in and name names or anything like that. The content creator thing goes both ways with both sides... neither side is the that only one creates content... I've seen the infobox folks swoop in on content they didn't create and add an infobox and then edit war to keep it in and then there are the no infobox folks going in and removing infoboxes on articles they didn't create. There are no clean hands here and really, I wasn't playing teacher. I was merely pointing out that it's not all black and white on both sides and if folks would quit entrenching themselves into "sides" they might actually solve the problem rather than just sniping constantly at each other. I see sniping/edit warring/nastiness from all sides... not from everyone on either side, but it does happen from both some of the pro-infobox folks and some of the anti-infobox folks. A bit more compromising and a lot less mentioning other people's names would go far towards descalating the whole problem. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with that, but I just wish that certain people here would be a lot less arrogant and show some respect for someone I know to be well worth that respect and who is making a sincere, good faith attempt to work with others and to improve the encyclopedia. Gerda isn't a part of the various factions, she's very sincere in her attempts to improve the articles and she's getting picked on too much. Montanabw(talk) 19:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you feel the need to protect your friend, but you're right, you're not helping. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree Montanabw. I reverted not because I have a position on the info box issues, but because in watching discussion in the last few days what I see is comments and edit summaries that are becoming personalized, show owner ship and used as reason to revert, and which are in effect subtle attacks on a well meaning, hard working and knowledgable content editor.
We cannot assume motive and we can't personalize discussion. There is no reason any discussion on Wikipedia can't continue and become productive as long as it doesn't become personal. Further there are DR processes that can help without "reversion therapy". Its easy for any of us to become frustrated and slide into even subtle mud slinging but maybe this discussion can step back from falling deeper into that particular hole. (olive (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Nikki: As long as you read the comments here in a superficial way as only pertaining to friendship which in my case it is not, nor do I see that comments here are friendship based rather than pertaining to Wikipedia issues, then there will be very little change. Both sides have to compromise and your comments indicate you may not be ready to do that. Compromise requires looking at a big picture, and knowing no one has ownership. The editors I have respected the most are those who after along struggle have had the ability to step back and say OK, I can try something else, and not the ones who have to win at any cost. Just my opinion and I won't say more. Best wishes.(olive (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for making my point for me, Olive. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She wasn't agreeing with you, she was agreeing with me, your out-of sequence comment makes it look otherwise. Don't be gaming the system. (and yes, this reply is out of sequence too, just keeping the conversations together) Montanabw(talk) 21:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Nikki, your sarcastic comment in the face of someone who is trying to help doesn't make your point, believe me. Please reconsider your position and tone as a mature editor and admin. (olive (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)) add to clarify: None of my comments were addressed to Montanabw in case my comments were read that way.(olive (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You misunderstand - it wasn't sarcastic. I actually do agree with most of what you and Ealdgyth said. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries:O)(olive (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Nikkimaria having twice removed this diff from this location, I shall simply point out that it exists in history and per OWNPAGE, its removal is proof that it has been read) Montanabw(talk) 23:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Nikkimaria - whichever notification she's getting, can't be fun, right now. FWIW, I've been watching this and agree with Nikkimaria for the following reasons: I know not a thing about music and am tone deaf. I don't know what SATB means and when I hover my cursor over it get a big question mark which is not helpful at all. I have noticed in these discussions that Gerda has been remarkably adept at explaining and it would be best to see some of those explanations put into text, particularly for dimwits such as myself, rather than as single letters in an infobox. Once in the lead or in the text, then the infobox should be collapsed. Okay, have butted in enough and used up my capital for today, but that's my unsolicited 2 cents. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TK, your opinions are always welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And you criticize others for having "friends?" Pot. Kettle. Really dear. Montanabw(talk) 23:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's really unnecessary Montanabw. Nikkimaria and I rarely communicate - I leave a message here every now and then, and she much more seldom will leave one on my page. Our editing tends to overlap - but that's really more a function of keeping FA articles on watch, and tends to happen with a number of people. Certainly I see Gerda posting here much more frequently. All that said, it's not about friends. The post I left Nikkimaria was for Gerda to read as well because I do think she does a good job of articulating the intricacies of the cantatas here and it would be nice to see more of that in the articles. My suspicion has long been that NM is trying to move Gerda away from an over-reliance on infoboxes and toward more text development. If that's the case, then in fact, NM is doing a favor for the readers and for Gerda. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am on vacation, so of little help. Please tell me what needs to be clarified on the Bach cantatas after reading Bach cantata and the documentation on the infobox on Bach's compositions, and after actually linking to SATB, it has an article. We agreed in 2010 that details don't have to be repeated in every single one of about 200 cantatas. - I wish for no infobox to be collapsed, feeling it's against the very spirit of an infobox, - long lists in one parameter being the only exception I would want. But I don't own the articles I created and supplied with an infobox. I truly don't understand the last comment about me needing to move to more content, but then I also read that I need to be re-integrated in the community, both comments are amusing, sort of, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TK, a comment like "NM is trying to move Gerda away from an over-reliance on infoboxes and toward more text development" is utter hogwash. Gerda is an expert content contributor with dozens and dozens of DYKs and a substantial number of GA-class articles. To state that she has "over-reliance" on infoboxes is ridiculous! She creates substantial content, well-researched, from an expert point of view AND does all of the above with English as a second language! What is going on is a sideshow to the larger issue of infoboxes in the assorted classical music articles generally, and Gerda simply favors their inclusion (as do I). Here, we seem to have what looks to me like an obsession on NM's part to removing critical summary data on scoring from said Bach cantata infoboxes, which is escalating to the bullying of a sound content editor by a bunch of people who are far less knowledgeable about music that she is. I've called it a "Green Cheese" argument before, and I shall say it again. NM is, in this case, the amateur and this tendentious debate over about 1/2 inch of infobox space really needs to end. Montanabw(talk) 18:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat curious to know on what basis you're dubbing me an "amateur" and suggesting participants in a classical music project know little about classical music (especially since some claim music professions), but really I think this conversation has outlived its usefulness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useful or not, I woke up with a thought I would like to share (not in response to the immediate above): the differentiation of infobox and content seems strange. Infobox IS content, actually its most condensed version, that we should take care to make as good as we can. For me, that means 1) accessible without an extra click, 2) for cantatas a separate entry for |vocal= and |instrumental= because - as you will know - independent instruments differentiate a cantata from a motet, for example, where I would prefer |scoring=, 3) the choir first in |vocal=, as the secret star of most cantatas, at least for those where the choir starts, also for the immediate link to the voice parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)

Earlier up the page, you said "The standard order is solo voices - choir - orchestra. To mention the choir first was my compromise". You had also earlier pointed out that |scoring= is specific to cantatas because of where it links to. To clarify, have you changed your mind about these things? I don't think we agree about what infoboxes are, but you're right that it should be a "most condensed version" that we make as good as possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a language problem, or several. 1) Yes, I said the standard listing is solo/choir/orchestra - but that was to fight oboe first. In several edit summaries I agreed that - for Bach cantatas - it may be good to deviate from the standard, to mention the choir first which typically starts, and at the same time get the link in front. - 2) Yes, I mentioned the |scoring= with a link, but that made sense only when the link was needed for the abbreviations of instruments, to be followed by the use of them. It doesn't make sense any more now. - 3) When I said "most condensed" I meant "more condensed than the article", not "the shorter the infobox the better". - 4) I see no sense in collapsing more than one parameter at a time. The template doing so was questioned, and may be deleted eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? It was nominated for deletion and was kept. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin said "kept for now", remember? I could live happily without it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR for Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7[edit]

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, great job! :) — Cirt (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question about Freedom for the Thought That We Hate[edit]

Per a suggestion from Ian Rose (talk · contribs), just checking with you first to see if it's alright to move your addressed comments from the FAC page to its talk page?

Thanks again for your helpful recommendations, — Cirt (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you! Also, interesting sidenote, if you're interested, I started a freedom of speech related article about an intriguing court case, at Urofsky v. Gilmore. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dorothea von Ertmann[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thanks very much for all of your help with successfully getting Freedom for the Thought That We Hate to Featured Article quality. I really appreciate the assistance in getting this article about freedom of speech to FA. — Cirt (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC: Mass Effect 2[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, I was wondering if you were willing to comment on the FAC for Mass Effect 2 which is here, as the review has gone quite stale. Whether you are interested or not, thank you for your time. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East Timor[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. This edit, in addition to re-removing access dates, replaced straight apostrophes with curly ones, which is dispreferred by MOS:PUNCT. I think the page now has something like three links each to Indonesia and Indonesian language as well. All of these are quite minor issues, and I don't plan to edit the page again. But since you seem to be interested in the article, you might want to look at these style points. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the apostrophes. Looks like the repeated links are quite far away from each other, so I'd be inclined to leave those. Thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Friedrich Wilhelm Rust[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Heart of a Woman FAC[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, since you helped out at my last FAC (Sesame Street research), I thought I'd ask if you could help out again with my latest one [1]. Would you mind? It's been languishing for a while, so I'm drumming up folks to review it. I'd really appreciate it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 May 2013[edit]

Use edit summaries, plz[edit]

Per here and here, especially given the controversial nature that you know these category additions to be, could you please use better edit summaries, and not hide them in a "formatting" edit. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and explanation[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for the revert on Hemingway (though I see that Obiwan objects to the edit summary!). Basically I hit a wall. Ironically after catching a break in my schedule after a very grueling 8 months of work, today I checked out books from the library with the intention of cleaning and expanding some of the Am. lit novelist biographies. But when I saw this, it made me think, who am I to stand in the way of category diffusion if I'm to be called abhorrent. I find the push to segregate men from women under the guise of diffusion unbelievably sexist and abhorrent, but I decided to step out because I'll never win. If it does come to an RfC, which it should, the well has been muddied with the canvassing, and given the environment of the past two weeks it's very clear that my opinion - though based on subject expertise - is meaningless. So, though I find editing here relaxing for the most part, this is a battle, like so many others, that I just can't give to anymore. Just thought I'd let you know. Also thanks for fixing the description on the Pound img that the bot left a msg about. That can probably be deleted. I've decided to unwatch all the novelists for now. They can find another woman with subject expertise to write and maintain those articles. Sorry if this sounds defeatist. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, TK. I hope once this whole mess dies down a bit (and hopefully some sort of resolution is found), you can come back, but you should do whatever's best for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TK. I saw that you blanked your userpage - I hope you'll be back after a break. A few things I'd like to clarify however:
  1. I never called you, nor anyone, directly, or indirectly, abhorrent - if you read what I wrote, it says "he will be instead a Category:20th-century American novelists, which is abhorrent to some." - meaning, if Hemingway is only a 20th-century American novelist, this new categorization is seen as abhorrent by some people. By "some people", I was not referring to you, but to everyone who is protecting novelists from any sort of diffusion, (against logic and practice everywhere else in the wiki, in my opinion). So I think you may have misread my intent.
  2. If I did call anyone names, it was here: "I am obviously on the side that they should, but the protectors-of-the-novelist think not" - so, not that harsh a name, perhaps not as civil as it should be, so I'm sorry but I'm also frustrated by this debate, and by the fact that no-one is focusing on the real issue which I've been beating the drum on and trying to rally people around - still-extant-widespread-ghettoization of women and minorities via categories. To say nothing of the broader sexism issues, but that is a bit beyond my ken to try to tackle.
  3. "I find the push to segregate men from women under the guise of diffusion unbelievably sexist and abhorrent" - I see absolutely nothing about improper segregation of men and women in the current discussions about novelists - our guidelines on this are clear WP:EGRS, and I've reverted editors and asked them to revert when I saw them not following this guidance. The community voted en-masse to keep the women novelists cat, and the community is as-of-yet undecided on the men-novelists-cat. I don't control consensus, but if the men novelists category remains, it should be populated, in the same way the women novelists cat is. I don't think this is segregation, any more than a women's literature class is segregation - especially given they will all be in non-gendered cats together (i.e. either Category:American novelists or Category:20th-century American novelists)
  4. Minor point: I didn't object to the edit summary on the Hemingway revert, I opposed it on Edith Wharton and Kurt Vonnegut.
I understand you're frustrated and you need to do what you need to do, but please don't do it because you think I called you abhorrent, please stop putting words in my mouth and misquoting me, and please don't walk away because I or anyone else arguing for diffusion is pushing for any sort of improper gender segregation - I'm not, and I don't think others are. If it were up to me, we'd move to category intersection, and there would be no gendered categories at all, except at the highest level (e.g. Category:American men, Category:American women).
Anyway, be well. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tripura FAC[edit]

Hi! During the first FAC of Tripura (which was withdrawn largely for prose issues), you did an image review. In the current FAC image review has been done. Although this FAC did not see much participation, lately Casliber did review it.

I was wondering if it will be possible for you to do a source review. I guess delegates would want that. If and when you have time, could you please have a look? I hope this communication with you would not be considered as canvassing. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We do not need source review as of now. The article was promoted. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Novelists do not need to be in parent cats when in century specific cats.[edit]

Category:20th-century American novelists, Category:19th-century American novelists, Category:21st-century novelists and other similar categories are legitimate diffusing categories of Category:American novelists. People should not be in the parent category if they are in the child categories. If you do not think the child categories should exist you are free to nominate them for deletion or merger, but as long as they exist people should not be in both them and the parent categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Economic opportunism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Profit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wtf[edit]

can you please stop hiding category edits in random "clean-up" summaries? There is currently a discussion about these "massacres" categories going on at the indigenous people's project - in the meantime i'd appreciate if you'd stop with your "cleanup". --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you plz centralize discussion at the indigenous people's project, where discussion is ongoing? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already said, the issues I see aren't related to those being discussed there. That discussion centres on the potential merging of those categories, the cat title, and the quality of the list - issues that, while important, aren't germane to my edits. As for "cleanup", if you read the diffs you should have noted that "cleanup" was an accurate summary of the edits in question, which dealt with formatting and other concerns in addition to categorization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, when I have specifically asked you to stop hiding cat edits within broader cleanup, I can't see why you wouldn't expect reverts. The scope and scale of all of these cats is under discussion - I in fact *started* the discussion to get more clarity from the project - meanwhile you're not being helpful by doing driveby "cleanups" - if you have an opinion, join the discussion, and we can deal with who is in what cat later. And yes, they are GERMANE to your edits - those items have been in those cats for a long time, and as we reprogram the scope, we need to see everything that was in there so we understand what we're dealing with.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to include unsourced and unsupported (and sometimes nonsensical) information in articlespace. Nor do you need to revert broader cleanup because you disagree with one specific, discrete part of it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive proposal for June[edit]

FYI I've started a proposal for a drive in Jun here [2]. Was hoping to get some more co-ord opinions before I look to implement this. If you are able to have a look I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to turn deleted page into redirect[edit]

Greetings Nikkimaria

I was wondering if you or someone else could turn Pewdiepie into a redirect page that leads to List of YouTube personalities#F as I can't seem to do so as no text box appears and I have a running suspicion that this is because the page has been protected from being created. Since we don't have an article on this very fairly popular person a redirect to the information about him would be the best compromise, unless you have a differing opinion? Thank you. MIVP (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - (Chocolate Cakes) 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what is this about[edit]

Can you explain what you're doing here, and why it's considered a 'fix'? [3]. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm correcting the tagging, given the article as it stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fine now?[edit]

I replied to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Constitution_of_May_3.2C_1791. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 May 2013[edit]

Operation Winter '94[edit]

Hi! Thanks for the image review at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Winter '94/archive1. I think I addressed at least two out of three issues you raised completely. The remaining one, entailing wikilinking from flags in the infobox seems to be a bit more difficult. I managed to have all flags in one field link and none in the other, but that's the best I could produce since {{flag}} and {{flagicon}} apparently do not allow that kind of flexibility. I saw this arrangement used in recently promoted FAs, so I thought to check with you if the present situation regarding the images is satisfactory. Thanks.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's fine, then. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions re: comments at James Moore FAC[edit]

Nikki, I've gotten MagicPiano involved over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Moore (Continental Army officer)/archive1, but he and I had questions about your comment regarding sourcing for the illustrated map. I appreciate your help! Cdtew (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Nikkimaria. You have new messages at Talk:F._Scott_Fitzgerald#Categories.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SilverserenC 20:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Category_talk:American_novelists#RFC_or_not.3F[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:American_novelists#RFC_or_not.3F. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Lloyd[edit]

Hello, just a quick note to update you that the image concerns you raised for the above have been resolved, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thank you for taking the time to review. Incidentally, are the other images ok? -- CassiantoTalk 14:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all look fine now. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BWV 36[edit]

Schwingt freudig euch empor, BWV 36:

  • How do you plan to a show in the infobox that half of the movements are stanzas from two chorales for which we even have articles?
  • The separate links to the List of cantatas by liturgical function (from "church") and List of cantatas (from cantata) are not a sea of blue, but an abbreviation for "genre" = cantata, "Type" = church cantata, - I thought you would like that ;)
  • The link to "scoring" makes no sense without using abbreviations for instruments.

For these reasons I will revert. I have no time for other cantatas right now, but would appreciate if you would consider the concerns for others also. Soar joyfully aloft, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't, and why should we?
The cantatas are based on three different types of text - contemporary poetry, Bible and chorale. This is something unique, essential to be said. Normally they have one movement chorale, some have two, this has four, - that is highly unusual (I don't kow any other, do you?) and should show, if you ask me, Gerda Arendt (talk)
But the reader doesn't know this is highly unusual, and the template isn't the place to explain it to them. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you say type is church cantata, we understand that it is a cantata. But how does the reader know that there are two different links there? Johann Sebastian Bach looks the same as Johann Sebastian Bach, but the average reader won't find out until they try to click a link - and if they click the last, they won't know there was another.
Do readers have to know? - I see them hover over links rather than click. - If they are interested in the church aspect, they will get liturgical, if they click cantata, they will get to the general. - I consider that helpful to different readers, while avoiding repetition. Gerda Arendt (talk)
Er, yes, they have to - because which link do they click on if they're interested in the idea of "church cantata"? The half who happen to click on "cantata" get something different from those who click on "church", but not just because that's the part they're interested in. (And relatively few non-editors might think to hover over links). It's more confusing than helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we've decided not to use abbreviations for instruments, why not update the link to just List of Bach cantatas? That would mean there would be a link to that article without need for the confusing double link discussed in point 2.
Surprising question. The template is for Bach compositions in general, not only for cantatas. |instrumental= is going to be linked to the article-to-be on Bach's instruments, please prepare that by using it. Gerda Arendt (talk)
But we're not talking about a composition in general, we're talking about a cantata, and the link points to an article about cantatas already. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about a cantata. The link from |scoring= goes to the section in List of Bach cantatas where the abbreviations are explained (because that's where they were already explained when the template was created last year). If we don't use the abbreviations, the link makes no more sense, the parameter should not be used any more. Now we link every individual instrument, fine for those with an article, - for the others, a list of the instruments that Bach used is planned, to be linked for |instrumental=. (See also: template docu and discussion) Yes? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, - off to BWV 68 and its translation, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

In hindsight, I was needlessly rude in my edit summaries earlier. Wont happen again. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

James Fenimore Cooper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Lake George and Otsego Lake
Anthony De Longis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Road House
Taille (instrument) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lully

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middle Ages/archive1[edit]

I think we've hopefully addressed your issues, if you could kindly revisit when you have a chance? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Es ist ein trotzig und verzagt Ding, BWV 176[edit]

Thank you for copy-editing, and for the article on taille. Es ist ein trotzig und verzagt Ding, BWV 176 is my next project. It translates roughly to "There is a contrary and despairing thing".

You reverted BWV 68 to collapsing the infobox again, referring to my talk page. I didn't find there what you may mean. I am told a lot about respect for the "main author's wishes". I am the main author for several Bach cantatas and I wish that their infoboxes be not collapsed. Torture is too strong a word, but my language is not fine enough for the process of first being told concise abbreviations for instruments can't be used, then - when long names of instruments are listed - being told that has to have to be collapsed, or replaced by the plain word "instruments" which is certainly less informative than "instrumental Co Cn 3Tb 2Ob Ot 2Vl Va Vp Bc, which would tell even a reader who knows nothing about abbreviations that this is a complex and unusual scoring. Why hide the six lines that show the music? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because, Gerda, a string of letters cannot tell someone who doesn't know what those letters mean that the scoring is unusual or complex. What can tell that reader that, though, is the article itself. See "Infobox with collapsible sections" on your talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
O my language. Do you understand the big difference between "collapsible sections" and "partly collapsed"? I would take the former IF NEEDED, but regard (crossed out stronger term for dislike) the other as against the spirit of an infobox as openly accessible information. I don't revert it in articles of others (Little Moreton Hall comes to mind), but please please please don't do that to me in my articles, - it's against my sense of quality. Actually, I don't even see any reason to collapse at all in Bach's cantatas, with their rather short length which doesn't exceed a screen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, functionally, there is little difference, and it is needed. Show the music in the text, don't try to reduce it to something the reader can't understand or that is reductive. That's not what "quality" means. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the infobox needs to show the music at a glance, - you don't. I believe that if something needed to be collapsed, it should be parameter by parameter, not more than one, - you don't. - Once I finished BWV 176 (I would appreciate if we didn't run into edit conflicts), I will try to be more specific to explain the difference that you seem not to understand. - Did you know that "trotzig und verzagt" is the last cantata of my third annual cycle? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please stop[edit]

Please stop doing this sort of thing [4]? I don't know what you're up to, but it makes no sense... if you are insistent on bringing back the Category:American novelists category, give it a shot - but don't at the same time screw up the other categories by stripping "American" from them. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check the edit history a little more carefully: that's a revert, not a new edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's more than a revert NM. You changed a number of things. In any case, the result is illogical - why would someone be in 20th-century novelists but also american novelists? At least be consistent - it's the second time you've done such silliness on this article alone, and I've seen you do it elsewhere.
Once again, DONT change the by-century categories to remove the word American, unless you have some reasonable reason to do so. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The categorization part is a revert. The individual is a 20th-century novelist and an American novelist. Categorizing them as such seems quite logical. As for consistency, I'm afraid I don't have the time to fix all of the issues caused by that editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have time to do it right, just don't touch the cats then, you're making it worse. If you want to go solo and start re-adding American novelists, be my guest, but don't mess up the other cats which have been added an are correct. Yes, the individual is a 20th-century novelist, but 20th-century American novelists diffuses on 20th-century novelists, so that is the more correct cat. Read WP:Categorization if you're still unclear on diffusion - but I'm quite sure I don't have to explain this to you, you've read enough on this issue, so stop pretending you don't get it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the edits by many of those involved since the controversy broke have made things worse, and yet that hasn't seemed to stop anyone. Hopefully eventually we'll have a system that's actually functional. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about novelist categories[edit]

Greetings! You are invited to take place in a conversation happening Category_talk:American_novelists#Stalemate here about how to move forward with discussion on subcategories of by-country novelist categories.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review...[edit]

Just to say that I've left you a reply to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry I of England/archive1 - I can't work out the right 3D object license though... Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of respect for quality and style[edit]

As mentioned many times before, the {{collapsed infobox section begin}} is questionable. It serves the function to collapse part of an infobox.

  • It serves hiding information.
  • The parameters that are collapsed don't show, hiding even that information.
  • Its use is not trivial. You have to know exactly where to place it, which causes a problem for future editors.
  • It was up for deletion, you voted keep, the closing admin said "keep for now", it may not stay.
  • It was termed "Presumably good-faith templatisation of bad-faith code", and I agree with another user in the discussion that "This template is pretty much a hack in development, but I don't see a reason to delete it at this point."

It is a like crutch, not useful for people how can walk without a crutch. I don't want to use it, and I don't want it used in articles for which I feel responsible, please respect that. Every appearance of it sets a bad example. This is not ownership but concern about quality and style. I hate reverting, but I will revert appearances of this template, and started with Mass in B minor structure, on the Main page. Do me a favour: please do it yourself! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, when I asked you for respect and mercy, you declined. Your points about the template are noted and rejected. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand right that you reject
... that the template hides information that I believe should be open?
... that you have to know for example that it has to be coded in the line preceding the line to be collapsed? Quote from the documentation as I find it today: "If either the begin or end templates are not properly transcluded, disaster may strike, causing the infobox to either swallow the article (missing the end template), or terminate unexpectedly (missing the begin template)."
... that the author said that it is better than a hack? Quote: "make this at least appear to be less of a hack, and keep raw html table markup out of articles to avoid landing in a database report" - Note: "appear less of a hack", it still is, sort of.
I am sorry that I don't remember you asking for mercy and respect, I am willing. I remember that I asked for mercy, and I don't do that often. - Now I had seriously hoped that you would revert the questionable template, - instead, you go hiding instrumentation in a different way first. Why do you believe that the few lines that show how the music sounds need to be hidden? Those who may find the information in the infobox too long can just stop looking, it's the last item. I would like to serve the others who want to know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Holy cow, I just read some of the history here and had no previous idea this template was so controversial. I accidentally discovered it about a month ago and think it's brilliant. I've used it on Pennsylvania-class battleship to hide a long, boring list of statistics (but still easily accessible to interested readers) and add two additional photos. I like that tradeoff. Maybe that's just me? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not just you - I agree :) Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it can't be shown succinctly, it shouldn't be shown unless the reader wants to see it. You have made it abundantly clear what you want, and that you are unwilling. When you suggest that the template should not be used because the coding might confuse people, you do lose some credibility - that was one of the points I originally made about the infobox template itself, and one that was rejected. You can't have it both ways. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I have not made it clear what I want. - Please remember that we are still in the process to find the best way to present the instrumentation, for example an article on instruments of the Baroque. I don't understand why you changed anything before we found a good solution. - In the context: your revert of the infobox for Mass in B minor structure, replacing the specific Infobox for works by Bach by "musical composition".
My dislike for the template is the same, regardless of article and template.
The display of an infobox is not restricted by the length of the lead. But I expanded the lead it anyway.
Most compositions by Bach are known by their title rather than BWV number, but many of those titles are very long, therefore we found the solution to have only the BWV number in large print RIGHT NEXT to the title as the article title, I don't see how that can be confusing. IF you think so, please take it to the discussion of the Bach infobox, - but it was actually one of the reasons to create a special infobox for Bach's works, do you understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your change of the link of |scoring= in the Bach template to the List of Bach cantatas makes no sense for the Brandenburg concertos, and even a cantata reader will be confused. Please wait for an article on the instruments, and preserve |instrumental=, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, the scoring link already went to that article; I just removed the section link. So if it doesn't make sense, it didn't make sense to begin with. As for the choice of template, I don't know why you wanted to create a special infobox, there doesn't really seem to be any strong reason for it. It might make sense for cantatas, but not other works. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about a linking mistake then. When the template was discussed, the first question was Bach cantatas or compositions, there seemed to be favour for his compositions, - he wrote also motets, Passions, oratorios and songs, which "work" the same way as cantatas, hybrid text, some long titles in German, one common catalogue number. More answers on the article talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 May 2013[edit]

Thomas Nevill infobox[edit]

A revert by you was brought up at Wikipedia:Help desk#Problem with Infobox. See Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester for an example of how the infobox is used. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Verdi (crater)[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the best hooks I saw so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God of War: Betrayal FAC[edit]

If you have some spare time, would you care to review this article? --JDC808 ♫ 04:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your comments. --JDC808 ♫ 04:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
?
Responded. --JDC808 ♫ 18:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else? --JDC808 ♫ 00:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look okay now, although there aren't very many of them... Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I found a few I'm going to add soon. I'll let you know when they're added. --JDC808 ♫ 01:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few more sources. --JDC808 ♫ 03:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. --JDC808 ♫ 23:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. --JDC808 ♫ 15:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep bugging you, but a few more sources have been added. Mainly want you to check because your initial comment still says "Source review - spotchecks not done". --JDC808 ♫ 15:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. --JDC808 ♫ 21:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey JDC, spotchecks are a separate thing from a source review - that's just a flag for the delegates, as sometimes I check them together. Source review checks reliability and consistency, spotchecks look at verifiability and paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Magnetism Bibliography[edit]

I saw you stripped away some comments to some books in the bibliography. These comments were to help the reader and taken from a very unbiased source: Animal Magnetism, Early Hypnotism, and Psychical Research, 1766-1925: An Annotated Bibliography. About this bibliography even the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis said: "...Crabtree compiled what is in my judgment the best bibliography of animal magnetism and hypnotism." I hope this could be of help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan1954 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Allan, are the descriptions that were included quotes from that source, or your own summary? If the former, they should be properly attributed; if the latter, I'm concerned that the wording may be trending into original research or non-neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass in B minor[edit]

Please be so kind as to read the two articles Mass in B minor and Mass in B minor structure and compare aspects, before you claim in an edit notice that the former covers "all aspects of it". No writing will ever do that. Compare also please where you find more about the music. I am open to a different title, also to a merge, now that the Main article was improved. The version that made me write the other was simply wrong, - see my question on its talk of 2010. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read both, thanks. That's why it's appropriate to link to the structure article when discussing a particular movement - as is done in many cantata articles. However, when discussing the piece in general (history, performances, etc), the general link is the correct choice. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Define correct. Did you read on the talk of the Main article how many problems there are left in that article? - How interesting is history and performance when we mention that someone conducted or sang a piece? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course welcome to improve the article if you like, but when someone performs the piece, the performance history is of course the most relevant aspect. We shouldn't be changing links to point to a less-relevant specific aspect when the context indicates the general article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the performance history is "of course" the most relevant aspect, the music is. - Did you see that the Chronology of composition still starts in 1724? - Some day, when I have time, I will look into that. - When we developed FA Messiah, the main authors decided that details on the music were too much for the Main article and to be taken taken to four separate articles. For context where the music matters, those are the better link, of course, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sheffield Bach Choir may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qworty[edit]

Hi, just to let you know I've mentioned you here at Talk:Robert_Clark_Young#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Qworty_clean-up, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bleib bei uns, denn es will Abend werden, BWV 6, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fantasia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Pacific (musical)[edit]

Please comment on our PR for this important musical at the PR page, here. We are on the way to FAC -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deleting[edit]

Why was text deleted today from Cigars of the Pharaoh article? I would expect to see at least an explanation in the edit summary. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was unsourced original research. See also WP:BLOOPERS. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you, I watch the article and I don't disagree. But with no meaningful edit summary, we just don't know your justified intention. Please consider providing something like "WP:N and WP:OR". —Prhartcom (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Language markup[edit]

Please do not remove language markup, such as <span lang="de">, as you did here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bach cantatas[edit]

Thank you for helping with the Bach cantatas. It would be even more helpful if you would observe some relevant discussions on Classical music, such as the one before it all started which decided that voices and instruments should be all linked every article even if commonly known. - I like your approach to give more prominence to the choirs in a listing of recordings, but think the conductors are more worthy of mentioning than the record labels. For any article, I would want to know who conducted the Thomanerchor when, what Harnoncourt/Leonhardt (first HIP) did, Koopman, Leusink, Suzuki, Gardiner. I accepted the way of recordings listing as it was handled before I came to the topic. - You may also be interested in the Classical music discussion that spoke about Mincham. - I like his very personal approach but think it's rather specialized; Klaus Hofmann knows much more about the connection of language and music, and John Eliot Gardiner has a great way to address a more general public. - I would link the first mentioning of a key in a article, for those who have no idea of major/minor. Happy editing, I still have practically no time. - Thanks for BWV 39, together we will be able to get it to 5* as it deserves (hopefully the day it was written for, next Sunday) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recitativo vs. recitative: the discussion when we started the Bach cantatas articles resulted in listing Bach's original terms at least once, in the scoring section. If you think people will not understand them, please explain. For three years now, there have been no complaints. Please revert your revert, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Adding: the source Dürr says:[reply]

RECITATIVO [B]: Es ist nichts Verdammliches an denen
ARIA [A]: Nichts kann mich erretten
CHORALE: Kein Menschenkind ...

Note: Recitativo, Aria, Chorale, are no German words, but respectfully the terms that the composer used. We keep them, as the German headings for the movements, following the sources, and we speak English in the prose. Note also that Dürr added the voice parts abbreviated, and marked them as added by the brackets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to discussion, please? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, what the composer said would be overwritten by a discussion? As long as you don't translate the movement headings from German to English, you should not translate the movement names from Italian to English. - I will go and look for the discussion (you might have looked before writing any Bach cantata article different from the examples, as mentioned above), - I mentioned waste of time before today, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you said that discussion resulted in this situation, so I want to know what discussion you're talking about. The only discussion I've seen says that the "template" for these articles is not as restrictive as you imply. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Several related discussions are in this archive, which points to BWV 191 as the first one ever and discussed (on the article talk) the most. Somewhat amused I read there: "The Bm Mass article definitely needs some work." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See for example: "I prefer to have soprano, alto, tenor, bass spelled out when they occur in Arias and Duets. Everyone understands what SATB means but "Duetto S T" looks odd. I'd prefer something like "Duetto (soprano/tenor)". DavidRF (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)" - I don't imply "template", but refer to project consensus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't shown any project consensus that says it should be "recitativo" not "recitative". That point does not appear in any of your linked discussions AFAICS. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody agreed on that without mentioning, you see in the above line that DavidRF said duet in prose, but (Bach's) "Duetto" in the scoring. You can ask the others involved, such as Eusebeus, an authority who contributed greatly to the article, - or just take my word that nobody complained about not understanding "recitativo" - a little bit of original Bach - with several hundred views of each cantata on DYK, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that nobody complained about David using "duetto" to make an unrelated point, but that's not the same thing as having a project consensus for "recitativo". And as we've discussed before, we should not take a lack of complaints to mean that everything is perfect. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an unrelated point. I had asked project Classical music repeatedly during my first cantata(s) to have a look. Go ahead, ask Eusebeus who contributed to that article, ask the project again. I remember that we discussed if we should show which of those movement descriptions are by Bach. Dürr differentiates, example BWV 165: [ARIA, S]: O heilges ... RECITATIVO [B]: Die sündige Geburt (Bach marked the recitative, but not the aria), but that seemed not needed. I remember the discussion but can't find it, sorry, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, talking about abbreviating or not abbreviating voice types is not the same as using Italian or English for the movements. Given the lack of support for your claim of a project consensus, your explanation of why recitativo should be preferred to recitative seems unconvincing. It would make more sense to keep the terminology within the article consistent to aid the reader, and many of the sources use "recitative". Also, unlike the German-language text, this is a musical term with a commonly understood and accepted version in English. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you understand my wish to represent as much of what Bach wrote, he wrote recitativo, all the reason to have that appear at least once. - We can discuss it on Classical music, if you like. - Different question: if you want to use Whitsun, although the List of Bach cantatas (which I found when I started) uses Pentecost, please list the cantata there. Do you have a reason to prefer Whitsun? I would think that more people around the globe understand Pentecost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps: I looked at Whitsun, it seems specifically British to me, not suitable, - Pentecost is general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, Gerda, I just disagree with your reasoning. And both Whitsun and Pentecost are suitable, we can add a parenthetical if needed. It's an EngVar issue, but the article uses British English. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand that Whitsun is not only a different term (English vs. American), but that the article covers UK traditions. Bach's cantata is no part of it. It's NOT an EngVar issue. If you need the expression (perhaps because sources use it?), please pipe to Pentecost, where universal traditions are covered, including Bach's music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the cantata went to the Main page, I changed the links. - I avoid Classical Net as a source, dated (1998) and POV ("disappointing", "attractive"), - I don't even list them as external reference. Not even he used the translation that you chose in his own heading. I now supplied both, KJV and a more literal one, supplied by Mincham. - The page numbers for Dürr that you request: the List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function is organized (not by me, was there before I started) by Dürr's book, it's easy to find a cantata in it, by BWV number and by knowledge of the liturgical function.

The Signpost: 27 May 2013[edit]

Category:Operas[edit]

Hi Nikki, I reverted your removal of Category:Operas from Orlando furioso (Vivaldi). See the boxed notice on the category page. For navigation convenience, all operas are listed both the main category and their sub-cats. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon[edit]

Hi there, Nikkimaria, I hope you're doing well! :)

You previously participated in an FAC for Everything Tastes Better with Bacon.

It's subsequently had additional copy-editing through Guild of Copy Editors and a once-over by FA Writer Tim Riley.

I've nominated it for consideration a 2nd time at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2.

Your input would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything Tastes Better with Bacon/archive2.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with history?[edit]

You had a hand in labeling Barry (dog) as a History good article. I'm not debating if the article meets good article criteria, but I don't see what relevance this article has to do with the study of history. Unless you object, I intent to remove this article from WikiProject History. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the dog was a historical figure. Laika, for example, is listed as a History FA, Old Jock is a History GA, and Moustache (dog) is a MilHist GA. What other category would you propose to put Barry in? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, this dog was not an historical figure, only the target of a reputed legend. For that matter, none of the other dogs you mentioned are part of WikiProject History (although Laika is in a Soviet History task force and Moustache is in the MILHIST WikiProject). I can't speak to why any of these has been labeled a "history good article." In any case, Barry is already in WikiProject Dogs and WikiProject Switzerland. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What GA category would you propose to put Barry in instead? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing to do that. I simply want to remove the WikiProject History banner. I'm asking you since you might know more about why the banner was put there originally. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, unfortunately that I don't know. Maybe ask at the WikiProject? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Wer mich liebet, der wird mein Wort halten, BWV 74[edit]

Orlady (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! - Bzzt, BWV 100: "This is considered one of Bach's last extant cantatas.", source: liner notes. - If I sort by year in the list I find more than 20 later cantatas, - I would drop it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is wrong - it gives the earliest possible date, not the most likely. And those with unknown date are listed after, and many lower on the list are not extant or only partially extant, and several sources give this detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(I didn't count those with unknown dates, nor the partially extant. If this one was written in 1735, it was still written ten years before the last extant one with a known date, BWV 191, and 15 years before his death. "one of the last" has this notion of "last works of the master", at least for me.) Can you cite one of those better sources then? And/or restrict to church cantatas, as most of the later ones were secular? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links to chorale text and melody in BWV 99 (same as 100) are not used as citations, but to provide easy access to the text of the hymn and its translation, and to the melody in music. Sure, both links appear in the bc ref, but the uninitiated reader will have to search, why not help? Sure, Mincham has the melody, but how will a reader know who doesn't follow that link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How will a reader know that a citation isn't actually a citation? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, there was an external link within the text. Then (don't remember when and what cantata, I was requested to change it to a reference. I think if the reader sees a ref right after "melody" he may guess that it is help to know more on the melody, so the minimum you can do is provide the "min" ref there. But the other link has so much more detail about the history and use of the melody. How will the reader find THAT? Seems the major problem to me. Travelling, only of little help, sorry, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Brich dem Hungrigen dein Brot, BWV 39[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Was Gott tut, das ist wohlgetan, BWV 100[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Süßer Trost, mein Jesus kömmt, BWV 151 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Adagio and Arabesque
Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Fantasia
Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bell
Tritt auf die Glaubensbahn, BWV 152 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Recorder

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ich steh mit einem Fuß im Grabe, BWV 156 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zerreißet, zersprenget, zertrümmert die Gruft, BWV 205 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ewing Galloway may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Harrogate College may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unidentified flying object may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Silkeborg may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • There is also live music and an [[amusement park]]. It is traditional that the regatta starts on a[Wednesday and ends on a Saturday. Each night at midnight, there is a firework display. Usually, the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Laura Bozzo may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • and 30 minutes. (CT), the show also airs on Saturdays at 17 hrs. The show's premiere live in [Mexico was very successful with 18.9 points in rating and 40.5 in share and on its second day the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tomasz Konieczny may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Tomasz Konieczny] is the recipient of many awards, including the Polish Arts and Culture Prize, the Alfred Toepfer

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pitcairn Islands may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Totegegie Airport]], Mangareva] is reachable by air from the French Polynesian capital [[Papeete]].<ref>''Lonely Planet South

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roger Cameron Wood may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] to [[Craig McCaw]], Wood joined the original management team of Omnipoint led by George Schmitt,<ref<[http://www.telesoftvc.com/team_network/investment_team/data/1090461308.htm George Schmitt]</ref> a
  • ] business for Voicestream, Aerial, Powertel and Omnipoint - the [[consortium]] of GSM carriers] which became [[Omnipoint#Corporate_History|T- Mobile USA]]. The company's famous "100% Digital, 0%

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Widerstehe doch der Sünde, BWV 54 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Ruh, beliebte Seelenlust, BWV 170|''Vergnügte Ruh, beliebte Seelenlust'', BWV 170]] and {{lang|de|[[Gott soll allein mein Herze haben, BWV 169|''Gott soll allein mein Herze haben''}}, BWV 169, two of

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chris DeRose (author) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • McDonnell]] in 2009 and managing the early efforts of [[Congressman]] [[Sean Duffy]] in 2010.<ref>[http://chrisderosebooks.com/about-author/ About the Author</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Asset-backed commercial paper program may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • sellers.<ref name="swrt"/> The conduit finances the assets by selling asset-backed commercial paper] to outside investors such as [[money market fund]]s or other "safe asset" investors like

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Manuel Moreno Barranco may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * ''[Diario de viaje a las minas de Riotinto'' (1961) (unpublished)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lobe den Herrn, meine Seele, BWV 143[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you making Bach's cantatas known. In this case, however, you don't even tell people that it is a Bach cantata, and you tell those who know or guess that it is a work by Bach you tell that his music is pretentious? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sei Lob und Ehr dem höchsten Gut, BWV 117[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Persistent edit stalking[edit]

Since you gave ignored several requests to stop stalking my edits; I feel I have been left no choice but to raise the matter at WP:ANI#Persistent edit stalking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be a productive editor and yet not ... what's going on here? Please address the issues involved, immediately and reasonably, or you may have to be blocked or banned. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a moment[edit]

Let me think on this a bit. The point that you both edit in a same general topic area is a good one. I'd much rather see some sort of compromise and/or agreement than to see anyone admonished. Just noting that I did see your reply, and I'm not ignoring it. — Ched :  ?  22:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Half Barnstar
Thank you for trying to work out your dispute civally. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of one edit[edit]

To Andy and Nikkimaria: I'm troubled by seeing two editors I both respect at each other. I've poked around a bit, but d not yet fully understand the issues. I started looking at some of the diffs provided by Andy. If I may, I'll start with one, as I have questions for both of you.

the edit of Sally Ryan

Nikkimaria, I see:

  • an improvement to grammar
  • an improvement to the Google Books ref, but
  • a removal of the access date. (There are some who think access dates aren't needed on certain types of refs, but I wouldn't have made that argument on this one. Do you, or is it for some other reason?)
  • a removal of some of the empty parameters.
  • a removal of the influences. The edit summary says unsourced, but Epstein appears to be sourced

I'd be curious to know why the empty parameters were removed. I think I could support the removal of honorific_prefix if you know enough about the subject to know that it will never apply. However, why remove awards? It may be that the removal of the influences is why this is on the list. I do not support such inclusion, but I think that should be a community decision, not an individual editors decision. I think the community is on board with the notion that unsourced entries in the infobox are problematic, and you cited unsourced, presumably to justify removal of Epstein, but the source clearly supports it, so what am I missing?


Andy, when I first started writing this, I had missed that the influences were removed, so I originally was puzzled why this was on the list. I'm not on board with removing all empty parameters, but think that is worth a community discussion, and doubt that prompted the inclusion. Am I correct in guessing that the removal of the influences prompted the addition to the list, or were any of the other edits an issue?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Access dates are not helpful for Google Books links - such links are merely convenience copies of print sources, not "real" online sources. The dates are useful where the website might change, to aid in retrieving an archived copy of a website, or where there is no publication date, none of which apply to a GBooks source (as the book itself is the source). Unsourced refers to Camus, and the inclusion of influences/influenced at all has been problematic in arts-related infoboxes; however, Epstein is in the current version, as I wasn't interested in fighting with Andy. As for empty parameters, they increase coding bloat, impede accessibility to editing, and provide little compensatory benefit - they can always be added if there's something to put in them. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see two different issues. One is the way you and Andy ought to be interacting, the other is how the community ought to address certain issues. Dealing with the second first, I think I catch your point that books do not change, which is why we don't add access dates to book or magazine references. I suppose one could argue that a complete citation to a book or magazine, sufficient to find the material in the dead tree version, along with a convenience link to an online version, doesn't need an access date. However, it is not beyond comprehension that Google might choose to revise their linking algorithm, in which case it would be helpful to identify which links need revision, and an access date might be helpful. So I don't see how it could hurt, and there;s a chance it might help. I think the need is sufficiently remote that I would make it mandatory, but I don't follow why it is a good idea to remove the data. However, I don't think that's central to the dispute between you two, so I'll drop this until such time as I see a community discussion on the subject.
On influences, I think we are on the same page. Item 3 on my to do list is to persuade the community to adopt a policy to exclude subjective items from infoboxes. The incident that prompted me was a spat about influences. I think they should be removed from infoboxes. I believe existing policy is clear that unreferenced influences should be removed(although that resulted in close to an edit war in the incident referred to) but I want to go further, and remove them even when referenced. Having said that, I think the proper course is to get a community discussion about the policy and consensus to change the policy, then change the articles. Changing the articles first is a recipe for disaster.
Regarding unused infobox parameters, I am sympathetic to the accessibility to editing argument. I support and use wp:LDR specifically to reduce the unsightliness of references in the main article text. That said, an infobox is almost always at the beginning, and newish edits are likely to identify something that might belong in an infobox, but might not know what to do if an empty parameter is missing. I think removing empty parameters can serve to impede editing accessibility, but it occurs to me this is not as simple as a binary "include all" or "include none". It would be wise to have a community discussion. I think it is unwise to make a personal decision that conflicts with the preferences of others and simply impose it, especially on articles where others are the principle author, in the absence of a community consensus on what's best.
So, on the substance of some issues, I'm sympathetic, on others, I disagree, but understand your point, and it may well prevail, but what troubles me is the process—rather than working for community consensus you make edits that I don't believe are supported by community consensus. I haven't look at enough edits, but that's how it looks so far.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2013[edit]

A question about a removal of an infobox[edit]

As you are aware, the distinction between prohibited wikistalking and encouraged correction of problematic edits is "not always sharly defined", Arbcom left some guideance here

I looked at the recent edits of Charles Morgan, 1st Baron Tredegar, in which you removed an infobox twice. Your first edit summary stated "(img, add)" while the second one stated "(rv unjustified removal of content/ref and addition of overlong and redundant template)".

I am not aware of a policy prohibition against the inclusion of such an infobox. Is there one? I do not see a post on the talk page of the article or on the talk page of the editor adding the infobox explaining why it was a problem. While such a post would be ideal although not required on the first reversion, surely the addition a second time, indicates that the editor disagreed, and it was time to go to the talk page.

And yes, I'll note that the edit adding the infobox failed to bring it up at the talk page of the article or your talk page, but I believe that the removal material, not obviously against policy, requires the initiation of a talk page discussion.

What am I missing?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC) In particular, you've suggested before that you do not like template with a lot of empty parameters. That is hinted at in the word "overlong" in the edit summary, but you didn't removed the empty parameters, you removed the whole template. According to Help:Infobox, "Optional parameters may be left empty or omitted entirely." but this does not provide much help if one editor want to remove empty parameters and the other wants to leave them in, as both actions are supported. If there guidance elsewhere supporting the removal of empty parameters, or, more to the point, removing the entire template if most are empty?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD/WP:CON? In the absence of a policy mandating infoboxes, it is the responsibility of the editor wishing to change the status quo on the article - which, in this case, was without infobox - to seek consensus on the talk page if their bold edit is reverted. Instead, that editor chose to re-add the template without justification and in the process removed added content and a reference. He provided no reasoning, either initially or on revert, to include a template longer than the actual article and providing no more information than the first sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is inevitable that in a dispute between two prolific editors, it is unlikely that policy will unequivocally support one over the other. You are suggesting that the community has determined who has the responsibility to initiate a discussion. I've reviewed BRD many times, and thought I knew it cold. But this example indicates, either a deficiency in my understanding, or a deficiency in the essay. The schematic clearly indicates that, in the case of a bold edit which is a revert, the onus is on the editor disagreeing with the revert to talk it to the talk page. However, that path is not the in this case. The addition of an infobox is not a revert, it is a change. The schematic, confusingly has grayed out that fork, but suggests if you disagree with the change, the next step is to "think of a reasonable change that might integrate your idea with theirs."
If I am reading this correctly, and I may not be, when Andy added the infobox, and you disagree, your responsibility was to suggest a compromise edit, which you did not do.
However, even if I am misreading the schematic, it is well-established that good edit summary can forestall problems. The edit summary of your removal of an infobox was "(img, add)". Applying AGF, one might suppose you intended to add an image, and accidentally removed the infobox. In which case the reversion to add it again was warranted, and the burden is on you to initiate the discussion. If it wasn't an accident that you removed the infobox, it should have been explained in the edit summary.
Both of you should have begun discussion at the talk page. I'm not, at this point, interested in wikilawyering to figure out which should have been first. You both have been around long enough to know that a content dispute should start with a discussion on the talk page, and I have not yet found evidence of that happening.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen enough[edit]

It occurred to me as I reviewed some of the edits identified by Andy that I was emphasizing more recent edits. Perhaps one or both of you had been using the talk pages, and found it fruitless, so abandoned it. I just now looked at the first two edits in the list of examples, both in December 2012. In neither case do I see either of you at the article talk page, nor so I see evidence that either of you discussed either of these articles on each other's editor talk pages. You both have tens of thousands of edits, yet are ignoring rules we expect editors with a hundred edits to follow.

I had panned to look into more edits, but I think that is a waste of time. While I do see some edits that are problematic, I see them on both sides.

At the moment, I feel both of you deserve trouts, and request that you both drop the sticks, start over, and follow Editing 101 processes. Then, if one or the other does violate policies, guidelines or editing protocol expected by the community, it will be far easier to admonish the guilty party.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Süßer Trost, mein Jesus kömmt, BWV 151[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Molgula oculata, Molgula occulta[edit]

I have made some alterations to the Molgula oculata article to address your concerns. However, as I mentioned in the DYK template, there is very little information that I can find of general interest on these two organisms, which are of specific interest to the scientific community because of the different characteristics of the larvae. I don't want to start delving into the realms of rDNA and gene sequencing in the articles. If you still think the nomination unsatisfactory, I could withdraw the joint nomination and nominate just one of the articles instead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of needing more information necessarily - if the content was presented differently, it would be sufficient to count as original in both articles. It's just the issue of identical overlapping content that makes that problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've rewritten parts of one of the articles and there should be no problem now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


List of diplomatic missions abroad of Sao Tomé and Principe[edit]

Hi there. It was a useful information to have about knowing the list of diplomatic missions of Sao Tomé abroad. Why was it cleaned up? There are no much information on the net of how many embassies and consulates Sao Tomé holds, therefore for public information it was really useful to know. Please revert the information back in whatever way you like, but do please provide public of such information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.48.235 (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey IP, I'd suggest putting that information in a foreign relations subarticle, but not the main country article - the main article is meant to provide a broad overview (list of countries) rather than a detailed account (list of cities and people). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre[edit]

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

  • Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".
  • Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).
  • Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blockquotes[edit]

The MOS suggests (it is not a rule or policy) that quotes of more than "about" 40 words be blockquoted. But where there are already two blockquotes in the same paragraph, it is not necessary, and, in my opinion, it would be poor formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mass[edit]

Mass in B minor: The collapsing of the instruments creates white space on my screen, the instruments are just as important as the voices, and the unusual complexity of the scoring should be seen right away, - my POV, but I am tired of reverting, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list does not show unusual complexity, just sheer number - the complexity is explained in the article. Infoboxes are meant to be concise, when used, not show complex detail. Long lists should be collapsed for the convenience of the reader, per your talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(tp stalker) Hi, I've been watching various of these debates spilling out into various message boards, talk pages, etc. Could I suggest that you pull together an RFC, worded neutrally in collaboration with the music project, specifically around the use of info-boxes in classical music compositions, including questions on whether instrumentation should be added to the infobox and if so should it be collapsed. Otherwise this revert-warring will continue without end I fear. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, how about this: articles where instrumentation is three lines or fewer, uncollapsed; longer, collapsed, using whatever method you deem preferable (as I know you've objected to {{collapsed infobox section begin}}). Obi, that would sound like a good idea, but I know the history here: there was already an extensive RfC on infoboxes in composers articles, and that did not change a whole lot - those who disagree with it have mostly ignored its findings, or argued about what it concluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obi: this is about a composition, no need for such a procedure, no conflict. We disagree about no more than whether a few lines, showing the instruments of one of the greatest works of music, have to be collapsed or not. I am for uncollapsed, especially since the collapsing only creates white space for me. Please see yourself. (I also happen to be the author but that doesn't matter.)
Nikkimaria: the reader would not know the distinction that you propose. It's the reader whom I would like to show without an extra click: complex vs. simple instrumentation. The reader can easily ignore that if it is too much for him, it's the very end of the box. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reader doesn't know what you say the box shows, because it doesn't show that, whether collapsed or uncollapsed. Keep it simple in the box, show complexity in the article, as intended. Here are ways I can think of for doing that: don't include instrumentation at all; give number of parts; give instrument families; give link to section; include long collapsed list ("if it can't be displayed succinctly, then don't display it unless the reader wants to"); don't use a box at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it for now, no time. Link to section is not wanted by the same MOS you cite. - The instruments are where the music shows. - Define "long", - the instruments of a symphony orchestra would be long, not this, if you ask me. Off to rehearsal of it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The music is where the music shows, and there is little music in a box. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a central discussion if the instruments - all but viola with solo function as important as the solo voices - should be shown without an extra click? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absent a central discussion about composition infoboxes in general, no. You said above you had "[left] it for now, no time"; now that you have time, do you have a response to my post? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment we leave it as you chose. Instrumentation can help a reader to imagine how a piece sounds. Numbers would not help that imagination. Instrument families would not do justice to the fact that in this piece (and only in this piece) Bach had trumpets AND horn (not at the same time, both with a meaning). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in again (and please let me know if this is inappropriate): Gerda above you've written a wonderful sentence - Bach had trumpets AND horn (not at the same time, both with a meaning - which I think would help readers greatly if it were presented so in the article and then expanded with an explanation of each. I'm guessing, but perhaps wrongly, the trumpets herald or symbolize the angelic host. It's helpful to think of readers such as myself, interested in music but with next to no knowledge. Also, re the infobox - I'm still seeing a very large question mark appear when I hover over the fields which is not helpful, the uncollapsed version falls into the lower section causing text squeeze, and to see the table I have to scroll from left to right, which causes many formatting problems on the lower portions of the page. Nikkimaria, if you'd prefer, in the future I can comment on the article talk page, which imo is where these discussion should be held. Victoria (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Victoria! Both articles, the Mass and Baroque instruments (linked already from the parameter in the infobox) are works in progress, your good point will be covered in both, feel free to edit the articles and ask questions on their talk. - I kept the question here because our little - no good name handy, look at the article history and find one - is more a private matter ;) - I will spell out the voice parts for you. - Did I tell you that I like your name? - I meant to talk to you anyway (because you said you left the ANI discussion), to point you to a nice conversation with the author of Little Moreton Hall who helped me greatly with Peter Planyavsky, - I miss him. (Did you know I translated part of it to German, de:Little Moreton Hall, with a 5-digit success on their Main page, due only to the stunning picture, of course?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the voice parts in full now. The only abbreviation left is SATB, but that is also linked. When I hover over it, I see a question mark and below as two popups what it stands for and a preview of the linked article. - It occurred to me that the truly interested reader will see that Bach himself specified voices and instruments on the title page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gather Together FAC[edit]

Hi Nikki, thanks for the source review of this FAC [5] Wanted to let you know that I've completed addressing your feedback. There's one issue that you may not think is resolved. Could you please go take a look? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/List of people declared persona non grata in Azerbaijan[edit]

please take a look --Երևանցի talk 22:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image for Violetta (instrument)?[edit]

Hello, given the age of the instrument, it should be pretty easy to find a pre-1923 image we can add to the article. Do you personally have any computer image files of the instrument, or have seen them around the internet? If you need help uploading them to Wikimedia Commons and adding them to the article, let me know. Thanks for adding the article! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a photo of the braccio type here, but it's not clear what the licensing on the photo is. I haven't seen or looked for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why removing references?[edit]

Hello. My name is Ken Seh. I see you have removed most of the references from Finnick Odair without explaining why. If it was a mistake, no need to worry. I restored the deleted content. If you believe what I did is a mistake, please leave me a message. Thanks! Ken Seh (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain why: the relevant sources are not reliable, because they are user-generated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Viva Móvil by Jennifer Lopez[edit]

Nikkimaria, this nomination was just approved, but the amount of quoted material in the article strikes me as borderline given its overall length, so I thought I'd pass this to you (my schedule this week is horrific, and I'm way past my bedtime as I type this given when I need to be up again). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's definitely borderline, but I think I'd be inclined to let it go in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bouquet![edit]

Thanks so much for the page moves etc. We have only one active member on the Opera Project who's an administrator (Antandrus), and he's less active on Wikipedia lately, so we're often up a creek. Your prompt help is much appreciated. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very pretty, thank you. Happy to help. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

Hi Nikki, could you say here whether you're willing not to follow Andy's and Gerda's contribs? In return, they're being asked not to add infoboxes where they know they'll be controversial. I'm hoping that an agreement will help to head off an ArbCom case. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slim, your proposal as written is a bit unclear, and so quite gameable, as written. If Andy should agree to not deal with infoboxes in the classical music area at all, or to add or argue for boxes where someone objects, then that would eliminate most of his problematic behaviour and I would have little cause to interact with him. However, I suspect he is unlikely to agree to that. Thank you for trying, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry the proposal is unclear; I'm not sure about the ins and outs of the dispute, so it's hard to be precise. I think it would be good if people would agree to whatever they can, because that will serve to isolate whoever is being unreasonable. If Andy is left as the only person causing a problem, then it will be much clearer what needs to happen. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) I don't see Andy as a person causing a problem, so certainly not as "the only" one. I tried hard on AN/I to not say where I see problems, in order not to cause more. "infoboxes in the classical music area" is too broad a field, at least limit to composers, there are compositions and orchestras, for example, where infoboxes are accepted by the project, just not by certain authors (whose wishes I will respect). - Look at the "discussion" of Richard Wagner without bias and see who is reasonable. The discussion was completely unnecessary, - I will have to understand why an infobox can't sit on a TALK page without ANY discussion (but will respect that also even if I don't understand). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely don't know who is mostly causing the problem, because I've only glanced at the dispute from time to time. What is obvious is that it's likely to end up at ArbCom if not sorted out by the parties, and then probably everyone will be sanctioned, so I would really urge people to make whatever concessions they can. Why not agree that classical music is off-limits, infobox-wise? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not agree? Because the project just recently created {{infobox orchestra}}, initiated by User:Kleinzach, and the bias that the project is against infoboxes per se is simply wrong and doesn't do justice to is efforts. I am a member. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me gatecrashing — the wonderful new notifications feature told me I was being mentioned — it would be great if classical music is off-limits biographical infobox-wise. Regarding organisations, halls, compositions etc. there are debates about simple vs monster boxes etc. but no-one AFAIK is against boxes across the board. --Kleinzach 00:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I share Nikkimaria's concern with the proposal, which might simply mean that the wording needs tightening. Does " not to follow Andy's and Gerda's contribs" mean if Andy of Gerda ever edit an article, Nikkimaria can never edit there? That sounds unreasonable, but if that isn't what is meant, the wording needs improvement.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, you don't have to agree not to follow my edits. Keep following my edits, improve, we will get along fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said "follow", not "follow my edits before I even make them", as in Max Ciolek and other red links off my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ps: I don't want to start a new topic for the simple question: what makes The Company of Heaven an oratorio, as the category says (not the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources say so, others don't; you can change if you like. And redlinks do appear elsewhere - I wasn't looking at your page, sorry if I stepped on your toes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a neverending discussion with someone on de who claimed that the parts of the Christmas Oratorio cannot be termed cantatas because an oratorio is such a different thing. I am not sure. So far I thought - by that discussion - that an oratorio has to have a "Handlung" (action, story). Britten's piece has no story, nor Membra Jesu Nostri ("This work is known as the first Lutheran oratorio." says the article.). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this helps, but I think we can at least cut out the edit warring — with a classical music topic ban on Andy Mabbett, and Nikkimaria simply following WP:1RR. Kleinzach 00:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not enough, because it's classical music today, something else next week, something else next month. What would work best would be for MORE admins to follow Andy's edits and realize how pervasive the problem is. And it's always the same folks involved, whatever the "install our personal preference du jour" is. And good editors have left because nothing is done about it. I'm not sure an arb case would be such a bad thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement[edit]

Hi, Nikkimaria, I've suggested you might like to make a statement here as a way of bringing the ANI to a conclusion. Best regards. Kleinzach 13:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the ANI thread, and I believe that's (yet another) Arbcom case in the making. You may or may not want to spend more time elsewhere (such as at Milhist :) - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hint hint ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadians - Semi-protected or Pending changes? - talk page stalker welcome !!![edit]

Canadians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


Could we lock up this page (Semi-protected or Pending changes) it gets vandalized 2 to 3 times a week...I am having trouble keeping up. Something odd happened at the page today an IP did a great job changing the images in the infobox as seen here, but then changed some stats to made up numbers that didn't even add up as seen here. Pending changes might be the best idea what do you think? Should I just go to page protection? The reason I am asking you is that I have had many page protected by way of page protection request but they are never more then a month or so - looking for a long term solution. The ratio of positive edits vs poor ones by unregistered users is a bit much.Moxy (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moxy, I'm only seeing 10 vandal edits in the past month (plus one by someone autoconfirmed). I'm not sure that's significant enough to warrant protection, even though there are fewer positive IP contribs. You might get a different answer at RfPP, though, and I'll keep an eye on the page to see whether the rate changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chris Merritt, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Offenbach and Orff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for withdraw[edit]

Hi. I would like to request that Wikipedia:Featured article review/Abyssinia, Henry/archive2 be closed as the review is going nowhere and would like to withdraw it. GamerPro64 16:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. GamerPro64 16:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 June 2013[edit]

Sin City Rules[edit]

Dear Nikkimaria, why is it necessary to delete Amy Hanley's father's bio,http://vegas.wikia.com/wiki/Tom_Hanley since he was a big part of Sin City Rules episodes. This was one of the reasons Amy Hanley was chosen for the role, because of who her father was and the Las Vegas history connection. ... In fact he was shown numerous times on the show, especially during each and every preview of the show and the opening of the show. What do you think would be appropriate to reference Tom Hanley, we thought the wikia was a perfect reference. (Mafia Mob Doll (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi MafiaMobDoll, wikia is not an appropriate reliable source. See WP:USERG. I would suggest you look for a more reliable source for your information, if one is available. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki![edit]

Hey Nikkimaria! How are you? It's been a while, I hope you are doing fine. Anyway, I have Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded at FAC (see here); the nomination has 5 supports and 0 opposes and also the media files were checked (everything is fine). The source spotcheck is the only thing left; as I know you have the tools and you are good at that, could you do it please? I would be grateful. Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tomica, it'll probably be a day or two before I get to this. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oky doky. Thank you! — Tomíca(T2ME) 08:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nikki, I just wanted to tell you that Brian did the spotcheck (as I was kinda in rush too). I know you are busy too, so it is easier to you now too :). Thank anyway! — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Company of Heaven[edit]

I said above: I don't want to start a new topic for the simple question: what makes The Company of Heaven an oratorio, as the category says (not the article)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources say so, others don't; you can change if you like. And redlinks do appear elsewhere - I wasn't looking at your page, sorry if I stepped on your toes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a neverending discussion with someone on de who claimed that the parts of the Christmas Oratorio cannot be termed cantatas because an oratorio is such a different thing. I am not sure. So far I thought - by that discussion - that an oratorio has to have a "Handlung" (action, story). Britten's piece has no story, nor Membra Jesu Nostri ("This work is known as the first Lutheran oratorio." says the article.). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New day, I slept over it and think it deserves a new topic, after all. The work is a radio feature, mostly spoken, with some texts set to music by Britten, like incidental music in a play. You would not say a play is a work by the composer of the incidental music, right? Can you word that and categorize it properly? - I don't have time for that article right now. - I know the arguments about truth and verifiability, - but if a source proclaims nonsense, it should simply not be termed a reliable source (see Kafka). - I confess that I am in love with the piece, - one of the reasons I didn't tackle it yet. (Yes, I know that love is a bad advisor.) I asked people for help before, as you can easily see, following the links to the wonderful title that speaks at the same time of good company and a military force. - I wanted to have it ready for DYK on Britten's birthday. That will not work now, I can't expand your great start 5* later, and the DYK people will not be willing to hold it that long. But it doesn't matter too much ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance for a review?[edit]

Sorry to bother you but this FAC has been up since April 21 and I was wondering if you would be kind enough to leave a review? It would be very much appreciated. Best, jonatalk to me 19:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nur jedem das Seine, BWV 163[edit]

Orlady (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you remove hooks from DYK queue...[edit]

When you remove hooks from the DYK queue, could you please fill the empty slot with another hook? This would be a courtesy to other DYK participants and other keepers of the main page. It's disruptive to the main page when the size of DYK fluctuates.

As for that too-short article you pulled a few hours ago, mea culpa for not verifying its length before I promoted the queue. (It looked a bit short, but it also appeared longer than a couple of articles I had checked -- and verified to be long enough -- just a little while earlier, so I didn't bother...) --Orlady (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I do replace them, but in this instance I was interrupted. I don't think it's a big deal, though, to have six hooks, as we were running on that for quite a while. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I can definitely relate to the problem of being interrupted in mid-edit! --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and... vandalism, trolling, etc.[edit]

Greetings Nikkimaria. Sorry, but I reverted your good faith edit over at Wolfgang Kornberger 'cos it is the result of ongoing vandalism. You might like to check out the following to see three editors - or just the one - that are playing around: [6] ... I'm off to revert further vandalism at that article. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Mink industry in Denmark[edit]

Nikkimaria, Nvvchar says that the issues you raised with this nomination have been addressed. Can you please check, and give whatever icon it now deserves? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while you're there, can you please check Template:Did you know nominations/Hartland Moor? There were close paraphrasing issues raised; the nominator made fixes about two weeks ago, but also asked for a second opinion. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for attending to all three! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christmas Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toddy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox opera[edit]

{{infobox opera}} is an option for operas. I will not ask permission for every insertion, but will not revert if the Main author (!) disagrees. See the discussion on project opera and talk:Carmen#Project opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voceditenore is not the main author of that article, your edit summary was mistaken, and you should discuss before making such changes to an FA. Please revert yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh here we go again. Nikki, you are not an army of one. Drop the stick, please. Montanabw(talk) 16:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I'm not an army of one, but I do what I can :-) Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My edit summary was a mistake, therefore I came here to explain. Project opera opened the option to have an infobox for operas. I feel free, as said on the opera's talk, to add an infobox to articles. If the Main author doesn't think it's an improvement, they can revert, no problem. We have about 1000 opera articles, I will not start a discussion for every single one. The higher the quality of an article, the more improvement you want, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
High-quality articles are meant to be stable; it would be courteous for you to discuss these types of changes before you make them. The higher the quality of an article, the less improvement it should need - and your template additions, while doubtlessly in good faith, are in many cases not improvements. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FA: "... if you can update or improve it, please do so." - that is no call for stability for stability's sake, and infoboxes for operas are not even contentious, but a new option. I would accept a "no improvement" from a main author of a given article, while you - not a cotributor to that article - could have questioned the addition on the talk, rather than reverting the work of two editors. Will you please do that next time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of infoboxes does tend to be at the more contentious end of editing, especially as I've seen people accused of vandalism when boldly removing them. Gerda, you discuss how you "install samples of how it can look": this can be done as easily in userspace as it can on stable, high-quality articles. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to discuss, but not with the template in place as a fait accompli; when it is disputed, it requires consensus to add, not to remove. As you insist on being bold even when asked to be cautious, we will follow WP:BRD. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply for both: While I see that the inclusion of an infobox is contentious and disputed in places (composers etc.) and needs caution then, I don't see that for opera where the project developed a template for the purpose and inserted it in its MOS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would help you to review the project discussion, where more people expressed dissatisfaction with the development of the template than satisfaction? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Structure in Bach's cantatas[edit]

As discussed several times, the structure of a Bach cantata can be shown in an infobox by saying precisely which movements the text poet derived from the Bible and from chorale. The discussion of BWV 103 showed a feasable way to do so, mentioning "(in movement x)" the first time, "(movt. y)" later. Please consider reverting your changes that delete this information, such as this, and the respective section in the documentation of the template, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed several times, the infobox is meant to be concise, not to show all details - that's what the article is for. And didn't you argue that discussions about the template should take place at template talk, not on an individual article? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one reverting, why take that to template talk? Smerus approved the addition of the movement numbers, in an article of GA quality. The structure of a Bach cantata is not "all details", but a core fact about the work, which can be shown with little addition. Why you take the time to revert that I will have to understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, you added that detail to the template documentation, and I objected and removed it. You then began adding it to a number of articles. That doesn't make sense without discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added to the template AFTER Smerus found a good way to add the movement numbers. I didn't add them in most articles, but rather (example pictured) reinstalled in the better way and improved what you reverted before, taking one discussed GA as an example for other articles, GA or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2013[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nikkimaria/Archive_20&oldid=1168305646"